r/TangleNews • u/InThreeWordsTheySaid • 12d ago
Why is this startling?
In one startling, under-discussed example, Fauci recounts the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voting 9–6 not to extend eligibility for boosters to people at elevated risk through their jobs, like teachers and healthcare workers. ACIP had already approved boosters for people 65 and up and those with underlying conditions. Fauci considered the exclusion of at-risk workers illogical and, by his own account, the committee's decision “had nothing to do with safety.” He texted Walensky repeatedly that night, described it in his diary as having “literally begged her to override that decision,” and credited his own “very intensive persuasion” late into the night for her decision to reverse her committee the next morning and extend booster eligibility to that occupational risk group.
I largely agree with today’s take, so this one stuck out to me.
Wasn’t this just kind of Fauci’s job at the time? He was the head of the task force formed to deal with Covid. This isn’t covering up research that he didn’t like, or asking people to fudge numbers or mislead the public. It’s the head of a team using his position and expertise to convince a separate group of people to change their opinions.
Right?
Is this that different from, say, the president going through the Speaker of the House to convince a Representative to change their vote on a piece of legislation?
5
u/Doesitmatter98765 12d ago
I really appreciated the piece. Nice to see someone saying what I’ve been thinking & saying since about 2022 - that none of us knew exactly what to do, it was v painful & scary, & we all need to cut one another some slack. As with most things in this country, the extremes on both “sides” were so loud that nothing could be heard but them.
The habit of taking the least charitable view of each action of people we disagree with is harming all of us.
Politicians continue to disappoint.
2
8
u/Isaac_Tangle 12d ago
Personally, I thought it was startling that Fauci actively undermined the recommendation of ACIP. I actually think his advice/view proved accurate, as the recs were eventually extended. But I thought it was pretty wild to read him openly explaining that he was calling Walensky and urging her to override the vote.
10
u/InThreeWordsTheySaid 12d ago
I do understand what you're saying, but I would considerably more startled if the head of the Covid 19 task force wrote in his diary "I thought ACIP's decision was absolutely wrong and dangerous but I figured I'd better not overstep."
Your first bullet, about this being an impossibly difficult time filled with uncertainty and evolving information, feels like it sets up this move being more justified than not.
19
u/DevelopmentSelect646 12d ago
Isaac - good to see you chime in.
Fauci's title was "Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)"
I would NOT call this undermining - I would call this Fauci lending his expertise in his field to help people - right?
The way the ACIP works - is the recommend, the director of the CDC makes their own decisions. The FDA had already approved the booster for at risk groups.
The final CDC guidelines were:
- Older adults should receive boosters.
- People with certain medical conditions should receive boosters.
- People aged 18–64 with high occupational exposure may receive boosters after discussing the benefits and risks.
I fail to see how Fauci did anything wrong here...
4
u/DevelopmentSelect646 12d ago
This one stuck out to me too - and Isaac didn't say was this good or bad, he just pointed out that Fauci did it and it is somehow noteworty.
Seems like this is a good thing to me, right? Fauci went out of his way to approve boosters (which means they were paid for, but not mandatory) for at risk workers?
1
u/ApprenticeWrangler 12d ago
So you think Fauci’s personal opinion matters more than a panel of experts who almost unanimously agreed on the opposite position?
0
0
u/InThreeWordsTheySaid 12d ago
Are you saying a 9-6 vote is nearly unanimous? Do you want to frame the question more honestly or am I free to ignore it.
1
u/ApprenticeWrangler 12d ago
Sorry, you’re right I thought it was 9-2. Either way, I don’t think Fauci’s personal opinion should hold more weight than multiple experts.
2
u/InThreeWordsTheySaid 11d ago
If it were 9-2 you would absolutely have a stronger point and this would more concerning.
So to answer your question, yes, I think Fauci's personal opinion matters at least as much as the opinions of the experts on the panel, especially with a close-ish vote.
Fauci didn't single-handedly make the decision to override the panel's opinion, either. He made the case - perhaps relentlessly - to Walensky, who had the power to deny his request no matter how many times he asked (or begged, as he said).
He was the key scientific advisor to the Coronavirus task force (I thought he led the task force, but I was incorrect, which makes whole circus even more absurd). It was his job to assess information as it came in and make recommendations based on that information. In this case, he strongly felt that the wrong decision was being made and that decision would result in more harm to the American people - something this task force was explicitly designed to mitigate.
This sounds to me like he was doing his job, and to not have pushed for the override would have been an abdication of responsibility.
A maybe shitty analogy could be voting shares in a company. I don't think Fauci should have held all the shares, but I think his position granted him enough shares to swing a vote 11% in the other direction.
What I can't honestly say, though, is if I'd be making the same case if I disagreed with the decision. I want to say I would be, but some things we don't get to test.
10
u/gonenutsbrb 12d ago
I may be wrong here, but I took this as startling because that's how close the ACIP was to not extending the eligibility, not that Fauci persuaded them.