The opinion of someone whose stated credentials are being a mother of four from Texas.
So?
How Fauci Is Seen Through A Less Clouded Lens
- Thread starter martin
- Start date
So?
"Closing schools was devastating to kids, especially poor or otherwise disadvantaged children."
THe closing of schools was hard on kids, mine included, but it was not as hard as having their grandfather go into the hospital one day and never coming out because he died after catching COVID-19 on an airplane.
THe closing of schools was hard on kids, mine included, but it was not as hard as having their grandfather go into the hospital one day and never coming out because he died after catching COVID-19 on an airplane.
QP!
Verified User
You demonstrate EXACTLY the depth of stupidity magats apply to assessments and thus why magats should never be in a position power.
Terry to family : 'Yes there is an Ebola outbreak confirmed in that area but i was in that area all week last and did not get it despite taking no precautions, thus the warnings are BS and you can feel free to go and not take precautions.'
Terry has no clue why anecdotes do not equal proof or what such a truism even means and thus why he offers up such a stupid comment here thinking it has meaning.
Is Brad being disingenuous again?
Yes.
The post is a classic bit of goalpost-moving pedantry that papers over what Fauci actually said under oath and how the 6-foot rule was sold to the public.
The linked post (Jarod/#58) quotes the USA Today opinion piece’s line about the 6-foot rule “had not been backed by a clinical trial” despite constant “based on science” claims, then lectures that “backed by clinical trials” ≠ “based on science.” It claims science is broader, clinical trials are expensive and rare outside drugs, and therefore the criticism is a trick on non-critical thinkers. It ends by blaming Rand Paul for not letting Fauci “explain.”
What the record actually shows
In his January 2024 transcribed interview with the House Select Subcommittee (the source the forum thread itself links), Fauci stated he did not recall discussions setting the 6-foot threshold, that “it sort of just appeared,” that he was “not aware of studies that supported 6 feet,” and that it was “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data or even data that could be accomplished.” He later tried to narrow “no science behind it” to mean “there wasn’t a controlled trial that said compare 6 foot with 3 feet with 10 feet,” and noted the CDC (not him) issued the school guidance, drawing on older droplet assumptions made before aerosol transmission was better understood.
Francis Collins (then-NIH Director) separately testified he had seen no evidence supporting the 6-foot figure either.
That is not a minor technicality. The precise distance drove school closures, classroom capacity limits, business layouts, and enforcement for years. It was presented with the full weight of “the science” and institutional authority. WHO’s contemporaneous recommendation was 1 meter. Later understanding of aerosol spread further undercut treating 6 feet as a bright-line scientific threshold.
Why the post is disingenuous
- It treats the absence of a clinical trial as the only issue the critics raised, then “refutes” a strawman. The stronger and more accurate critique—Fauci’s own words—is that the specific number lacked supporting studies, was empiric/arbitrary in origin, and “just appeared.”
- “Science is broader than clinical trials” is true in the abstract. It does not rescue a policy that was enforced as settled science while its chief public advocate could not identify the evidentiary basis for the key number and described it as something that simply materialized.
- The “Rand Paul wouldn’t let him explain” line is pure deflection. The relevant admissions came in a lengthy closed-door transcribed interview, not a shouted Senate hearing exchange.
In short: the distinction between “clinical trial” and “science” is pedantically available, but deploying it here to wave away Fauci’s testimony and the real-world impact of an under-supported rule is the disingenuous move. The post prioritizes defending the narrative over grappling with what was actually said under oath.
Anecdotal. Dismissed.
Yet, skilled at deceptive writing.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Yeah:
An early picture. On the overall picture Google AI has a very different take:Actually, it was the Left in places like NY where Cuomo put Chinese Disease patients in nursing homes, that had the highest death rates.
"Multiple peer-reviewed studies and data analyses have established that right-leaning (Republican) areas and voters experienced significantly higher COVID-19 death rates compared to left-leaning (Democratic) areas and voters. While death rates were relatively balanced or slightly higher in urban, left-leaning areas during the pandemic's initial wave, a massive partisan gap emerged and widened dramatically after vaccines became widely available in 2021. [1, 2, 3]"
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Trivial objections fallacy tied to a reducto ad absurdum example. Just because I treated one outbreak one way doesn't mean I'd treat all outbreaks that way.
You are the clueless one with a one-size fits all, always listen to the experts without question, attitude. You don't think and that's your problem.
I'm glad I could contribute, Jerry.
Thank you for showing me that.
QP!
Verified User
Yup.
I was demanding another magat quote that entire "6 foot social distancing rule" since he had misquoted it and was either lying or does not understand it.
Magats simply are incapable of understanding science or the process in the same way a typically 5 year old cannot understand calculus.
You can try and try but no explanation will be comprehensible to them and in fact you would have a better chance of finding a 5 year old to grasp calculus before finding a magat to understand science.
Covid was a novel virus meaning we had NO studies on it and yet IMMEDIATE action and guidance was needed from the CDC as mass deaths were happening.
That guidance and advice will be based on educated guesses and estimates as they look at similar looking viruses (flu, cold, etc) and try to guesstimate what works in those and hope they will work on Covid.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG with the scientists and Dr giving best educated guesses and getting it wrong and then adjusting after.
But those ignorant of the scientific process look to quote each instance where it was wrong as an indictment to say 'these people should never be trusted or followed'.
Scientist is OFTEN a process of exclusion, where they theorize X, test X and find it was not X thus excluding X and this continues until they better isolate what the answer must be, but can never directly prove that. But again, we might as well hand magats an advanced calculus text book than expect them to understand the scientific process.
QP!
Verified User
Right but other magats are refusing proven vaccines, drinking disinfectants like bleach, and refusing things like Tylenol putting themselves and their baby at risk, due to Trump's medical advice. An area he has NO qualifications to give advice in.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
no he didnt'.
he suggested removing your blood and then treating it with suntanning lights, prior to reinjecting it into your body.