I appreciate the effort to provide some context, but I think you're giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt here. He said:
“If you have goggles or an eye shield, you should use it,”
When asked if eye protection will become a formal recommendation at some point, he said, “It might, if you really want perfect protection of the mucosal surfaces.”
He said "you should" wear goggles, even if he qualified it with if you have them. Then when asked if they might become a formal recommendation, he could and should have said no. But he deliberately leaves the door open that it could become a formal recommendation, and we've all seen that his formal recommendations don't stay voluntary for long.
I think the creeping authoritarianism here is what is concerning. Every step of the way, we are told, oh it's just x, or it's just a theoretical recommendation at this point. Yeah, well, theoretical recommendations have a way of becoming authoritarian mandates real quick lately. We're on Day 100 something of 15 days to flatten the curve. We've gone from Fraudci in May saying people should not wear masks, to now we're overrun with Mask Nazis.
I think you're being naive if you don't take these concerns seriously and if you don't see Fraudci for the snake that he is.
I feel like you just said the same thing I did but with more words. I agree with you completely, not sure where the disconnect is.
The New York Post wrote an article and others did similar, with a headline similar to "Fauci wants Americans to wear goggles for complete safety"
Those headlines and posts are meant to imply that he said everyone should wear goggles. I'm specifically saying that he never urged ALL Americans to go out and buy and wear goggles as Twitter and MSM implied after he gave the interview.
People in high risk groups probably should wear face shields or goggles, it's not breaking news or anything.
I get what you're saying. I think maybe the difference is more that with Fraudci, I'm not looking at only what he is saying at literal face value, because I know that he is a snake. I'm interpreting what he says as usually concealing a sinister political motive. His mention of goggles I think is a testing of the waters of sorts.
I appreciate the effort to provide some context, but I think you're giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt here. He said:
“If you have goggles or an eye shield, you should use it,”
When asked if eye protection will become a formal recommendation at some point, he said, “It might, if you really want perfect protection of the mucosal surfaces.”
He said "you should" wear goggles, even if he qualified it with if you have them. Then when asked if they might become a formal recommendation, he could and should have said no. But he deliberately leaves the door open that it could become a formal recommendation, and we've all seen that his formal recommendations don't stay voluntary for long.
I think the creeping authoritarianism here is what is concerning. Every step of the way, we are told, oh it's just x, or it's just a theoretical recommendation at this point. Yeah, well, theoretical recommendations have a way of becoming authoritarian mandates real quick lately. We're on Day 100 something of 15 days to flatten the curve. We've gone from Fraudci in May saying people should not wear masks, to now we're overrun with Mask Nazis.
I think you're being naive if you don't take these concerns seriously and if you don't see Fraudci for the snake that he is.
I feel like you just said the same thing I did but with more words. I agree with you completely, not sure where the disconnect is.
The New York Post wrote an article and others did similar, with a headline similar to "Fauci wants Americans to wear goggles for complete safety"
Those headlines and posts are meant to imply that he said everyone should wear goggles. I'm specifically saying that he never urged ALL Americans to go out and buy and wear goggles as Twitter and MSM implied after he gave the interview.
People in high risk groups probably should wear face shields or goggles, it's not breaking news or anything.
I get what you're saying. I think maybe the difference is more that with Fraudci, I'm not looking at only what he is saying at literal face value, because I know that he is a snake. I'm interpreting what he says as usually concealing a sinister political motive. His mention of goggles I think is a testing of the waters of sorts.
It could be, I don't disagree with you on that at all. He is a piece of shit who should have been sidelined as soon as this whole thing started.