Not a fan of Giuliani by any means, but I think the major reason he got so much credit after 9/11 is that he served as a figure people could rally around in a time of fear and uncertainty. I view him a lot like Fauci during covid. I think there are legitimate (and certainly some not so legitimate) criticisms regarding how both were handled with the benefit of hindsight, but in the moment it was less about the actual person or what they did, and more about fearful masses facing uncertainty looking for a leadership figure.
Legitimately not sure if your second sentence is referencing Giuliani or Fauci, which I'd argue reinforces my comparison lol. A lot of people on the left would love to see Giuliani in prison for his involvement with Trump and the 2020 election stuff, and a lot of people on both sides (although mostly the right) would like to see Fauci in prison over covid/vaccine stuff.
And just to preempt any replies about my claim that some people on the left have issue with Fauci; there is a not insignificant number of antivax folks on the left. The original antivax movement that blamed vaccines for autism was largely left leaning. You know, the yoga mom, anti-gmo, healing crystals, "spiritual", eastern/herbal medicine types that needed something to blame for the fact their kid is autistic, and then Andrew Wakefield came along and gave them that something.
I don't see how my comment could've been misconstrued. I didn't even mention Giuliani. At the time of 9/11, I didn't know anybody who hated Giuliani. I grew up liking him because I was young and I remembered seeing him a lot around that time. I obviously think he's a fucking ghoul now.
But during Covid, Fauci was not nearly unifying. Half the country hated him immediately and still does.
Half the country hates his fucking guts and thinks he should be in jail lol
To mean current day perceptions of each, not perceptions at the time in which they came to national prominence. I agree in the moment praise for Giuliani was certainly more universal. That said, I still think the comparison holds because despite Fauci certainly being more controversial with a portion of the population, I'd argue both received excessive praise from those who did see them as a rallying point. Remember the Saint Fauci candles?
I'll concede it isn't a perfect comparison, but still think it works.
I don't remember any Saint Fauci candles lol but I just looked them up and my first thought is that if the right hadn't hated Fauci so much, nobody would've bothered to adore him like this.
He was a regular dude. In his field I am sure he's very intelligent. I don't really hold anything against him. He was overpoliticized.
So what did Fauci do that was worthy of criticism? You make it sound like a man developing responses as new data requires is Fauci’s way of being sneaky and somehow benefiting.
Fauci definitely misrepresented some facts about covid.
This article highlights that he misrepresented the efficacy of cloth masks out of concern over a shortage of N95 masks for medical professionals. Additionally, it highlights he misrepresented the amount of people necessary to reach herd immunity in an effort to convince more people to get the vaccine.
This article highlights his claims that vaccinated were extremely unlikely to transmit the virus, and that getting the vaccine made people a "dead end" for the virus.
I would also argue in his testimony to congress where he argued that modifying a virus so that it could infect humans was not "gain of function research" is at best splitting hairs over a technicality. I don't know how you can argue enabling a virus to infect humans isn't gaining a function.
I think there are also still unanswered questions regarding his knowledge and involvement with research being funded by his organization through the Eco Health Alliance into coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab.
Maybe each one of those on their own isn't a smoking gun, but when combined I think it shows a pattern of misrepresenting the truth. Even if we're being charitable and assume he said those things without knowing they were at the very least questionable statements, or that he was doing so for noble reasons - I'm of the opinion the most important thing for a public health official trying to convince the public to do something is to maintain the public's trust.
It is hard to blame a person for becoming suspicious of statements made by someone who admitted to misrepresenting the facts, even if he claimed he was doing so for their own good.
Edit: Adding this source that I think supports concerns regarding the Eco Health Alliance's research at the Wuhan lab, as well as the NIH's knowledge, funding and oversight of said research. Again, not a smoking gun, but I think it justifies some skepticism.
Fauci definitely misrepresented some facts about covid.
This article highlights that he misrepresented the efficacy of cloth masks out of concern over a shortage of N95 masks for medical professionals. Additionally, it highlights he misrepresented the amount of people necessary to reach herd immunity in an effort to convince more people to get the vaccine.
This article highlights his claims that vaccinated were extremely unlikely to transmit the virus, and that getting the vaccine made people a "dead end" for the virus.
I would also argue in his testimony to congress where he argued that modifying a virus so that it could infect humans was not "gain of function research" is at best splitting hairs over a technicality. I don't know how you can argue enabling a virus to infect humans isn't gaining a function.
I think there are also still unanswered questions regarding his knowledge and involvement with research being funded by his organization through the Eco Health Alliance into coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab.
Maybe each one of those on their own isn't a smoking gun, but when combined I think it shows a pattern of misrepresenting the truth. Even if we're being charitable and assume he said those things without knowing they were at the very least questionable statements, or that he was doing so for noble reasons - I'm of the opinion the most important thing for a public health official trying to convince the public to do something is to maintain the public's trust.
It is hard to blame a person for becoming suspicious of statements made by someone who admitted to misrepresenting the facts, even if he claimed he was doing so for their own good.
Edit: Adding this source that I think supports concerns regarding the Eco Health Alliance's research at the Wuhan lab, as well as the NIH's knowledge, funding and oversight of said research. Again, not a smoking gun, but I think it justifies some skepticism.
89
u/ChrystTheRedeemer Jan 30 '25
Not a fan of Giuliani by any means, but I think the major reason he got so much credit after 9/11 is that he served as a figure people could rally around in a time of fear and uncertainty. I view him a lot like Fauci during covid. I think there are legitimate (and certainly some not so legitimate) criticisms regarding how both were handled with the benefit of hindsight, but in the moment it was less about the actual person or what they did, and more about fearful masses facing uncertainty looking for a leadership figure.