That is the point. You don't get to tell "white lies", then be incensed that the public doesn't believe your future statements. Your credibility isn't something you can turn on and off like a light switch at will. Credibility is something that others bestow on your because of your actions - it isn't something you can demand of them. You can tell a white lie if you think you're serving some greater purpose. But understand you're burning down not only your credibility, but also the credibility of public science officials in general. Someone should have asked if it was worth the trade. To tell lies and then be shocked when people start to question your veracity? What immature nonsense.
I tend to agree with you, and have stated on this forum that scientists should not be manipulating the truth in order to obtain specific effects. However, you seemed to be implying that this was a scientific error or Fauci's part. It was not; it was a deliberate white lie told to obtain a specific effect, at a time when there was a shortage of masks.
The real cause of the shortage of masks was lack of preparation. In Taiwan, they massively ramped up mask production at the first hint of a pandemic. In the West, we were too dozy to do likewise.
In the US, the shortage was in part due to the Trump administration closing down a project set up by the Obama administration to produce a high output N95 mask making machine specifically for pandemic preparedness.
Please. Fauci was squashing the lab leak theory because it implicated him and his funding of gain of function research at WIV. People are not so naive as to not understand this.
That's an assumption on your part. Everyone was denying the lab leak theory at the early stages of the pandemic, including the media, politicians and many scientists. Don't tell me the media were also implicated in gain of function research, or had vested interests in discounting the lab leak theory.
Of course, possibly Fauci might have had the gain of function research in mind when he threw cold water on the lab leak theory. But Fauci's opinion on the lab leak theory was in line with everyone else's views at the time.
In any case, the error Fauci and the NIH was not really about funding gain of function research. This may have been a good idea, depending on the specifics of the safety precautions employed. The whole point of gain of function research is to try identify the next virus which may cause a major pandemic — before that virus has a chance to jump into humans. That way, entire pandemics can be avoided. It's thus ironic that gain of function research caused this pandemic (if it indeed did), given that the research is intended to prevent pandemics.
Rather, I think the error Fauci and his team made was to fail to realise how sloppy the safety practises are at Chinese labs. This sloppiness is most likely how the virus escaped the lab, if it indeed did escape. However, it might have been difficult to get reliable info about safety practises at the lab, since of course during any official visit or inspections of the lab, you can expect the staff to follow procedures. But lazy staff may get careless at other times, and not follow biosafety regulations religiously.
China has managed to pollute a massive 20% of the soil of its arable land with heavy metals during the last 40 years of industrialisation. This is extremely sloppy, as China has now rendered a lot of its arable land unsuitable for farming. And it think it will be near impossible to remove these heavy metals economically, so this is an environmental disaster. With such sloppiness endemic in Chinese activities, the West should in future be very cautious about Chinese biosafety practices.
In any case, the blame for this should not just fall on Fauci or the NIH. It was British zoologist Peter Daszak's organisation EcoHealth Alliance which was in charge of the gain of function research in China. The NIH provided funding to EcoHealth Alliance, but as I understand it, the NIH not involved in the research itself. Why was Daszak not more aware of the Chinese sloppiness?
The US Pentagon apparently had previously blocked funding for some of Daszak's gain of function research, on safety grounds.
Of course, as is well-known, Daszak got all his scientist friends to sign a letter to the Lancet journal discounting the lab leak hypothesis. That to me looks more like a coverup.
If it's all about "the science" then a lab leak was always a reasonable theory as a potential source.
It's reasonable to keep the lab leak theory in mind, yes; it's not however reasonable for the public to assert that it must be true, especially during the early phase of the pandemic, when there was no evidence for it. It's never reasonable to state something is true when there is not evidence.
The lab leak theory only started gaining traction when no natural reservoir of coronaviruses in an animal species could be found, that might have jumped into humans to create the COVID pandemic. Unlike in the case of the earlier SARS and MERS epidemics, where the natural animal reservoir was identified, demonstrating that human SARS and MERS jumped from animals.
Only after around a year or so into the pandemic, when no animal reservoir was found in spite of extensive searching, did the lab leak theory start to look more plausible.
It's not that I enjoy it so much as it is so easy to do. Literally like shooting fish in a barrel.
As far as your criticizing the general public - there is certainly criticism aplenty to go around, I just find it somewhat annoying that you let these public officials and your beloved intellectuals so completely off the hook. And I would certainly never call for your banning or prosecution because of your position.
But it does show your own biases: you are gung ho about criticising any public officials and their views and opinions. Not just you, but many on this forum.
But you have a soft spot for the often crazy ideas and opinions that emerge from the general public, which you accept with little or no criticism. That makes no sense to me.
In terms of letting public officials off the hook: generally speaking, I don't see systematic incompetence coming from the public officials (politicians and scientists) involved in the pandemic. In most cases, 99% of their decisions were good; and I am not going to condemn an individual for the occasional mistake made here and there, as we are all human, and the pandemic was a very trying circumstance. Generally speaking, the officials are intelligent people doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. So these officials have not done much wrong in the first place. I thus don't have to let them off the hook, as they are innocent (even if angry and vindictive members of the public think otherwise).
By contrast, we see such lunacy emerging from some sections of the general public. Now much of the general public are sane and sensible, and so I am not going to tar the whole of the public with the same brush. But during the pandemic you had certain sections of the public holding and promoting the most moronic ideas and opinions.
So in comparison, the public officials seem infinitely more intelligent and competent than these moronic sections of the public. That's why I believe criticism of the moronic sections of public is warranted. I think foolishness should always be called out. I don't have the soft spot for public foolishness that you and others on this forum seem to have.
Edited by Hip, 19 December 2022 - 06:40 PM.
