Replacing Fauci with someone more scientific and less political would probably qualify.
Fauci is one of the most qualified and well respected scientist in the field - who had worked for democrat and republican presidents alike.
Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view? How would you assess this?
Right, and he politicized the response to COVID-19 and we don't care if he used to be awesome, we want someone who will put evidence over politics.
> Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view?
Probably someone who would be more evidence oriented. I don't have a short list.
> How would you assess this?
By comparing their public statements and actions with those of other physicians, immunologists, and the evidence.
I'm not convinced that its technically correct to call Bannon a terrorist or call his words a threat. So your hyperbole has estopped your criticism of Bannon's hyperbole.
> So your meet in the middle position is, just to be clear,
My meet in the middle position is that a scientist needs to be evidence-based and open to the possibility of his own error. I was disappointed in how Fauci handled the diversity of opinion and the mask issue. He went on the cover of In Style magazine and vainly refused to wear a mask. Masks are important and this magazine cover is seen by millions yet he declined the opportunity to set a proper example.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
I've long been convinced that this is true, thanks.
By putting politics over science.
> "an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984"
His resume means no one in the professional world is more scientific? He couldn't have possibly put politics over science because he has degrees and a job?
> Seriously, do you even pay attention to what you regurgitate?
I'm not sure why you're so confident but its entirely possible for scientists to play politics.
Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"?