[danfang]

I agree. Intense political pressure from half of the country would have immense negative consequences on whatever Fauci would try to accomplish. He would have instantly lost any credibility with half of Americans who listen primarily to Trump.

If Fauci divorced himself from Trump, and the two took opposite stances on masks, can we really conclusively say the public would be more willing to listen to the truth about masks? By playing "both sides" he gets to have greater influence, maybe not in the medical community, but certainly on the public at large.

If Trump took a harder stance on HCHQ and replaced Fauci with someone who was also pro HCHQ, do you think the public would be more likely to listen to Fauci who took an opposite stance?

[the-dude]

Which truth?

[danfang]

If we take the premise of the article, that Trump was anti-mask and Fauci was pro-mask (although slower than we would have liked, either by mistake or by political pressure) - I'm referring to the truth being pro-mask, what Fauci, the WHO, and the CDC ended up advocating for.

[the-dude]

See my sibling comment, our government and our Fauci's were strongly anti-mask too.

The article, and this site is very US centric. The issue is much broader ( and/or deeper ).