Fauci: ‘Bizarre’ White House Behavior Only Hurts the President (opens in new tab)

Fauci saying that masks are not effective protection from coronavirus:

https://streamable.com/oml2rf

I'm not sure it's so cut and dry that he's resilient to political games.

I follow right wing groups to understand the cognitive structure they use to understand the world and new events, and they're currently comparing him to Josef Mengele.

I don't believe that he's an appointee of the President, so it's not clear to me where things go from here. If the White House can fire him, they will, but can they?

I'm reading it as "(only) (hurts the President)," not "(only hurts) (the President)."

From the article:

> “Ultimately, it hurts the president to do that,” Fauci told The Atlantic in a series of interviews this week. “When the staff lets out something like that and the entire scientific and press community push back on it, it ultimately hurts the president.”

> As with everything, it would seem that the truth is somewhere in-between.

I hate this sentiment. I agree it's largely true, but it makes a large difference whether that `correct point' is halfway in between or 95% on one side.

Whether your intention or not, naively suggesting the truth is in the middle without any further clarification comes across as a cheap political ploy.

The first link in the article you provide - the one which says that Fauci fought against the president wanting to ban flights from China - says the exact opposite - that no, Fauci, did not fight the president ie, Fauci supported banning flights from China.

Just because two people say different things doesn't mean the truth is in the middle. One side can just be completely full of it.

Did you click the links in the op-ed? Almost every claim is false, and the rest are inaccurate at best.

The only claim that wasn't refuted in the links was the Henry Ford Hydroxychloroquine study. Here's more context on that: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/navarro-doesnt-give-full-p...

> However, several of Navarro’s criticisms of Fauci — on the China travel restrictions, the risk from the coronavirus and falling mortality rates — were misleading or lacked context. As such, Navarro’s op-ed did not meet USA TODAY’s fact-checking standards.

And then there's the misinterpretations of "lack of evidence" and hindsight bias.

If you say water freezes a 0 degrees celcius and I say it freezes at 100 degrees, that doesn't mean it freezes at 50 degrees.

This sentiment of "there must be two sides that should be equally weighed" is absolute rubbish. It'd doesn't work for creationism vs. Science and it doesn't work in Trumps Administration vs. Science.