In this week’s Times interview with David Wallace-Wells, Dr. Fauci says:
I don't disagree with the shut downs. We were dealing with a brand new disease, a pandemic that we knew nothing about, and I generally disagree with the WSJ editorial page position that the shutdowns were unnecessary. We could not act then based on what we know now, and the WSJ editorial page position is "we have all this evidence now that there were harmful effects of the shutdowns". Okay, but we didn't have that evidence then.
But that is all Fauci needs to say and he can't simply say that. He keeps saying squirrely things and trying to evade responsibility. I think he needs to answer questions under oath in court. I want him to sit there and take responsibility for decisions that he made and the role he played. Or perjure himself. Either is fine with me.
I had a patient last week who contacted the clinic because I forgot to send him something that I was supposed to send him. I looked at the chart. There it was in my note. I was supposed to send it. I called him and apologized. I sent it and called the main pharmacy in Saginaw and had it overnighted it. It sucked having to take responsibility for having forgotten it, but telling him, "I'm sorry, I forgot to send it" was simply the right thing to do. And guess what, he accepted that. If I had tried to be squirrely about it he would have been pissed and rightly so. Having it overnighted to him was my best to make it right. That is being professional about making an error, even a small one (it was a laxative).
And I don't think that with the shut downs he necessarily made an error. I don't think with the gain of function research he necessarily made an error.* I think with his explanations of both, however, he has fallen far short of professionalism and responsibility of someone befitting his station and stature.
After the first round of immunizations for covid a physician friend of mine in Atlanta called me because her mother had a reaction to the vaccine, and her mother has an autoimmune disorder. We talked about it for a couple of hours. I gathered all the information I could possibly find and then came up with a recommendation for her, that when it came time for her second shot, she should get the other vaccine. I then added, "of course, we're making all of this up as we're going along." She responded, "I know."
Why can't he just say that? Why can't he just say, "We did the best we could to save lives in a nearly impossible situation"?
F**king Squirrel.
*When asked about "gain of function" he denied funding gain of function research using an extremely narrow definition of gain of function. I'm not sure he could have answered the question to everyone's satisfaction, but I would have been satisfied with, "Yes, we were funding gain of function, but it appears that the lab in Wuhan was doing things we never intended."
Nothing was done perfectly. But what I can say is that, at least to my perception, the emphasis strictly on the science and public health — that is what public-health people should do. I’m not an economist. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is not an economic organization. The surgeon general is not an economist. So we looked at it from a purely public-health standpoint. It was for other people to make broader assessments — people whose positions include but aren’t exclusively about public health. Those people have to make the decisions about the balance between the potential negative consequences of something versus the benefits of something.
Certainly there could have been a better understanding of why people were emphasizing the economy. But when people say, “Fauci shut down the economy” — it wasn’t Fauci. The C.D.C. was the organization that made those recommendations. I happened to be perceived as the personification of the recommendations. But show me a school that I shut down and show me a factory that I shut down. Never. I never did. I gave a public-health recommendation that echoed the C.D.C.’s recommendation, and people made a decision based on that. But I never criticized the people who had to make the decisions one way or the other.
I don't disagree with the shut downs. We were dealing with a brand new disease, a pandemic that we knew nothing about, and I generally disagree with the WSJ editorial page position that the shutdowns were unnecessary. We could not act then based on what we know now, and the WSJ editorial page position is "we have all this evidence now that there were harmful effects of the shutdowns". Okay, but we didn't have that evidence then.
But that is all Fauci needs to say and he can't simply say that. He keeps saying squirrely things and trying to evade responsibility. I think he needs to answer questions under oath in court. I want him to sit there and take responsibility for decisions that he made and the role he played. Or perjure himself. Either is fine with me.
I had a patient last week who contacted the clinic because I forgot to send him something that I was supposed to send him. I looked at the chart. There it was in my note. I was supposed to send it. I called him and apologized. I sent it and called the main pharmacy in Saginaw and had it overnighted it. It sucked having to take responsibility for having forgotten it, but telling him, "I'm sorry, I forgot to send it" was simply the right thing to do. And guess what, he accepted that. If I had tried to be squirrely about it he would have been pissed and rightly so. Having it overnighted to him was my best to make it right. That is being professional about making an error, even a small one (it was a laxative).
And I don't think that with the shut downs he necessarily made an error. I don't think with the gain of function research he necessarily made an error.* I think with his explanations of both, however, he has fallen far short of professionalism and responsibility of someone befitting his station and stature.
After the first round of immunizations for covid a physician friend of mine in Atlanta called me because her mother had a reaction to the vaccine, and her mother has an autoimmune disorder. We talked about it for a couple of hours. I gathered all the information I could possibly find and then came up with a recommendation for her, that when it came time for her second shot, she should get the other vaccine. I then added, "of course, we're making all of this up as we're going along." She responded, "I know."
Why can't he just say that? Why can't he just say, "We did the best we could to save lives in a nearly impossible situation"?
F**king Squirrel.
*When asked about "gain of function" he denied funding gain of function research using an extremely narrow definition of gain of function. I'm not sure he could have answered the question to everyone's satisfaction, but I would have been satisfied with, "Yes, we were funding gain of function, but it appears that the lab in Wuhan was doing things we never intended."
