The government said, at first, that nobody needed to go out and buy masks, because they won't do any good. And then the government said you had to wear a mask or you couldn't enter into buildings.

Now, the reasoning for the former was that they were concerned about PPE supplies, but that doesn't change the fact they reversed themselves very shortly, and expected people to forget the earlier messaging.

The government didn't need to be an oracle with a perfect track record, but I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that they should have been honest. If you can't see how the pandemic was used for political purposes, I don't know what to say.

Everyone thought that covid spread via touch back then. remember all the hand sanitizer and UV lights? then we learned that it was mostly airborne

This goes back to the comment you replied to. The government can't give perfect hindsight advice at the beginning of any situation. it seems like your complaint here is "science isn't perfect"

> “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”

It seems to me from this excerpt of his email to a colleague on February 5, 2020, Fauci really did not think masks were effective initially.

This was the medical community's censuses at the time. Turns out now we know that this hinged on a few misunderstandings and generalizations, and have turned that corner. But at the time it was the best information we had:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...

I think you are reading way more into my response than I wrote. I literally rephrased a position specifically about the government's communication of booster shots in the form of a question highlighting the illogical portion of the position.

* I have not made and continue to not make any statements regarding mask communication, nor about reports on reasoning for that.

* I am not engaging in nor countering absurd conspiracy theories

* I am not broadcasting my feelings and thoughts on political purposes and what I do or do not see to you, so I don't know why you think you are capable of surmising what I can and cannot see.

* I do find hilarious how very angry you are that I pointed a logical inconsistency.

Your response inferred something from the OP that was clearly never implied. Nobody expects perfect knowledge of the future, and suggesting the OP was asking for that is (charitably) a snarky way of pointing out a logical inconsistency.

But pointing out the the messaging from the government has been, at best, muddled--and at worst, misleading, if not downright dishonest--you interpret as "anger"? I find that pretty disingenuous. You are again inferring that which is not implied.

It is the they don't do any good communication that is irresponsible. There was already evidence otherwise that they ignored, and the rest of the statement was based on zero evidence.

Nope. The government knew the vaccines were getting less effective back in september. They knew everyone would eventually need a booster. If they had put in a plan to get that done, I wouldn't have had a problem.

As things stood? The CDC basically said 'you should get a booster only if you're high risk'. They went back and forth over whether to recommend it to the general public for the longest time. This lead to a lot of confusion, and a lot of folks essentially shrugged and went on with their life. If they had been consistent with messaging a much higher percentage of the population would currently be boosted.

I'd appreciate if the government could just predict the future as well as hacker news. It doesn't need to be perfect. Look, they're gonna tell us to get booster again in 2022. I know it. You probably know it. Everybody knows it. Why haven't the CDC said it?