Fauci would have pushed for ‘much more stringent restrictions’ if he knew then what he knows now

by ian

Ian Patrick, FISM News

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci said in a recent interview that he would have pushed for “much, much more stringent restrictions” during the lockdown period in 2020 had he known then what he knows about the virus now.

Mere days after the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director and White House Coronavirus Adviser admitted that the U.S. is approaching “a steady state,” Fauci went on The Hill’s “Rising” program to discuss the recent dominant strain of COVID-19 as well as the worldwide concern over monkeypox.

During this interview, co-host Batya Ungar-Sargon asked Dr. Fauci about what he would have done differently regarding COVID-19 prevention measures.

“We know so much more now than we did in March of 2020,” Ungar-Sargon said. “I’m wondering if you could go back to March of 2020 and start over with the pandemic response, what would you do differently?”

“If I went back to 2020 and knew what I knew in 2020, I wouldn’t do much differently,” Fauci said. “If I knew in 2020 what I know now, we would do a lot differently,” he added.

Fauci mentioned that he and other doctors weren’t completely certain about how COVID-19 was spreading during the early stages of the pandemic. He said that they now know information that would have changed his approach, including that anywhere from “50 to 60% of the transmission occurs from someone without symptoms.”

Using this point, Fauci said that he would have pushed for a stricter lockdown.

Had we known that [asymptomatic cases would be a concern] then, the insidious nature of spread in the community would have been much more of an alarm. And there would have been much, much more stringent restrictions in the sense of very, very heavy encouraging people to wear masks, physical distancing, or what have you. We also were not fully aware as we are now that this virus is spread by aerosol spread, which we did not fully realize at the time. There were some hints of that. So again, there are a lot of things, had we had the knowledge that we had now, that we would have done a bit differently.

After this point, “Rising” co-host Robby Soave asked Dr. Fauci his opinions on current restrictions like masking and whether or not they are worthwhile.

Fauci referenced a map on the CDC website which shows the level of viral circulation nationwide. In areas of high transmission and circulation, Fauci said “the CDC would recommend strongly that you wear a mask in a congregate indoor setting.”

“And that would include schools, places of work, anything that brings people together in a closed environment. That is good public health practice,” Fauci said, before clarifying that “the CDC doesn’t mandate anything.”

Even so, Fauci said that the masking issue was something he also would do differently if he could go back to 2020. He admitted that cloth masks were not as effective as he once thought, but claimed that current data shows “that masks are very good at preventing both the acquisition of and the transmission of infection.”

Suggesting the use of N95 or KN95 masks, he said “we are very clear that masks do work in prevention of acquisition and transmission. But you got to get a well-fitted mask that has of a high quality.”

He was also pushed by Ungar-Sargon about why natural immunity “was never taken seriously” and if that would be considered an error. At this suggestion, Fauci appeared defensive and stated that he and others “were always aware that if you get infected you have a degree of protection against reinfection.”

He added that he now understands “that the protection against natural infection, as well as vaccination, wanes over a period of time.” He then reiterated his position that natural immunity combined with vaccination is “much better” than either protection by itself.

Addressing the cohost directly, Fauci said the question was “not fair” because of the dynamic nature of COVID-19.

These [vaccines and natural immunity] were all things that evolved in our understanding of them because we are indeed dealing with a moving target. And there was a lot of back and forth and criticisms and things that you were, I believe, referring to in your question to me, that in many respects is not fair. Because if you have a stable, static target then you can start talking about what your approach, what your recommendation was, was it right or wrong. But when that target continues to change with new variants that elude protection, both from prior infection as well as from vaccination, then you have to move along and be flexible and open-minded enough to deal with what you’re dealing with in the real world is a very elusive target.

Multiple studies suggest that natural immunity did, in fact, provide comparatively better protection against reinfection of COVID-19 than vaccination. Even the CDC published a study this year that examined cases from May to November of 2021, noting that “persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.”

Soave clarified that the question revolves more around the idea that there is “an openness to discussion and debate” around the CDC and its response to the virus.

Fauci said he has definitely heard criticism about the administration’s response and claimed that he “always had an open mind to the comments of the community.” He said people’s criticisms were taken “seriously” to see if he can “learn and do better,” noting it was “sometimes outlandish” but that it could still contain a “kernel of truth.”

DONATE NOW