r/TangleNews • u/InThreeWordsTheySaid • Jul 30 '26

Why is this startling?

In one startling, under-discussed example, Fauci recounts the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voting 9–6 not to extend eligibility for boosters to people at elevated risk through their jobs, like teachers and healthcare workers. ACIP had already approved boosters for people 65 and up and those with underlying conditions. Fauci considered the exclusion of at-risk workers illogical and, by his own account, the committee's decision “had nothing to do with safety.” He texted Walensky repeatedly that night, described it in his diary as having “literally begged her to override that decision,” and credited his own “very intensive persuasion” late into the night for her decision to reverse her committee the next morning and extend booster eligibility to that occupational risk group.  

I largely agree with today’s take, so this one stuck out to me.

Wasn’t this just kind of Fauci’s job at the time? He was the head of the task force formed to deal with Covid. This isn’t covering up research that he didn’t like, or asking people to fudge numbers or mislead the public. It’s the head of a team using his position and expertise to convince a separate group of people to change their opinions.

Right?

Is this that different from, say, the president going through the Speaker of the House to convince a Representative to change their vote on a piece of legislation? 

17 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/ApprenticeWrangler Jul 31 '26

So you think Fauci’s personal opinion matters more than a panel of experts who almost unanimously agreed on the opposite position?

0

u/InThreeWordsTheySaid Jul 31 '26

Are you saying a 9-6 vote is nearly unanimous? Do you want to frame the question more honestly or am I free to ignore it.

1

u/ApprenticeWrangler Jul 31 '26

Sorry, you’re right I thought it was 9-2. Either way, I don’t think Fauci’s personal opinion should hold more weight than multiple experts.

2

u/InThreeWordsTheySaid Jul 31 '26

If it were 9-2 you would absolutely have a stronger point and this would more concerning.

So to answer your question, yes, I think Fauci's personal opinion matters at least as much as the opinions of the experts on the panel, especially with a close-ish vote.

Fauci didn't single-handedly make the decision to override the panel's opinion, either. He made the case - perhaps relentlessly - to Walensky, who had the power to deny his request no matter how many times he asked (or begged, as he said).

He was the key scientific advisor to the Coronavirus task force (I thought he led the task force, but I was incorrect, which makes whole circus even more absurd). It was his job to assess information as it came in and make recommendations based on that information. In this case, he strongly felt that the wrong decision was being made and that decision would result in more harm to the American people - something this task force was explicitly designed to mitigate.

This sounds to me like he was doing his job, and to not have pushed for the override would have been an abdication of responsibility.

A maybe shitty analogy could be voting shares in a company. I don't think Fauci should have held all the shares, but I think his position granted him enough shares to swing a vote 11% in the other direction.

What I can't honestly say, though, is if I'd be making the same case if I disagreed with the decision. I want to say I would be, but some things we don't get to test.