this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2026
1278 points (98.9% liked)
Political Memes
12511 readers
1878 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is literally his job. His role is to be a central figure with the medical knowledge and training to be able to understand the reasons for those recommendations and to approve them for dissemination to the general public.
Like every credible medical professional, Fauci is a scientist. Scientists don't deal in absolutes. Ever. With a situation like COVID, where basically every virologist was clamoring to study the thing, there was very little truly provable information around. In that position, you cannot make blanket statements about policy when the foundational data you're working from is not trustworthy.
The choice to obfuscate any information about the origin was done for this reason too. In that position, it is simply unethical to state something as fact when the information you have is unverified. RFK does that shit all the time and every single time it happens, scientists have had to come out and say "No. The thing the secretary of health just stated as fact is untrue and you should not trust it." Maybe it's because I'm old enough to remember what things were like before, but it's fucking insane that the general scientific community has to come out and refute official policy.
And on your last point. Scientists did come out and question many of Fauci's policies. They were removed from social media and in many cases fired.
It's easy to claim majority support when you silence opposing voices.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4
You're stupid
I just want you to know that.
Do you clap with your fingers spread?
Thank you for trying to give a nuanced viewpoint on this. Public health officials aren't saints but somehow because there was a pandemic we have to worship them now? Or hate them? There doesn't seem to be a middle ground.
Easy to forget how much lying and idiocy “both sides” did. The conspiracy theorists may have had crazy theories but they weren't crazy for thinking they were lied to and/or their fundamental rights were threatened.
In France they wilfully oversold vaccines by saying they would stop transmission. When questioned in Parliament the health minister admitted they had no proof for their grandiose claims. Then the opposite happened because people were told they were invincible with the vaccines, but you couldn't go to all the “optional” public places without an insanely priced Chinese-made test from less than X hours ago (X changed a few times) or without proof of vaccination, all this on government controlled databases. This also became the standard restriction for travel for around a year, even for going back to your home country… All that and retirement homes weren't on strict lockdowns for a very long time in 2020, data showing older people were more vulnerable was available early on.
I was paid a lot of money to stick social distancing stickers in public places and there was nothing proving it was of any use: the distancing or the stickers.
A lot of people hated the restrictions because they were hypocritical at best. I couldn't do remote work and was always forced to work in proximity with others anyway. The government made false promises like no loss of salary for anyone catching the virus, that quickly went out the window, I still lost more than 40% of my salary the month I inevitably got it. I got it before vaccines were available and never got it again (got tested a lot, mostly because I was curious): I was still considered like a plague ridden heretic for not wanting to get the vaccines when they decided to force people to get vaccinated and wasn't allowed to do sports outside in a club without paying 40€ or more for a test each time. The first lockdowns I still had to work but I couldn't go for a walk outside more than once a day.
EDIT: oh and in 2020, and until 2022, it was expected to clean and disinfect shared tools and surfaces. Now no one cares! I go through a lot of disinfectant wipes to minimise how dirty my hands get at work, and I shouldn't have to do one pass to remove the black grime then another to disinfect…
I think a lot of it came from the impact of social media algorithms driving people into increasingly polarised groups such that to prove you weren't in 'their' group you had to fervently believe the exact opposite of everything 'they' believed.
Politicians, being politicians, jumped on that and pinned their flags to one group or the other. Meanwhile, health institutions and scientists, not, as you say, magically immune from the influences the rest of us are under, did the same.
But my point is really that they all still just did their job under those circumstances. Not as saints, not as evil masterminds, but as biased, ideologically-blinded, rash, stressed-out, fucked-up, and disillusioned ordinary people. Just like the rest of us.
And some of the ideas coming out of that are going to be fine, some are going to be harmless but annoying, and a few are going to be properly crap. That's how the world is.
What's crazy is seeing everything as black and white.
Exactly. That's his job and he did it. That's it.
As to the obfuscation. He went on the Newt Gingrich podcast and said the idea of a lab origin was a conspiracy theory without any scientific basis eight days after a meeting he had with top scientists at which the majority were of the opinion that it probably was. In what way is that 'not stating something as fact when it's uncertain'?
He'd just come from a meeting where he'd been told it was uncertain, and he stated publicly that believing it amounted to conspiracy theory.
I can't understand why people defend the man. I can't understand why anyone would particularly hate him either. He's just a normal political appointee.