Fauxi caught lying to the public again: Now says it will take 90% to get herd immune

[SAN compnerd]

Fauxi admitted to moving the goal posts again and it doesn't take a genius to see why, he lied to manipulate public support for the vacc.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2020...299713-n299713

Combine this with the WHO changing the verbiage on it's site about herd immunity to remove any mention of natural immunity to only vaccine derived immunity should make one thing very clear.

TPTB are going to make this vaccine mandatory. For a virus with a 99.9 percent survival rate you will be forced to get a vaccine with a 95% effective rate.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I'm not a fan of Fauci's. I think I've made that abundantly clear. However, you could actually cite The New York Times piece by providing the Yahoo link for those averse to providing clicks... How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?

...Recently, a figure to whom millions of Americans look for guidance — Dr. Anthony Fauci, an adviser to both the Trump administration and the incoming Biden administration — has begun incrementally raising his herd-immunity estimate.

In the pandemic’s early days, Fauci tended to cite the same 60% to 70% estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75%” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85%” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90% immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak.

Asked about Fauci’s conclusions, prominent epidemiologists said that he might be proven right. The early range of 60% to 70% was almost undoubtedly too low, they said, and the virus is becoming more transmissible, so it will take greater herd immunity to stop it.

Fauci said that weeks ago, he had hesitated to publicly raise his estimate because many Americans seemed hesitant about vaccines, which they would need to accept almost universally in order for the country to achieve herd immunity.

Now that some polls are showing that many more Americans are ready, even eager, for vaccines, he said he felt he could deliver the tough message that the return to normal might take longer than anticipated.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75%,” Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60% or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90%. But, I’m not going to say 90%.”

Doing so might be discouraging to Americans, he said, because he is not sure there will be enough voluntary acceptance of vaccines to reach that goal. Although sentiments about vaccines in polls have bounced up and down this year, several current ones suggest that about 20% of Americans say they are unwilling to accept any vaccine.

Also, Fauci noted, a herd-immunity figure at 90% or above is in the range of the infectiousness of measles...

The original assumption that it would take 60% to 70% immunity to stop the disease was based on early data from China and Italy, health experts noted.

Epidemiologists watching how fast cases doubled in those outbreaks calculated that the virus’ reproduction number, or R0 — how many new victims each carrier infected — was about 3. So two out of three potential victims would have to become immune before each carrier infected fewer than one. When each carrier infects fewer than one new victim, the outbreak slowly dies out.

Two out of three is 66.7%, which established the range of 60% to 70% for herd immunity...

What it boils down to is that Fauci (along with a whole bunch of other 'experts') is/was just GUESSING and doesn't want to be 'held' to a specific number or declaration (as usual). Bear in mind, to be fair, the article cites the fact that the virus is mutating or has mutated and appears to be in the process of becoming more contagious, even though it would also appear it's becoming no more deadly. In short, they don't KNOW what the level required would be to achieve herd immunity.

Now, before someone who defers to and/or defends Fauci on 99% of what he's said or someone else asks (again) why WE can't simply 'accept' not knowing as an 'answer,' bear in mind that SOME 'experts' are now explicitly acknowledging that because they are being pressed as to "why" their former predictions/declarations don't seem to be panning out; then they fall back on the fact that actual Science often doesn't 'know' as a 'fig leaf' or 'shield' to criticism. Or, put another way, that actual Science changes the 'conclusions' with the input of new information and doesn't 'rest upon beliefs' and shouldn't be used to promote what is politically perceived as 'necessary' to calm the public, assuage fears, or push an agenda. As noted later in the article...

Although WHO scientists still sometimes cite the older 60% to 70% estimate, Dr. Katherine O’Brien, the agency’s director of immunization, said that she now thought that range was too low. She declined to estimate what the correct higher one might be.

“We’d be leaning against very thin reeds if we tried to say what level of vaccine coverage would be needed to achieve it,” she said. “We should say we just don’t know. And it won’t be a world or even national number. It will depend on what community you live in.”

In short, Fauci and many other 'experts' are absolutely guilty of hubris, political/public relations faux pas's, cherry picking 'science' for political ends... right on down the list.

But, in this case, it might not be so much that he was "lying" as simply providing the best GUESSTIMATE that they had built a consensus around without letting the public know that it was just that... a guess and that they didn't know. That they "don't know" what level will be required specifically with COVID-19 is something the World Health Organization has actually, clearly stated...

...The percentage of people who need to have antibodies in order to achieve herd immunity against a particular disease varies with each disease. For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80%...

Until we better understand COVID-19 immunity, it will not be possible to know how much of a population is immune and how long that immunity last for, let alone make future predictions. These challenges should preclude any plans that try to increase immunity within a population by allowing people to get infected...

It's simply another instance where Fauci is now having to fish or cut bait and he's equivocating, for good reason, so that he can't be 'held' to or criticized for making a definitive declaration while doing what at least one prominent 'public health' authority has said he shouldn't be doing; i.e., attempting to provide reassurance rather than fact.

[SAN compnerd]

I'm not a fan of Fauci's. I think I've made that abundantly clear. However, you could actually cite The New York Times piece by providing the Yahoo link for those averse to providing clicks... How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?



What it boils down to is that Fauci (along with a whole bunch of other 'experts') is/was just GUESSING and doesn't want to be 'held' to a specific number or declaration (as usual). Bear in mind, to be fair, the article cites the fact that the virus is mutating or has mutated and appears to be in the process of becoming more contagious, even though it would also appear it's becoming no more deadly. In short, they don't KNOW what the level required would be to achieve herd immunity.

Now, before someone who defers to and/or defends Fauci on 99% of what he's said or someone else asks (again) why WE can't simply 'accept' not knowing as an 'answer,' bear in mind that SOME 'experts' are now explicitly acknowledging that because they are being pressed as to "why" their former predictions/declarations don't seem to be panning out; then they fall back on the fact that actual Science often doesn't 'know' as a 'fig leaf' or 'shield' to criticism. Or, put another way, that actual Science changes the 'conclusions' with the input of new information and doesn't 'rest upon beliefs' and shouldn't be used to promote what is politically perceived as 'necessary' to calm the public, assuage fears, or push an agenda. As noted later in the article...



In short, Fauci and many other 'experts' are absolutely guilty of hubris, political/public relations faux pas's, cherry picking 'science' for political ends... right on down the list.

But, in this case, it might not be so much that he was "lying" as simply providing the best GUESSTIMATE that they had built a consensus around without letting the public know that it was just that... a guess and that they didn't know. That they "don't know" what level will be required specifically with COVID-19 is something the World Health Organization has actually, clearly stated...



It's simply another instance where Fauci is now having to fish or cut bait and he's equivocating, for good reason, so that he can't be 'held' to or criticized for making a definitive declaration while doing what at least one prominent 'public health' authority has said he shouldn't be doing; i.e., attempting to provide reassurance rather than fact.

Thanks for your attempt to justify Fauxi's repeated lies to the public over the past months.

It's important to recognize that public officials can lie to the public under the right circumstances.

[Eomer]

Thanks for your attempt to justify Fauxi's repeated lies to the public over the past months.

It's important to recognize that public officials can lie to the public under the right circumstances.

There is a difference between a lie and a guess. Fauci has been guessing.

[SanDiego619]

There is a difference between a lie and a guess. Fauci has been guessing.

Good idea to destroy the livelihoods of millions of people over a guess.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Thanks for your attempt to justify Fauxi's repeated lies to the public over the past months.

It's important to recognize that public officials can lie to the public under the right circumstances.

You do understand that there is a difference between "lying" and simply going with your best 'guesstimate' and being wrong... I hope.

Fauci admitted they lied about masks and explained the reason. I don't totally disagree with the rationale and might have behaved similarly were I in his position back then. However, that act, by itself, should have then disqualified him as a spokesperson. It's not that whomever followed him would have behaved any differently; but, once you have acknowledged lying, no matter the reason, it is virtually impossible to generate the necessary 'trust' again.

That's NOT a 'justification' of his behavior.

It's an acceptance that there are times that Government officials DO lie to the public and there are times when the lie is made for a reason that is, truly, felt to be in the public interest.

If it is an elected official, you get to decide whether the reason was sufficient justification for allowing them to remain in office. If it is a bureaucrat, even elected officials are limited in their ability to 'fire' them.

Fauci has many problems. Among them is a heightened sense of his own 'authority' to be making declarations he shouldn't be making. (I believe that is a primary factor in why Trump finally 'sidelined' him, so to speak.) As I pointed out in the previous post, linking to the explanation in a post I made over 4 months ago...

"Public health agencies aren't departments of reassurance, they're departments of public health," Inglesby said. "They need to tell people what kind of interventions will be most useful for their families, for their-- for their communities, what individuals can do to try and decrease their own risks."...

The problem, in this case, is that Fauci was NOT 'lying.' What he was doing is attempting to offer the public some form of reassurance. In doing so, he stepped right into the trap of going with a consensus guesstimate which was based on an 'average' of viruses; despite his having publicly acknowledged that the virus behind COVID did not seem to be 'behaving' in a manner he was familiar with as regards other viruses.

You can call it hubris, call it misplaced priorities, call it a mistake in judgment... and you'd be justified. But you CANNOT call this one a "lie" with legitimacy.

As I explained, in some detail, in your other thread regarding 'herd immunity,' Fauci knew or should have known the WHO's position on 'herd immunity' when it came to COVID...

...The percentage of people who need to have antibodies in order to achieve herd immunity against a particular disease varies with each disease. For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80%...

We are still learning about immunity to COVID-19. Most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks, but we don’t know how strong or lasting that immune response is, or how it differs for different people. There have also been reports of people infected with COVID-19 for a second time.

Until we better understand COVID-19 immunity, it will not be possible to know how much of a population is immune and how long that immunity last for, let alone make future predictions. These challenges should preclude any plans that try to increase immunity within a population by allowing people to get infected...

That SHOULD have been the 'party line' he adopted; i.e., "we don't know," legitimately blaming a lack of information specific to this virus. Instead, he opted to put forth an ill-advised 'guess' in the interest of proffering something 'empirical,' not so much as an absolute in the way the media and many people took it (apparently, including you), but as a kind of 'target zone' to be hoped for... Realizing that, like the flu, 'herd immunity' may not be an actual possibility with this virus.

As has been explained, numerous times, actual Science is not supposed to be a static thing. As new information presents itself, conclusions can and must change as warranted.

What Fauci is doing isn't actual Science and it isn't lying. It's being a poor excuse as a public spokesperson. Couple that with an agenda pushing portion of the public who are looking for someone to 'blame,' and you end up with something similar to what you posted regarding the WHO 'changing' the definition of 'herd immunity' - a post stipulating as 'fact' something that didn't actually happen.

In this case, that's the reason I provided the link to the actual article from The New York Times the piece you provided was cribbing/parsing from. Go back and note what that article ACTUALLY SAID rather than relying on the 'spin' being placed on it in your article...

In the pandemic’s early days, Fauci tended to cite the same 60% to 70% estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75%” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85%” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”...

“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90%. But, I’m not going to say 90%.”

So... "in the early days" Fauci was saying 60% - 70%. Now, as your own article phrases it...

He said partly that was due to new science and partly because he thinks the country is finally ready to hear it.

...Fauci is saying 70% - 90% is a 'better' or more realistic 'guesstimate' as to the potential RANGE; where the 'bottom' is still the same number as his original 'top.' However, he's also saying that 90% is not something he's willing to commit to at this time. Why?

Because no one knows, despite what all the self-styled 'experts' have put out there, based on exactly the same information Fauci and the other, actual 'experts' based their early guesstimate on. No one even knows if actual 'herd immunity' is going to be possible... yet.

Put another way, had he simply said what the WHO has, that there is no way of knowing because there is a variability based on the actual virus in question and we don't know enough about THIS virus to hazard a guess, he would have, technically, been more 'accurate,' but he would have then been castigated for not providing something.

As a result, he took it upon his own, presumed 'authority' to offer something by way of reassurance and has, now, run into the very reason a public health official isn't supposed to be a 'department of reassurance.'

Many want this whole thing to be a grand conspiracy and wish to indict all those who they perceive as being 'part of' that conspiracy.

I've made it clear that I firmly believe that there is a 'conspiracy' as to how this whole thing is being USED to push... other things. But, that's different than saying the virus doesn't exist and coming at it from such a perspective. That difference is what separates conspiracy theory from legitimate analysis of information and criticism of the actors and the 'story' they are attempting to purvey. Conspiracy theory may be more exciting and emotionally satiating to those who are predisposed; providing an excuse for venomous invective and accusation.

In the end, however, legitimate analysis and criticism is more useful for those looking for information; especially information that can be used to 'fight back' with.

[Epaphroditus]

Tailored the message so as not to cause panic? You mean like the president got blasted for doing?

If anyone saw the bit with Fauchi talking to kids about Santa and the virus and how easily he lies that's all you need to know.

How does science work with Santa?

[Fastattack]

He is NOT America's doctor! It's disgusting how the left lionizes the man.
Every time he opens his mouth he contradicts himself.

[SAN compnerd]

There is a difference between a lie and a guess. Fauci has been guessing.

Fauci 'guessed' that this virus was 10 times more deadly than the flu, even though he's been working in infectious disease for 50 years with zero science to back that assertion up, resulting in global panic and nationwide lock downs. Fauci reversed positions on asymptomatic spread without any science to back up that assertion. It' doesn't take a genius to see that Fauci has repeatedly spouted unscientific opinion and not fact to drive more panic and lock downs around the country.

One only need to look to FL or Sweden to see the proof of the lies, California's lock downs and restaurant closures have resulted in the state having more cases than any other in the nation. Clearly the masks and lock downs are ineffective or we would be doing better than FL and TX where no lock downs or masking is required.

You do understand that there is a difference between "lying" and simply going with your best 'guesstimate' and being wrong... I hope.

Fauci admitted they lied about masks and explained the reason. I don't totally disagree with the rationale and might have behaved similarly were I in his position back then. However, that act, by itself, should have then disqualified him as a spokesperson. It's not that whomever followed him would have behaved any differently; but, once you have acknowledged lying, no matter the reason, it is virtually impossible to generate the necessary 'trust' again.

That's NOT a 'justification' of his behavior.

It's an acceptance that there are times that Government officials DO lie to the public and there are times when the lie is made for a reason that is, truly, felt to be in the public interest.

If it is an elected official, you get to decide whether the reason was sufficient justification for allowing them to remain in office. If it is a bureaucrat, even elected officials are limited in their ability to 'fire' them.

Fauci has many problems. Among them is a heightened sense of his own 'authority' to be making declarations he shouldn't be making. (I believe that is a primary factor in why Trump finally 'sidelined' him, so to speak.) As I pointed out in the previous post, linking to the explanation in a post I made over 4 months ago...



The problem, in this case, is that Fauci was NOT 'lying.' What he was doing is attempting to offer the public some form of reassurance. In doing so, he stepped right into the trap of going with a consensus guesstimate which was based on an 'average' of viruses; despite his having publicly acknowledged that the virus behind COVID did not seem to be 'behaving' in a manner he was familiar with as regards other viruses.

You can call it hubris, call it misplaced priorities, call it a mistake in judgment... and you'd be justified. But you CANNOT call this one a "lie" with legitimacy.

As I explained, in some detail, in your other thread regarding 'herd immunity,' Fauci knew or should have known the WHO's position on 'herd immunity' when it came to COVID...



That SHOULD have been the 'party line' he adopted; i.e., "we don't know," legitimately blaming a lack of information specific to this virus. Instead, he opted to put forth an ill-advised 'guess' in the interest of proffering something 'empirical,' not so much as an absolute in the way the media and many people took it (apparently, including you), but as a kind of 'target zone' to be hoped for... Realizing that, like the flu, 'herd immunity' may not be an actual possibility with this virus.

As has been explained, numerous times, actual Science is not supposed to be a static thing. As new information presents itself, conclusions can and must change as warranted.

What Fauci is doing isn't actual Science and it isn't lying. It's being a poor excuse as a public spokesperson. Couple that with an agenda pushing portion of the public who are looking for someone to 'blame,' and you end up with something similar to what you posted regarding the WHO 'changing' the definition of 'herd immunity' - a post stipulating as 'fact' something that didn't actually happen.

In this case, that's the reason I provided the link to the actual article from The New York Times the piece you provided was cribbing/parsing from. Go back and note what that article ACTUALLY SAID rather than relying on the 'spin' being placed on it in your article...



So... "in the early days" Fauci was saying 60% - 70%. Now, as your own article phrases it...



...Fauci is saying 70% - 90% is a 'better' or more realistic 'guesstimate' as to the potential RANGE; where the 'bottom' is still the same number as his original 'top.' However, he's also saying that 90% is not something he's willing to commit to at this time. Why?

Because no one knows, despite what all the self-styled 'experts' have put out there, based on exactly the same information Fauci and the other, actual 'experts' based their early guesstimate on. No one even knows if actual 'herd immunity' is going to be possible... yet.

Put another way, had he simply said what the WHO has, that there is no way of knowing because there is a variability based on the actual virus in question and we don't know enough about THIS virus to hazard a guess, he would have, technically, been more 'accurate,' but he would have then been castigated for not providing something.

As a result, he took it upon his own, presumed 'authority' to offer something by way of reassurance and has, now, run into the very reason a public health official isn't supposed to be a 'department of reassurance.'

Many want this whole thing to be a grand conspiracy and wish to indict all those who they perceive as being 'part of' that conspiracy.

I've made it clear that I firmly believe that there is a 'conspiracy' as to how this whole thing is being USED to push... other things. But, that's different than saying the virus doesn't exist and coming at it from such a perspective. That difference is what separates conspiracy theory from legitimate analysis of information and criticism of the actors and the 'story' they are attempting to purvey. Conspiracy theory may be more exciting and emotionally satiating to those who are predisposed; providing an excuse for venomous invective and accusation.

In the end, however, legitimate analysis and criticism is more useful for those looking for information; especially information that can be used to 'fight back' with.

if you think that a guy who has worked in infectious disease for 50 years and is considered a global expert is just 'guessing' when he first told the world that asymptomatic spread has never been the main driver of pandemics and then, without scientific proof, reverses that declaration, well I think you are being gullible at the very least.

Fauci knows damn well that it will be a few more years before we really understand this contagion, and he's used that ignorance to force draconian policies on the nation that are not backed up by any science. He's led us into this 'if it saves one life' mentality that doesn't apply to any other aspect of life from driving to taking a shower with propaganda and disinformation and it's downright criminal.

Fauci doesn't deserve to be lauded, he should be in a cell for all the damage he's done to the nation with his constant incorrect prognostications.

[SAN compnerd]

One Chart Shows How Useless Dr. Fauci's 'Advice' Is

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2020/12/23/one-chart-shows-how-pointless-dr-faucis-advice-is-n299125

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Fauci 'guessed' that this virus was 10 times more deadly than the flu, even though he's been working in infectious disease for 50 years with zero science to back that assertion up, resulting in global panic and nationwide lock downs. Fauci reversed positions on asymptomatic spread without any science to back up that assertion. It' doesn't take a genius to see that Fauci has repeatedly spouted unscientific opinion and not fact to drive more panic and lock downs around the country.

One only need to look to FL or Sweden to see the proof of the lies, California's lock downs and restaurant closures have resulted in the state having more cases than any other in the nation. Clearly the masks and lock downs are ineffective or we would be doing better than FL and TX where no lock downs or masking is required.



if you think that a guy who has worked in infectious disease for 50 years and is considered a global expert is just 'guessing' when he first told the world that asymptomatic spread has never been the main driver of pandemics and then, without scientific proof, reverses that declaration, well I think you are being gullible at the very least.

Fauci knows damn well that it will be a few more years before we really understand this contagion, and he's used that ignorance to force draconian policies on the nation that are not backed up by any science. He's led us into this 'if it saves one life' mentality that doesn't apply to any other aspect of life from driving to taking a shower with propaganda and disinformation and it's downright criminal.

Fauci doesn't deserve to be lauded, he should be in a cell for all the damage he's done to the nation with his constant incorrect prognostications.

Now you're talking about other things, not whether he 'lied' or 'guessed' when it came to 'herd immunity.'

I don't think anyone involved in this conversation is lauding Fauci; unless you define 'laud' differently than does the dictionary... "praise (a person or their achievements) highly, especially in a public context."

As I told you, Fauci is a collator of information and he's not the ONLY 'expert' to hazard an opinion regarding 'herd immunity.' The consensus of somewhere around 70% was a "guesstimate" which is part guess and part estimate based on a lack of information regarding this, specific virus. Likewise, he's not the ONLY 'expert' in the World who responded by advising 'Draconian' measures similar to what has been used in the past. In fact, Fauci wasn't even the ONLY advisor to the White House in regard to COVID.

In a sense, what you need to do is learn to differentiate between what Fauci did as an individual and what he did as a more or less 'average' public health official who is more bureaucrat than active doctor/researcher. That's not defending him. It's not lauding him. It's not rationalizing his behavior.

It's understanding and critiquing it appropriately. As I said, you can call it hubris, call it misplaced priorities, call it a mistake in judgment... and you'd be justified. But you CANNOT call this one a "lie" with legitimacy. He took it upon his own, presumed 'authority' to offer something by way of reassurance and has, now, run into the very reason a public health official isn't supposed to be a 'department of reassurance.' In a sense, Fauci...

Tailored the message so as not to cause panic? You mean like the president got blasted for doing?...

As a result...

...he contradicts himself.

...or appears to do so. More accurately, as I've noted in myriad other threads over the months...

• It's been clear from the beginning that Fauci has been unable to wrap his mind around the idea that he's NOT in charge of everything and everyone, for a variety of reasons.
• Proponents of shut it all down, have every manufacturer produce nothing but PPE, wear nothing but an N95 mask 24/7... pretty much see things as Fauci does; i.e., a perception which is inconsistent with why we are referred to as the United States and not, say... China. When you have absolute control, you have the ability to control things, more or less, absolutely. In the United States, we don't allow that, despite how we think of entities such as the IRS, the Supreme Court, the President, or the head of NIAID.
• ...Fauci has been consistently presenting speculation or as he phrases it, his opinion. The problem is, his opinion is just that... his opinion and it is, as you note, ONE piece of input. Worse. His 'opinion' is almost always couched in criticism that "they" (whomever "they" are at that moment) aren't adhering to his opinion on how things should be done.
• Fauci is just one source of input and many other experts (e.g., 'sources of input') disagree with him.
• Fauci has a series of issues which has progressively put him in a position where he is becoming useless as both the spokesman and "the" person to be deferred to regarding this disease. It's also why Fauci is not the decision-maker, Trump is; i.e., one has to have a much broader and nuanced view than Fauci has repeatedly demonstrated he's capable of achieving.
• ...he continuously pontificates as to what we should do, then he turns around and says "we don't know" only when pressed about "why?" and he doesn't have specific answers related to COVID.
• The problem, as SAN compnerd observes, is that things have been so... let's say "inconsistent"... with regard to COVID, that a statement of "we don't know" isn't just less than reassuring, in many respects, it's actually cause for legitimate concern at this juncture.
• This is the conundrum that Fauci has woefully failed to resolve. It's not that he's "clueless" so much as he's not able to effectively take the temperature in the room. The reason? He's oblivious to it. In some respects, rightfully so in that his purview is, ostensibly, "Science," not politics. As a result, he tries to 'read from' ALL three scenarios simultaneously. The perniciousness comes when he then tries to claim 'credit' for having said 'that' at some point when, in fact, he said it "all" and, effectively, many times, muddled the message to the point of near incomprehensibility.
• I've both criticized and defended Fauci. I've never outright said it was time for him to step down; only that he is, in some ways understandably, in a position where he can't let it go and is leaving himself vulnerable to the delusions of "being seen as important" becoming "I'm important and, therefore, indispensable."
• ... he's, in some ways, quite literally, been all over the board on this; though he's never admitted to being 'wrong' because he's tried to play both sides while adhering to a central theme of "lock it all down... indefinitely."
• What Fauci seems incapable of grasping is that you can't 'hide' behind simply being a 'scientist' who is offering advice when you are out there opining on public policy; which is something he has repeatedly done and continues to do.
• The bottom line is that he is NOT a good spokesperson and he has NOT stayed within his field of 'expertise;' which, as I have noted in the past, is not first-hand as a researcher/doctor, but as a collator of information.
• Why is Fauci the ONLY voice being given credibility, even if he is expressing opinions on issues which, at some point, but particularly when backed into a corner, he acknowledges he has no expertise and no 'authority' to speak to as a 'medical' person?
• ...Fauci, through his own actions, has so undermined his own credibility that he has become increasingly useless as a spokesman for policies and policy decisions related to the coronavirus. Even if, ultimately, he is proven right in the main, he has put himself in a position where he is increasingly vulnerable to legitimate criticism as his decision to become "the man" in terms of going beyond his job and expressing opinions on virtually every question he is asked related to public policy has put him outside the purview of his job and his role in the Administration, not to mention his role as related to the current situation.
• THE "expert" read the guidelines, but didn't grasp the implications of the changes. NOW, reading them carefully, especially given the push back, he has some concern?!?!
• This is why Fauci is a media hero. He keeps feeding the beast; i.e., keeps saying things which can be use 'against' Trump.
• It's not that he's entirely wrong. It's that his messaging is so... caveated? temporized?... that you're not quite sure what he's saying.
• The reality is that doublespeak is PART of what Fauci has done all the way along. In this case, he's demonstrating another part of what he's been doing; i.e., fence straddling so as to be able to declare at a later date that "I said that" (claiming credit) and/or "I didn't say that" (denial of responsibility).
• He's offering a speculative hypothetical... in an effort to reassure the audience he is addressing based on an authority the Board can convey under certain circumstances but does not, strictly speaking, have itself.
• Fauci has long maintained that a vaccine is the "Holy Grail" (his words) of options.
• "They could say" is purely (reassuringly?) speculative, not informational. While he's likely to 'spin' it as providing information on a vaccine, something he considers to be the "Holy Grail" in this, there's an awful big "IF" he's put in front of it; the very definition of a caveat and, thus, speculation.

Ultimately, I suspect that sounds more critical/disparaging than lauding to most people.

It also seems to be in agreement with your conclusion, but not your 'remedy.'

Fauci doesn't deserve to be lauded, he should be in a cell for all the damage he's done to the nation with his constant incorrect prognostications.

What you are tripping over is encapsulated by: "I have an hammer, so everything is a nail."

[bootstrap]

Fauci has a long-established habit of double-speak.

[Sousuke]

Fauci has a long-established habit of double-speak.

If this is double speak, then there is no such thing as the scientific method.

[Den60]

Fauci has a long-established habit of double-speak.

The link to the paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

Fauci was not an author of the paper but his organization did publish it.

[Sousuke]

The link to the paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

Fauci was not an author of the paper but his organization did publish it.

There is nothing wrong with the paper either. Trying to claim this as double speak is ignorant at best.