Agreed it is patronizing. Knowing quite a few people, I'm not sure that isn't the right approach. People just want to get on with their lives, they don't want to know the degree of uncertainty behind decision x or y. And they'll believe anybody that tells them whatever they want to hear that allows them to get on with their lives. A guy like Fauci has very little choice: he can either lie, or he can cause a mass panic or a run on critical resources. The general public isn't going to hold back when they believe toilet paper or masks are going to be in short supply when they feel that they need them, restraint is for other people.
> he can either lie, or he can cause a mass panic or a run on critical resources
Agree that Fauci was/is in a tough spot, but I think it's a mistake to conceptualize these decisions as a stage game as opposed to a repeated game. "Lying" or selectively emphasizing truths to achieve a specific outcome is borrowing against future trust in an effort to solve the present problem, and is suboptimal long term.
He may have been simply told what to say. The man strikes me as having integrity and trying to do the right thing even in impossible situations, such as being part of the Trump administrations' misdirection engine and refusing to buckle. That's the main reason the right wing of the United States hates his guts, he didn't sign the oath of loyalty. And was promptly replaced.
