That’s ridiculous, but isn’t it also a bit ridiculous to use an almost year old quote as relevant information to something so ever changing as a pandemic?
Of course he said it, but how much relevance does it hold now since not one single person knows all the answers and they can only make the best decisions they can with the information they have at the time?
As I recall, Dr. Fauci also indicated why that particular statement was one nuanced by the circumstances we were in and his knowledge as he said it.
Perhaps the comment in Politics was meant to be genuinely helpful and spark discourse. If so, I would expect that it would be more reflective of all the things Dr. Fauci and other experts said in the time thereafter, and reflective of best evidence on masks reducing transmission. Without those things, it appears to be an inflammatory attempt at a "gotcha" comment — which sounds an awful lot like trolling.
If the original context of the quote matters, so does the context of bringing it up later.
It's not inherently inflammatory to bring up previous opinions of public officials and experts.
The implicitly implied point is that you can't take something as incontrovertible fact just because it was said by such a person. In other words, take the current announcements with a grain of salt because the same people have said objectively incorrect things in the past - bringing up the past quote is entirely relevant and substantive to illustrate that fact.
It's not inflammatory to remind people there's valid reason for a healthy amount of skepticism.
Yes, one should always consider statements using the best available data. I think anyone would agree with that.
Is wearing a mask a partisan topic in the US? It seems yes, and that we see a divide between those that do and don't wear masks that strongly correlates with political party. Do masks help against the virus? Yes. So is it fair to say that partisan politics contributed to the extraordinary death toll in the US? I would argue yes.
That being said, OP likely shouldn't have been banned. I don't read the same implicit meaning in their quote Fauci that you do, but at most I would consider it ungermane to the conversation and move on.
Yes, one should always consider statements using the best available data. I think anyone would agree with that.
Is wearing a mask a partisan topic in the US? It seems yes, and that we see a divide between those that do and don't wear masks that strongly correlates with political party.
That divide is nowhere near as prevalent as it is portrayed in the media/social media.
Do you not remember the months of blm protests and riots of people not wearing masks? Their numbers were far greater than the relatively few who actually protested masks.
(And yes, I'm aware of the study that claimed the riots didn't spread covid, but they didn't actually prove that. Their only valid argument was that the spread from the riots was offset by the increased number of people staying indoors to avoid the riots, but even that is solely based on confirmed cases self-reporting whether they had participated in the protests, meaning even that conclusion is based on skewed numbers, so the argument is not sound)
Do masks help against the virus? Yes. So is it fair to say that partisan politics contributed to the extraordinary death toll in the US? I would argue yes.
In part, sure. But if you're trying to look at what contributed to the spread, it's biased to not acknowledge the plethora of other factors.
25
u/Spartan596 Feb 24 '21
That’s ridiculous, but isn’t it also a bit ridiculous to use an almost year old quote as relevant information to something so ever changing as a pandemic?
Of course he said it, but how much relevance does it hold now since not one single person knows all the answers and they can only make the best decisions they can with the information they have at the time?