Fauci’s Skewed Version of Cost-Benefit Analysis

Latest Polls (view all)

Under the cover of Covid, and now in the shadow of the infamous Election Irregularities of that fated 2020 presidential election, with current emerging alleged election fraud in Nevada and Pennsylvania inconveniently slipping into the public discourse, there is proved a colluded ongoing Election Interference in the nomination of the Republican candidate, the likes of which has never occurred in our Constitutional Republic's history, albeit, the question remains: Do you support the plain-sight Election Interference of the Democratic Socialist party, employing its minions in their Propagandistic Media, and their Two Tiered Justice System?

98.85% No, I do not support Election Interference; I am a patriot unto our Constitution.

1.15% Yes, I do support Election Interference; the alternative, Donald Trump, to this mentally diminished president is far worse.

0% "What, me worry" if elections are rigged?

Click Here to Vote
87 Vote(s)

View all Polls

Fauci’s Skewed Version of Cost-Benefit Analysis

Published: Wednesday, July 7th, 2021 @ 8:50 pm
By: John Locke Foundation ( More Entries )

Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the John Locke Foundation. The author of this post is Mitch Kokai.

Kylee Zempel of the Federalist highlights flaws in Dr. Anthony Fauci's dubious approach to pandemic policy.

Whether Fauci was right or wrong - although hindsight and mass casualties have certainly teamed up to condemn him - all the doctor did was perform a cost-benefit analysis.

It's something you do every day. You do it when you decide whether the benefit of nine extra minutes of sleep is worth the cost of forgoing your pre-work coffee stop (or, more realistically, worth scrambling into the office nine minutes late). ...

... In other words, Fauci figured the cost of lying to the American people about how to protect themselves was worth the benefit of reserving protective equipment for other doctors.

Or think back to Fauci wearing a mask after he had been vaccinated and arguing with Sen. Rand Paul about whether that was political theater. ...

... The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases admitted to George Stephanopolous last month that his decision to wear a mask after being vaccinated was about imagery, not science. For Fauci, the cost of political theater that sent an anti-scientific message was worth the benefit of keeping up appearances.

Don't forget Fauci's blatant fudging of the herd immunity threshold numbers when polling made him believe he could get away with it, which he outright admitted to The New York Times. According to the Times, in COVID's early days, Fauci said about 60 to 70 percent of Americans would need to be inoculated against the virus in order to achieve herd immunity. Over time, he bumped that number up to 75, 80, and even 85 percent.

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci reportedly told the Times in a phone interview. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."

Go Back