16 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Why even bother to show up if you’re just going to plead the 5th to every question?

I believe he was obligated to show up. But he can show up and plead the fifth.

I don't blame him at all. The mouth breathers are convinced they know better than people who have studied this stuff their whole lives, and that technocracy is bad.

Experts don't always get it right, but they have a much better batting average than laymen and they move society forward at a better pace.

The idiots like sloth and the counselor from Florida are too stupid to understand it and too full of unearned hubris to ever acknowledge it.

42 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I believe he was obligated to show up. But he can show up and plead the fifth.

I don't blame him at all. The mouth breathers are convinced they know better than people who have studied this stuff their whole lives, and that technocracy is bad.

Experts don't always get it right, but they have a much better batting average than laymen and they move society forward at a better pace.

The idiots like sloth and the counselor from Florida are too stupid to understand it and too full of unearned hubris to ever acknowledge it.

So rather than answer questions and prove all those mouth breathers wrong, which should be easy once they’re dumb mouth breathers, it’s better to answer every question by pleading the 5th?

Our government made mistakes during the pandemic. Mistakes that went beyond just "well we were just doing the best we could do with the limited information we had and you can’t expect us to bat a thousand”

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So rather than answer questions and prove all those mouth breathers wrong, which should be easy once they’re dumb mouth breathers, it’s better to answer every question by pleading the 5th?

Our government made mistakes during the pandemic. Mistakes that went beyond just "well we were just doing the best we could do with the limited information we had and you can’t expect us to bat a thousand”

I get your POV.

I also get where Fauci is coming from.

The guy has been a lifelong public servant. Within that context he's been handsomely rewarded, but he could have made absolute bank if he had gone to the private sector at almost any time over the last 30 years.

He doesn't deserve this crap. He would have to, yet again, put himself last and try to explain to a hostile audience who frankly doesn't care WHAT he was gonna say how full of ish they are.

And they would have absolutely used any misstatement or remotely ambiguous statement as some sorta gotcha.

So you know what? Fsck them. They don't deserve to try and crucify him. He deserves better.

40 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I get your POV.

I also get where Fauci is coming from.

The guy has been a lifelong public servant. Within that context he's been handsomely rewarded, but he could have made absolute bank if he had gone to the private sector at almost any time over the last 30 years.

He doesn't deserve this crap. He would have to, yet again, put himself last and try to explain to a hostile audience who frankly doesn't care WHAT he was gonna say how full of ish they are.

And they would have absolutely used any misstatement or remotely ambiguous statement as some sorta gotcha.

So you know what? Fsck them. They don't deserve to try and crucify him. He deserves better.

Let’s not act like he’s an elementary school teacher who maxed out at $80,000 and sacrificed riches to be a public servant. He finished the last several years of his career making over $400,000 a year in salary. He was literally the highest paid federal government employee in the country. His government pension is over $400,000 a year. So spare me the "he could have made bank” argument. He’s a multi millionaire.

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So rather than answer questions and prove all those mouth breathers wrong, which should be easy once they’re dumb mouth breathers, it’s better to answer every question by pleading the 5th?

Our government made mistakes during the pandemic. Mistakes that went beyond just "well we were just doing the best we could do with the limited information we had and you can’t expect us to bat a thousand”

Now limit your scope to Fauci, since that's who we're talking about. What specific mistakes did he make that went beyond, "well we were just doing the best we could do with the limited information we had and you can’t expect us to bat a thousand”

2 hours ago, Procus said:

So pleading the fifth implies guilt? Oh no….oh God no…

25 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

So pleading the fifth implies guilt? Oh no….oh God no…

I guess that means Epstein was guilty

27 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Now limit your scope to Fauci, since that's who we're talking about. What specific mistakes did he make that went beyond, "well we were just doing the best we could do with the limited information we had and you can’t expect us to bat a thousand”

Hard to "limit” the scope to Fauci when he was basically the voice and face of the pandemic response.

I’d say to start, his unclear and mixed messaging on the effectiveness of masks. It sowed distrust in the pandemic response and the government from the get go. I think the lockdowns went on for too long and at times went too far and at times did more harm than good. Overstating vaccine effectiveness in preventing infections.

12 minutes ago, Procus said:

I guess that means Epstein was guilty

It means Trump F’d kids with Epstein but we both already know that

13 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

It means Trump F’d kids with Epstein but we both already know that

Then Obama and Biden must have set you up to suffer.

"Science plead the fifth".

Just add consequences.

15 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Hard to "limit” the scope to Fauci when he was basically the voice and face of the pandemic response.

I’d say to start, his unclear and mixed messaging on the effectiveness of masks. It sowed distrust in the pandemic response and the government from the get go. I think the lockdowns went on for too long and at times went too far and at times did more harm than good. Overstating vaccine effectiveness in preventing infections.

You forgot the "Wet Market".

Pay no attention to the coincidence of the biolab funded by the US gov't to weaponize the same virus. Nothing to see there.

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Hard to "limit” the scope to Fauci when he was basically the voice and face of the pandemic response.

I’d say to start, his unclear and mixed messaging on the effectiveness of masks. It sowed distrust in the pandemic response and the government from the get go. I think the lockdowns went on for too long and at times went too far and at times did more harm than good. Overstating vaccine effectiveness in preventing infections.

Huh? Fauci did not set lockdown policy, scope and breadth of those were decided by governors of states, based on their own health dept assessments and CDC guidance under Redfield.

And he never overstated effectiveness of vaccines preventing transmission. Because they were effective in halting transmission for alpha and beta variants. It wasn't until delta were that no longer became the case. If you're gonna then say he should've foresaw delta, then ok, I guess he's not a psychic.

It's a fair criticism for his early statements on the necessity of masks, but you're engaging in revisionist history on the other two.

2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Let’s not act like he’s an elementary school teacher who maxed out at $80,000 and sacrificed riches to be a public servant. He finished the last several years of his career making over $400,000 a year in salary. He was literally the highest paid federal government employee in the country. His government pension is over $400,000 a year. So spare me the "he could have made bank” argument. He’s a multi millionaire.

Do you have any idea how much a guy with his experience and expertise could have made in the private sector?

Stop playing into these idiots' taking points. It's embarrassing

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Hard to "limit” the scope to Fauci when he was basically the voice and face of the pandemic response.

I’d say to start, his unclear and mixed messaging on the effectiveness of masks. It sowed distrust in the pandemic response and the government from the get go. I think the lockdowns went on for too long and at times went too far and at times did more harm than good. Overstating vaccine effectiveness in preventing infections.

You can "think' and "feel" however way you want about it. It doesn't make those opinions scientifically valid. Again the revisionist history is Fing embarrassing.

For the record, this strategy is 100% what lawyers tell doctors to take when dealing with litigious crap stains like Paul and his lawyers. Give zero extra information. Please the 5th when possible. A doctor's first instinct is to explain the data and reasoning behind every micro and macro decision, because they're used to dealing with colleagues and people who aren't Fing morons. But expertise means absolutely NOTHING in a court of law. It's why doctors are easy marks in courts and they tend to be heavily trained by their lawyers to give almost no info.

So yes Fauci is 100% making the smart move here. You don't give dunbasses like Paul and frankly anyone buying into this nonsense any rope to hang you with.

12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Huh? Fauci did not set lockdown policy, scope and breadth of those were decided by governors of states, based on their own health dept assessments and CDC guidance under Redfield.

And he never overstated effectiveness of vaccines preventing transmission. Because they were effective in halting transmission for alpha and beta variants. It wasn't until delta were that no longer became the case. If you're gonna then say he should've foresaw delta, then ok, I guess he's not a psychic.

It's a fair criticism for his early statements on the necessity of masks, but you're engaging in revisionist history on the other two.

The lockdown policy guidance came from the top down at the federal government, and most of the states basically fell in line. There were some states that went against that guidance and were basically seen as outcasts. I don't buy the line of "we just told all the states and localities what they should do, but we weren't the ones technically enforcing those policies". And it contradicts his own personal notes on the issue: "I spoke with Bill de Blasio (Mayor – NYC) and convinced him based on what I was saying publicly and my conversation tonight to close the NYC schools (he had already decided based on what I was saying on TV)," "I had a similar call with Ann O’Leary, the [Chief of Staff] of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California," this particular entry went on. "Ann said that based on my TV appearances today and yesterday, the Governor has decided to close the schools in California as well as the bars and restaurants.". And then Fauci told a blatant lie 2 years later, claiming in a TV interview that he had nothing to do with schools closing and that he didn't recommend locking anything down. And he told that same lie to Congress in 2024.

"It wasn't until delta were that no longer became the case. If you're gonna then say he should've foresaw delta, then ok, I guess he's not a psychic."

One of the difficulties in making a successful vaccine for coronaviruses is their rapid rate of mutation. So yes, I think the top immunologist in the country should have foresaw the probability that there would be variants down the line for which the vaccine wouldn't be as effective against. I mean, the CDC Director literally came out and said that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, and do not get sick.

27 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Do you have any idea how much a guy with his experience and expertise could have made in the private sector?

Stop playing into these idiots' taking points. It's embarrassing

I'm not playing into a talking point. I'm responding to someone trying to portray him as if he gave up a life of riches for some average public servant lifestyle.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

One of the difficulties in making a successful vaccine for coronaviruses is their rapid rate of mutation. So yes, I think the top immunologist in the country should have foresaw the probability that there would be variants down the line for which the vaccine wouldn't be as effective against. I mean, the CDC Director literally came out and said that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, and do not get sick.

That's literally why they used mRNA vaccines. To deal with rapid mutations. And they were demonized for it. Because the average citizen is a Fing idiot and there are plenty of politicians willing to abuse that fact.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I'm not playing into a talking point. I'm responding to someone trying to portray him as if he gave up a life of riches for some average public servant lifestyle.

He gave up literally millions of dollars to be in the private sector instead of running a hospital system.

28 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

You can "think' and "feel" however way you want about it. It doesn't make those opinions scientifically valid. Again the revisionist history is Fing embarrassing.

Well I disagree with that. There's certainly valid data about the harm of extended lockdowns. At some point the strategy shifted from let's temporarily lock things down in certain areas so that the local hospital system doesn't get overrun to lets try to completely squash out the virus by locking down. And that's where the line can get crossed where you run the risk of negative consequences of locking down outweighing the benefits of reduced cases.

5 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

That's literally why they used mRNA vaccines. To deal with rapid mutations. And they were demonized for it. Because the average citizen is a Fing idiot and there are plenty of politicians willing to abuse that fact.

Yes, I understand that's why mRNA vaccines were the way to go. It was also the first time an mRNA vaccine was ever used, and with a limited set of data to go off of. So it's probably not the best idea to oversell the effectiveness of the vaccine to the public or make an unsubstantiated claim that vaccinated people don't get sick. You (and I don't mean you personally, I'm saying "you" in the general sense) can't say "Trust the Science" and then go "well except for those parts where we misled the public but we had good reason to".