You'd have a better reason to address the 'travel ban' if it weren't a leaky sieve of a presidential policy that was just a (selective) gotcha against the Asian world (by US definition) to add to prior and unrelated spurious travel bans pre-pandemic (ironically, including bits of the Asian world by UK definition).
It's your strongest point, as I nearly said, but still lags behind a far bigger contender for "I think we're alive in spite of [him]".
The mask statements were all far more sensible (at any given time) than many other sources, especially You-Know-Who.
The statements about transmission, ditto.
Think of the two widely-spread tramlines bounding opinions over time. There were, are and doubtless will continue to be the Chicken-Littles who have long espoused total sky-falling-in scenarios, even if they never knew it would be Covid until Covid happened and they struck lucky with something real to rail about when before it was whatever the last Hollywood disaster movie was about (and, incidentally, they're no longer apparently worried about environmental degradation, WW3, unobserved near-Earth-objects, whatever else they were previously siezing upon). Ditto, those that are the living embodiment of that dog with a mug in the increasingly burning room that are holding to the "This is fine" line.
Between the two, those who will to some extent significantly change their minds when new information becomes known to them. What is the problem with Fauci having done that? Did he not do it enough? Did he do it do it too much? I'm not even sure what your complaint is. But given he had the burden of a dead-weight hovering over him, I'm surprised he managed to properly adapt as quickly as he did without being fired/’asked'-to-resign, with probably disasterous results to further attempts to nudge the official line into a (more) useful parity with reality.
If he held back the idea of a travel ban, it was at a time when not only was the picture far from complete (even with expert advanced briefings, not available to the public, he couldn't yet employ the full "2020 hindsight" we have now), and the actual TB trumpeted but vastly misrepresented wasn't even effective. Even if it stopped 100% of trans-Pacific travel (it did nothing of the sort) and had totally sealed off the southern border (it didn't, even if that was a pre-pandemic aim anyway) and shrugged off the possibility of cautiously but humanitarianly disembarking cruise-ships into quarantine accomodation (rather than letting them sit offshore longer, allowing any extant infections to reach more of the previously untouched) it had probably zero effect upon the European vectoring-inwards that eventually made it too late to stop even with a full-globe 'only the most essential* of travel' allowance. It's an open secret that places International travellers were likely to most immediately arrive at/return to were highly correlated with blue-voting, so not a priority to someone who wanted the red-voting fly-overs/boondocks/etc to have the edge.
And yet Fauci is to blame? I mean, there were precious few places (and therefore people in charge) who hit the proper tone right at the very start. Including making sure that a public not yet significantly exposed was not causing supply problems to prevent front-line medical staff to obtain enough self-protecting masks (before manufacturing geared up to increase the supply of the other-protecting masks which were to become more useful in the wider population). I'd forgive his privately wishing that everyone would wear masks right at the start but decided not to press it because it would be unachievable (both physically, politically and societally) and tried to concentrate on more doable precautions/more necessary mask-candidates.
Above all, though, I think you read that article and understood it to be a condemnation of Fauci. When I read it as a condemnation of how he was briefed against. Alleged errors, being raised by the Whitehouse. Criticism of how little information he could give when there was little information to give. The highlighting of his more non-alarming words in preference to the realistic concerns he also raised but were conveniently ignored. (To paraphrase a stretch of two or three paragraphs that you must not have read/understood, perhaps sticking only to your limited interpretation of the bullet-points.)
Yes, I read the article that you posted. I re-read it before I replied, twisting my mind to read it 'your' way and still doubting you could have honestly read it as you propose. I read it yet again just now, just in case it's a trick page with a Randomised Markov Chain behind it, but the words are the same and my impression of its meaning continues to be that it is a fact-check of how Fauci's views have been falsely represented, not of how Fauci's words were in themselves false.
(Incomplete, especially early on; Uncertain, when there was less information; Hedged and possibly too timid, at times when faced with sharing the stage with the President Who Could Not Tell A Coherent Truth; Nothing that seems notably worsened what would have happened, had Clarence been showing him his 'George Bailey' alternative.)
And that I felt the need to explain this, at length, is as annoying to me as it probably is to you (but for different reasons, also different still to the annoyance of all the other readers who don't want this to be an annexed thread to the AmeriPol one).
* Anyone rich enough, anyone with business interests, enough sports team movements to keep people entertained, quite a few reporters could apparently travel in and out of the US, and just had to follow honour-system quarantining procedures, at various times, according to the sometimes nuanced Source-Destination country matrix of requirements currently in for e.
Author
Topic: Untamed Virus Containment Thread:COVID-19: Lurking Omni-Flu Edition (Read 496814 times)