People I know who know him say he's good people. But I didn't like press them as to why.

He was never in charge of response, right? Research and vaccines, but not response. He got his profile because he was the most respected health person left standing in the Trump administration (being the ultimate bureaucratic survivor), and that made some sense when the overall Trump response was a joke, under Kushner or Pence or whoever. But now the media analyzes his every breath.

Biden's put a guy named Zients in charge of response now who seems pretty capable. I wish we were learning more about him.

Haven't read the linked piece yet, but bureaucrats gonna bureaucrat. I'm pretty skeptical of the "grownups in the room" thesis, but I think Fauci deservedly emerges from the Trump administration with his reputation intact.

He's been director of NIAID since 1984. Is this the type of job where it's just your career and so of course you stay put, or is this the type of role where the institution can't change and grow properly with one single person in charge for 38 years?

I've heard nothing but good about his running of NIAID.
Similarly Collins has managed to remain NIH director through Obama-Trump-Biden, before which he led NHGRI for 15 years. Some controversy at NIH regarding diversity of awards but nothing that would push him out.
Lander, OTOH, would not survive multiple administrations and parties as a bureaucrat.

5: Lander sounds difficult.

Apollo would be a great first name.

Anyway, buy on rumour, sell on news.

Wrong thread.

I thought that reddit got into political betting sites. Short Garland! Long Fauci! Pump and dump Rahm!

I read this elsewhere and I am intrigued by the idea that a movement would have somehow sprung up around Fauci if he'd only left. How would this have worked? Is Fauci the type of person who can charisma a movement into being? Was there a movement waiting to crystallize? What would this movement have done? I mean, calling the White House switchboard wasn't going to do much; was there going to be a general strike? How would this putative movement-growth compare to the growth of DSA? How would the timeline compare to the timeline of AIDS activism? How would the timeline compare to the largest mutual aid projects?

Popular power ultimately comes from fear of the populace. If you're lucky and live in a good society, you've gotten to the point where everyone has decided "hey, let's just take it as read that there could be an angry mob, so instead of having angry mobs let's have voting and city council meetings and comment periods". If your society has basically lost the fear of the populace, you have to water the good old tree of liberty with blood, so to speak, hopefully by using methods more like strikes and the not-actually-killing-people-on-purpose kind of riot rather than by, eg, killing people. If your society won't budge because the government is corrupt and intractable, only really dedicated organizing and commitment is going to get the government to move.

So anyway. To my mind, there was nothing that Fauci could have done from the outside, and indeed his reach would have been diminished because he would not have been on the news every day. Believing otherwise suggests that folks are not familiar with the actual process by which movements come into being - the heavier the lift, the longer it takes and the harder the work. "Totally change the Trump administration's approach to covid" would be a very, very heavy lift and we are damn lucky that we were able to elect Biden, flawed though he is.

I agree there's not much he could have done from the outside. It's pretty clear that pointing out Trump is fucking something up is not even close to part of a solution. Too many people don't care or actively want the fuck up.

The author's counterfactual in Heebie's chosen paragraph made me splutter. The claim there is that Fauci and the medical community would be more effective opponents of Trumpism than the intelligence community, who watched a Russian asset in the white house with the information to discredit it at their fingertips. Mmmm-hmmm.

Maybe these times call for a public figure who can kind of personify medical science? As a culture, we're clearly developing an affinity for cartoony outsize personas. Having him onscreen as he has been, seems at worst benign, and IMO is actually positive. Bulk vaccines are coming and soon, having someone knowledgeable with a personality repeat that for the cameras seems worthwhile.

Institute directors at NIH have a lot of influence over the direction that science takes, partly by supporting direct initiatives with funds. As far as I know, Fauci's made good choices without creating a favored in-group who get resources and set direction. I don't know that much aside from summaries of Shilts' book about his choices during the AIDS crisis-- I know he was faulted for prioritizing research leading to better knowledge later over resources for immediate treatment. Learning the story behind the development of the first retrovirals would be worth doing.

I'm kind of curious how Fauci's role will involve now that the CDC is less politicized. Fauci has known Rochelle Walensky for a while. I think they're friends, and I wouldn't be surprised if he suggested her for the job. She's an HIV cost effecfiveness researcher. Usually an HHS secretary gets confirmed and they hire a new CDC director, but we obviously needed a change right away.

The post title keeps making me smile. That's all due to J, Robot.

One thing about the Fauci-told-us-not-to-wear-masks is that it was so *long* ago that the advice switched. April 3. We'd been in lockdown two weeks at that point and I had already ordered a set of cloth masks from a friend because we were watching the news articles start their slow trickle of 'maybe masks are a good idea' in March. Utah had a "mask for every Utahn" campaign... in April. The pro-mask messaging was pretty clear very early in the U.S. story and didn't have a damned thing to do with people being oh-so-confused-in-July about whether there should be mask mandates. So, yeah, Fauci was wrong not to tell us to wear masks two weeks before the official advice was to wear masks.

And the idea that Fauci resigning and... not being near any research or access would give him.... more credibility and influence. I mean, how often does that work out? We already have conservatives losing their mind over CDC masking conspiracies; I can't see how Fauci becoming overtly political would have done anything except make them say 'see, and Trump fired him' and probably try to inject bleach.

I feel like a civilian Fauci would have had about as much influence as, say, Andy Slavitt. Not much value added.

15: I heard someone else say their kid was calling the vaccines "Fauci ouchies," and thought that was awesome.

Fauci's decisions during the pandemic deserve as much critical scrutiny as those of anyone else in top public health roles. At the same time, the public clearly needs information and guidance from public figures that they can trust, and insofar as Fauci is playing that role that's a good thing.

Fer f*ck's sake, the public is frequently misinformed, and is very often and very easily manipulated. Why go after Dr. Fauci (an honest and faithful public servant), for the love of Christ? Sorry, but just not feeling the 'critical scrutiny' vibe here...

Wasn't about 90% of Fauci's popularity due to making the "holy shit, this guy is a fucking idiot" face that one time while Trump was speaking? He was us, and it made us feel good.

Ah, I see that's mentioned in the piece, but that's such a thesis looking for an argument that I didn't finish it.

I don't think Fauci's quite the secular saint everyone would like him to be, but he's done excellent work at NIAID. He oversaw work to turn AIDS into a manageable, chronic condition, played a key role in PEPFAR, and has driven priorities and funding to endemic diseases in developing countries. He did a good job as a bureaucrat ensuring that money to combat bioterrorists came to NIAID, continuing its importance within NIH even as AIDS research funding started to diminish. Remember that NIAID was partnered with Moderna with their clinical trials (and, I think, manufacturing) while Fauci was being the "adult in the room." He threw a lot of resources where he could. I can't blame him for the mask thing - in infectious disease, we've gotten used to thinking about protecting health care providers and lab workers to the greatest extent possible, which it turns out was essentially backwards. He's also from a generation of paternalistic physicians, which I'm sure plays into it. Plus, public health still seems to be to be a field where risk mitigation isn't taken seriously enough, very all or nothing.

Overall, he'a done great good during his tenure. He and Collins are the reason NIH enjoys strong bipartisan support. I think they are falling down in serving so long, though. It is normal for someone to hold onto a position for a long time, as in academia, but it would be nice if these VIPs would step back to emeritus status to continue their work but allow someone else to lead.

A tiny bit of dull gossip: if Fauci were terrible, or even not very good, I'm pretty sure I'd have heard it from my old advisor. I know EXACTLY how he feels about Lander, and I enjoyed imagining his reaction to the appointment. Old advisor would be an amazing replacement for Fauci when he does retire, but I cannot imagine him ever managing to be as politically savvy.

Another post about the cycles of fashion? This time focusing on the return of mindless contrarianism?

19: By "critical scrutiny," I mean that it's appropriate to assess all aspects of pandemic response, not that anyone needs to pile on or demonize Fauci. As I said in the OP, I think the author is off base on a lot of this, but the overall question of "did Fauci do a good job, given his constraints," is worth asking.

In the crazed condition we all have been left in due to the events of the last year or so it is hard to know what is best to say. Like everybody I had many conflicting thoughts on what people like Fauci should do or say* (much less so about a political horse's ass like Birx). All of this is in fact quite nuanced and arguable--what is it best to do in a worldwide pandemic? How realpolitik should one be? What should be focused on? Hard questions every one. I do not have an answer, but I am pretty goddamn sure that trying to thread the needle on Fauci good or bad is not the right thing at this juncture. Over-valorization of individuals in times of great stress is certainly an issue (see also, Ginsburg, Mueller) but not sure how it is best addressed. (and its flip side over demonization** is not very productive either.) For instance I am massively bemused (and of course, not surprised) at the glee and relish with which the Politico/ Ken Vogel types are highlighting the quotidian hypocrisies and foibles of the current administration for instance. We're so fucking even-handed, look at us as we give Biden shit for not having public appearances over the weekend even though he promised his admin would be working non-stop on the multiple crises facing us (but not so fast on the exec orders, chum). Whatever we nedd tha tis not it.

*Extends to many career folks in the Federal government throughout the last administration.

**Guilty as charged! Even in this very comment.

22: I'm glad you weighed in! Originally, I had just planned to send this to you at the Other Place to see what you thought, and then I decided it was worth hearing from the entire Unfoggedariat and might as well be a guest post.

Anyone else want to join me in picking on the author's annoyance of Fauci's public support of the purported science/politics divide?

25: I'm definitely open to the position that *now* is not the right time to have this discussion. I mainly wanted to share this because, despite many flaws, it was the first non-right wing critical take I had personally seen regarding Fauci.

Relatedly, I am in an email group of folks from DFH college which is expressly organized around non-political common interest. But of course the pandemic (and politics) comes up. It has not completely blown up yet due to the main "moderator" being a really patient individual with mad defusing skillz but some on it have routinely infuriated me over the past year. (DFH alums, but male, older, generally quite well off).

The latest was prompted by someone linking to this NEJM editorial from a few months back, "Dying in a Leadership Vacuum". Most sympathetic, but the contrarians* have invoked Robin "Fucking" Hanson, and the great triumph of the admin not managing to fuck up the development of vaccines. Was it bad that the top leadership of this country addressed a pandemic in a way that led to a significant chunk of the population demonizing and terrorizing every public health official who tried to do their jobs? Who knows? Only history will tell.

*Read villainous smart people trying to cover their asses from what they absolutely fucking know are completely abhorrent and dangerous political positions.

27: Yes, as I said I am somewhat torn. I am less worried about what we discuss than what other people do.....

In conclusion, discourse is a land of many contrast.

||
Does everyone realize that the motherfucking US Senate has still not approved new Organizing Rules so Republican's are still charge of committees? And that is causing things like delays in getting Merrick Garland approved for Attorney General.
|>

No, no. You misunderstood. They brought a Unity Covid Relief budget to Biden because they're full of love now.

30: And just as I go back to twitter after having written that I see a TPM piece that the vote will be today.

"Unity" is the new "Folk."

Unity Coup.

34 would be funnier except that is almost literally the Republican approach to all of this.

26: Thanks!

I think it is completely fair to evaluate Fauci's performance, and in many cases with the prior administration, I thought it would be more ethical to resign than continue. In Fauci's case, this evaluation severely underestimates the actual powers at his disposal. I don't know about the CDC, but their response was a clear disaster, and I'm not sure what Redfield should have done if he were an ethical person who cared about public health. Same for the FDA. I just don't have the information. I have more info about what Fauci could accomplish in his position, and a good guess about what he could have done if he left (basically, motivate protestors and possibly advise state governments who have their own public health officials and epidemiologists - he's not going to have an independently funded lab or any resources to make a meaningful difference).

Emphasizing the myth of the nonpartisan nature of science is (I think) entirely reasonable and helpful. Remember the saying "reality has a liberal bias?" When topics that are nominally scientific problems become politicized (climate change, masks, guns and public health), they're even harder to solve. Does everyone remember that in the late 1980s, 85% of people believed climate change was real? Nothing fundamental about the data and conclusions has changed, and the evidence is increasingly clear. AIDS, on the other hand, started out extremely partisan and moved into nonpartisan. It's certainly the approach of a realist (imagine if your funding whiplashed with every change in control of Congress), but I think it's really important to maintain the myth.

36: The FDA looks like a mixed bag. Approving hydroxychloroquine was bad. Thorough review of the vaccines was good. Not enough research on therapeutics, to be sure. But I don't know enough about the situation to have an informed opinion.

but I think it's really I,portent to maintain the myth.

So long as we can be honest among friends that it's a myth. It's even more of a myth with regard to public health than basic science.

Every time I hear someone say, "It's not politics; it's science." I roll my eyes inside. I mean, I think it's more important to have kids in school than have bars open, but that's a value judgment. Similarly, a real libertarian could say that they value their right to go maskless and don't care if they infect others or die. A belief that we should care about public health and that we have a duty to others in our community is inherently a value-based judgment and political.

Honestly, I like bars more than children but I think you can open the schools if careful, but the bars can't really be safe because all the good parts are vectors or facilitate vectorhood.

But if there were any way to open the bars safely by keeping the schools closed, then it would be a tough call.

38: That it's important to keep people safe and not overrun our healthcare system is a value judgment.

39: Exactly.

37.2/3: I guess at the end of the day, science can't make people care about public health or global warming, but the science on some politically charged issues is clear and unambiguous. (Needle exchanges save lives. Treating multiply drug resistant TB in poor countries is economically better than not treating.) If someone doesn't care enough to want to think harm reduction in their community (literally saving lives) is important, no science is going to convince them, but then I don't think anything will. I don't particularly hate the slogan, either, FWIW.

"Unity" is the new "Folk."

heh.

Unpossible means UNITY IS POSSIBLE.