The CDC director is just a media-friendly doctor when they get more intelligence about it than probably anyone else? How is Fauci not a media-friendly doctor?
I mean Marty Makary. Fuck Marty Makary, he's just a media rent-a-mouth with a medical degree.
The email said myth not just mere disagreement of a hypothesis.
And...?
How is the virus coming from a Chinese lab gonna spark more anti-China sentiment than it coming from a Chinese wet market?
Gee, let me think... a virus naturally evolves and passes to humans, or a Chinese lab both makes one evolve to infect humans and also flubs its lab safety. I wonder which is worst for China's reputation?
Can't you keep politics out of it?
No. Virtually no-one can keep politics out of it. The sad, useless, pointless flapping of mouths of people to "keep politics out of it" are delusional and/or self-aggrandising posturing to pretend they aren't politicised themselves. But they are.
The CDC is an arm of government and politicised. The government is politicised (obviously). And all these people spouting their little opinions, from Joe Bloggs on the street through to doctors who do books, interviews and YouTube vids and so on, are themselves consciously or subconsciously politicised. They have political ideologies, they speak with and pick up ideas from people with political ideologies, they get their news and opinions from politicised media, etc.
You can see the majority (or at least a very large chunk) don't trust the CDC anymore...
... because the CDC has been attacked by anyone and everyone. And that is because the CDC has recommended things that people don't want to do, and every time it has done so, people don't like it and scrape around the internet for opinions that justify hating on the CDC and considering it incompetent. In many cases, this is politicised. One can consider the people attacking state capitol buildings for imposing mask mandates and closing shops. These guys aren't informed by science. They're informed by political ideology and a willingness for other people to die so they can continue to sell shit. So when the CDC says something they don't want, they call the CDC crap, irrespective of whether it is or not.
Everyone's a critic, eh? Talk is incredibly cheap when it's not your fucking job. It's like all those wankers who watch a pro sports game and think they know who to pick and what tactics to run better than the team coach/manager. Of course they don't. You can experience this sort of thing by getting a promotion. You might often wonder why the manager didn't just do this, or that. And then when you get the job and bring your idea forwards, quite a lot of the time you find out exactly why they hadn't done it: because you were actually just ignorant of something that made it impractical. Your predecessor, with experience and knowledge of doing the job you didn't have, was not.
So every time you watch a ZDogg MD or Marty Makary blowing hot air, hold that thought in your head: these guys don't actually know a huge amount of the stuff that it takes to run a successful public health campaign. If they were in that ball-clenchingly difficult position of having the lives and deaths of so many people hanging on their decisions, having to weigh up a huge number of factors that they are unaware of as a media gobshite, don't for a minute think they would necessarily come out with the same thing as they do on their social media posts.
The CDC and Fauci are by no means perfect. In many respects they "play safe",
because that is their function. Fauci particularly has a sort of split loyalty: he must on the one hand advance good health policy, and on another retain the confidence of the executive. Hence Fauci's reply to a journalist who asked him why he put up with Trump's bullshit: because he's got a job to do, and he can't do it if he resigns / gets fired, at which point the President potentially gets another 100,000 Americans killed. This is the stuff of the real world, which ZDogg MD and Marty Makary don't have to worry about and don't think about, safe in their little media bubble where theories don't have to meet practicalities.
When we were talking about vaccines, and I said go get your vaccine, one of the things I'm aware of is the public health element that we want immunity, and the more immunised the better. I'm inclined to hold a tough line, to encourage people to get vaccinated. The more people have loopholes, the less people think vaccination is important, the lower the vaccine uptake, and the lower the community protection. The more people swan round saying "I'm not getting vaccinated because..." the more other people decide not to get vaccinated too. Thus in that sense, "following the science" doesn't necessarily achieve public health outcomes, because these sorts of public health outcomes are really about managing public opinions and the attitudes and activities of millions of people, many of whom can be perverse and obstructive. In much the same way, all the understanding in the world of how angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors reduce blood pressure doesn't convince the public to get more exercise and eat less. "Follow the science"
is misunderstanding the task.
Thus whilst I do not have uncritical trust in Fauci and the CDC, I have a great deal of skepticism about the legion of twats criticising them.
Here's why you can't censor information and why scientific "consensus" isn't really a consensus (video all queued up)
Fuck those preening, self-publicising, social media, gobshite rent-a-mouths whose content is driven by a psychological need for attention and wanting more clicks and subscribers ($$$).