12 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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.

JFC, that was from an entry on March 15. The lockdowns went on too long because Fauci advised a governor to close schools and restaurants in the burgeoning days of what would later become the worst pandemic of a century? Are you pulling my leg right now? Have you completely lost your marbles or what? Been doin a bit of boozin, have ya? It's the trumpbots that are supposed to be unable to read calendars.

12 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

"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.

Yeah man, he should've peered into his crystal ball to determine that the vaccine which was documented as remarkably effective in limiting transmitting of a virus today, was going to be slightly effective in 6 months time against delta, or far less effective in 12 months time against omicron. I mean, it's weird how nobody else on earth predicted the increase in transmissibility of delta and omicron either, but let's completely rewrite history to pin that on Fauci because obviously he guaranteed the vaccine would be effective in limiting transmission for current and all future variants. Totally not a strawman at all there. Solid point terp!

13 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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".

Can you provide a quote of him where he was overselling it, along with the date when he made that quote?

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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".

TBF, it’s not like they just came up with the tech. It was well over a decade in the making.

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

JFC, that was from an entry on March 15. The lockdowns went on too long because Fauci advised a governor to close schools and restaurants in the burgeoning days of what would later become the worst pandemic of a century? Are you pulling my leg right now? Have you completely lost your marbles or what? Been doin a bit of boozin, have ya? It's the trumpbots that are supposed to be unable to read calendars.

Yeah man, he should've peered into his crystal ball to determine that the vaccine which was documented as remarkably effective in limiting transmitting of a virus today, was going to be slightly effective in 6 months time against delta, or far less effective in 12 months time against omicron. I mean, it's weird how nobody else on earth predicted the increase in transmissibility of delta and omicron either, but let's completely rewrite history to pin that on Fauci because obviously he guaranteed the vaccine would be effective in limiting transmission for current and all future variants. Totally not a strawman at all there. Solid point terp!

"JFC, that was from an entry on March 15. The lockdowns went on too long"

That part of the post was not related to the length of lockdowns. That part of my post was a retort to the claim that localities and states implemented their own policies and that the federal government had nothing to do with the lockdowns. That clearly was not the case. It also shows that he lied multiple times after the fact when he tried to distance himself from lockdown policies and claimed that he had nothing to do with places going into lockdown mode.

"Yeah man, he should've peered into his crystal ball "

Well I disagree that this required peering into a crystal ball. It was already well known that coronavirus rapidly mutate. It's part of the reason why it was a miracle that a successful vaccine was able to be created in the first time. So considering that it's well known that coronaviruses rapidly mutate. Considering this was the first time in history that an mRNA vaccine was ever used. Considering that it was unknown how the vaccine would be able to handle future variants, then yes I'd say it was not a wise decision for the government to oversell the effectiveness of the vaccine and make such claims as "vaccinated people don't get sick and don't spread the virus" (I'm not saying he specifically made that claim, I know that came from CDC director Walensky).

10 minutes ago, paco said:

TBF, it’s not like they just came up with the tech. It was well over a decade in the making.

Oh yes absolutely. The tech had been studied, but I mean it was the first time an mRNA vaccine was distributed for public use.

trump oversaw the covid response…put him under oath next.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

"JFC, that was from an entry on March 15. The lockdowns went on too long"

That part of the post was not related to the length of lockdowns. That part of my post was a retort to the claim that localities and states implemented their own policies and that the federal government had nothing to do with the lockdowns. That clearly was not the case. It also shows that he lied multiple times after the fact when he tried to distance himself from lockdown policies and claimed that he had nothing to do with places going into lockdown mode.

Ok, so then if he's the one pulling the strings as you're claiming, please show me the diary entry where he supposedly convinced the governors to implement lockdowns for "too long".

3 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

trump oversaw the covid response…put him under oath next.

Now that would be must see tv. Except he’d just plead the 5th too. But I feel like maybe he could be goaded into defying his attorney’s advice and trying to answer questions. Ego just too big.

8 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Well I disagree that this required peering into a crystal ball. It was already well known that coronavirus rapidly mutate. It's part of the reason why it was a miracle that a successful vaccine was able to be created in the first time. So considering that it's well known that coronaviruses rapidly mutate. Considering this was the first time in history that an mRNA vaccine was ever used. Considering that it was unknown how the vaccine would be able to handle future variants, then yes I'd say it was not a wise decision for the government to oversell the effectiveness of the vaccine and make such claims as "vaccinated people don't get sick and don't spread the virus" (I'm not saying he specifically made that claim, I know that came from CDC director Walensky).

Provide quotes, please. You can keep repeating this unsupported claim, or you can provide a dated quote verbatim, so we can all determine if he oversold the effectiveness given the data at that time.

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Provide quotes, please. You can keep repeating this unsupported claim, or you can provide a dated quote verbatim, so we can all determine if he oversold the effectiveness given the data at that time.

This is on CDC Director Walensky, she's the one who multiple times oversold the effectiveness of the vaccine.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/politics/walensky-comments-cdc-guidance-fact-check

"Data have emerged again that [demonstrate] that even if you were to get infected during post vaccination that you can’t give it to anyone else,”

On March 29, Walensky told MSNBC that "Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick.”

“(A)nd that it’s not just in the clinical trials,” the director added, "but it’s also in real world data.”

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

This is on CDC Director Walensky, she's the one who multiple times oversold the effectiveness of the vaccine.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/politics/walensky-comments-cdc-guidance-fact-check

"Data have emerged again that [demonstrate] that even if you were to get infected during post vaccination that you can’t give it to anyone else,”

On March 29, Walensky told MSNBC that "Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick.”

“(A)nd that it’s not just in the clinical trials,” the director added, "but it’s also in real world data.”

Oh ok, I misunderstood your point earlier, so you just wanna demonize Fauci for something a completely different person said. I get it now, took me a bit, but I eventually got there.

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh ok, I misunderstood your point earlier, so you just wanna demonize Fauci for something a completely different person said. I get it now, took me a bit, but I eventually got there.

Well no, I'm not demonizing him for something that someone else said. Nor am I attributing other people's quotes to him. In my post that you quoted, I specifically noted that he didn't make that statement and that it came from CDC Director Walensky. "Considering that it was unknown how the vaccine would be able to handle future variants, then yes I'd say it was not a wise decision for the government to oversell the effectiveness of the vaccine and make such claims as "vaccinated people don't get sick and don't spread the virus" (I'm not saying he specifically made that claim, I know that came from CDC director Walensky).

1 hour 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.

So he should've foresaw the possibility of the vaccine's future effectiveness dropping so drastically, despite the statement on its effectiveness was made by another person, in a discussion that began over your criticism of Fauci. Yep, you're drunk. Sober up and read this all again tomorrow.

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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.

Ok. Show it then.

Then show where that "valid data" of the risks of lockdowns outweighs the known risks of not locking down increasing the per capita death rate (again look at Sweden as a fantastic example of that fallacy).

Then show me where Fauci and his colleagues ignored those evidence based pros vs cons during his COVID response.

I'm so sick of this crap. SHOW YOUR WORK or shut the F up. This is is MAGA level feelings vs facts nonsense.

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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".

1) it wasn't the first time an mRNA vaccine was ever used

2) Fauci never said vaccinated people never get sick.

So 0/2 there buddy.

5 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Ok. Show it then.

Then show where that "valid data" of the risks of lockdowns outweighs the known risks of not locking down increasing the per capita death rate (again look at Sweden as a fantastic example of that fallacy).

Then show me where Fauci and his colleagues ignored those evidence based pros vs cons during his COVID response.

I'm so sick of this crap. SHOW YOUR WORK or shut the F up. This is is MAGA level feelings vs facts nonsense.

The rise in drug use, rise in suicides and overdoses, rise in obesity rates, rise in cardiac deaths, rise in cancer deaths, etc… all related to the lockdowns.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Sweden have one of if not the lowest excess mortality rates in Europe from 2020-2022? Not saying that their approach to lockdowns/social distancing is the sole factor of that, theres obviously multiple variables to consider. But it would appear that it is one of the variables.

8 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

1) it wasn't the first time an mRNA vaccine was ever used

2) Fauci never said vaccinated people never get sick.

So 0/2 there buddy.

When was the previous time that an mRNA vaccine was distributed to the public? I didn’t attribute that quote to Fauci (my apologies if it came across that way). I have said that Walensky said that.

Fauci did say that vaccinated people end up being a dead end for the virus, though he did couch that by saying that while the chance is very low that they spread it, it’s not impossible.

7 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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

Uh…you don’t have a choice when subpoenaed.

10 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Lmao buddy I've worked with the people who plan for this stuff. I watched them give lectures through Mass General and B&W and U Penn during the early pandemic. One of whom was Fauci himself. The F do you think you're talking to?

Which made your earlier reply insinuating that I was fabricating the existence of contingency planning even more surprising. Something about this topic makes it hard to discuss it would seem.

5 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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.

Yes in March 2020 as the virus was raging in NYC Fauci recommended school closures. Because of course he would.

For fall 2020 he recommended hybrid, but shifted his stance by November to recommending a return to in person schooling when it became apparent that schools weren't as big a problem.

This is what happened.

And there is zero doubt that Fauci understood that vaccine effectiveness would be challenged by mutations. But they still saved countless lives. I'm not really sure what you expected him to do there, throw his hands up and say "we might as well just let people die"?

Dude you're 100% buying into the nonsense.

5 hours 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.

I literally said he was handsomely compensated by public servant standards but if his goal was to get rich he could have made far more in the private sector.

And that is 100% accurate.

Rand Paul is a clown and is not owed any answers by Fauci at this stage. Fauci has been hauled before Congress multiple times and been grilled for hours. This is all pure political theater to deflect and distract.

And you're 100% being led around by it.

10 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Where exactly did Fauci "abandon" those plans? Was it "abandoned" because of political pressure or did they make adjustments on the fly based on a relatively novel virus that killed tens of millions of people? Were those plans what Sweden followed to a highest per capita death rate in Scandinavia during the pandemic?

Now this is a good reply and good questions. I should have been more careful when saying "Fauci" as I don't know what decisions he made or allowed to be made vs. the positions he took behind the scenes. I also don't find this hearing to be fair to him on the personal level even though he was the symbolic leader under Trump and then Biden. Regarding the "why" I'm 100% convinced politics/media were largely accountable for the speed and levels of measures that were taken in the US and other places.

As for Sweden, you have it totally wrong. Sweden came out with the best statistics in terms of the key metric of "excess deaths" in Europe (depending on what month was measured as the final month Sweden and Norway sometimes flipped between #1 and #2). Also, keep in mind that for the most part all those Scandinavian countries followed the same basic path with some smaller differences. The only western style country that did better than Sweden was New Zealand. A place where they could lock down an entire Island.

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Rand Paul is a clown and is not owed any answers by Fauci at this stage. Fauci has been hauled before Congress multiple times and been grilled for hours. This is all pure political theater to deflect and distract.

100% agree, Fauci shouldn't have been forced to come to yet another hearing like this. Yet another instance of Paul having something up his butt.

5 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Uh…you don’t have a choice when subpoenaed.

No I understand that legally he’s required to. But if you’re going to show up just to plead the 5th to every question, it’s just a bit of a weasel move to me.