>>1) Ignorant of the facts about cloth masks (and surgical masks) in that they offer no real protection from virus'. This would be truly astonishing since he runs the NIH and would indicate incompetence on a monumental scale, OR
>>2) He is fully aware of the facts and wears this cloth mask purely as a marketing tactic to give the people a "hey, look, we're doing something" and a "comfort blanket" as the UK SAGE advisor explained in the The Telegraph (UK) article I linked.

At one stage he did try to recommend 2 masks, no doubt for this reason, and was ridiculed. Which is where he did go wrong: any physician who ever practiced knows that we must function in an environment of uncertainty, so there is no "perfect correct" answer, there is only the "currently best opinion" based on today's results, patient budget, local capability and state of clinically verifiable evidence. This is frustrating to many in the public who want certainty rather than what they perceive as chaos. So Fauci walked a tightrope and IMHO made a fundamental mistake: he both over- and under-estimated his audience.

Reality was that against C19 we're still on a battlefield with fog of war. This morning's best plan in the world has to be shelved by lunchtime if the enemy breaks through unexpectedly, forcing a complete redeployment that is not a mistake or a flip-flop, but a competent reaction to a fluid situation.

The over-estimation was that he mused about this uncertainty in a fashion that scientists and academics may recognize, but others often do not. Fauci's "here's both sides and what I think should happen" was his attempt to educate, but it was (and still is) converted by media people and politicians into moral imprimatur and fear: basically you're a killer if you fail to comply with or even question our paraphrase of what the great Dr Fauci said.

Trouble then arises if the holy writ then needs to be changed as the facts change, which is perceived as a flip-flop, or a lie if you can pin it on a politician. If they had enough self-awareness to ask, I believe Fauci would say he is dismayed or even appalled by this treatment of his advice, but I doubt we'll ever hear that sort of question.

The under-estimation is that doctors convert uncertainty into best answers for patients every day and for the most part, leave them satisfied with the plan based on today's situation. So rather than appearing to flip flop, Fauci could/should have prefaced every advisory with "Look, we're on a battlefield with fog of war, but as best as we can tell TODAY, wearing a mask doesn't reduce risk of respiratory infection... unless it's a specialized N95 filtered mask. I'm asking people not to go out and buy up all the N95 masks, because our doctors and nurses treating Covid patients need them. So please don't." Instead he admitted later that initial advice against masks was because there weren't enough N95 masks and he was worried people would rush out to buy them all up.

Was Fauci correct to think so poorly of the US public? You'd have to ask who he thought might stockpile when you consider who is resisting masking and who has latched onto it like a garlic necklace when there's a vampire about... but the main point is that even if his fears were realized, it's also true that once you admit white lies like this, it justifies doubt forever, no matter how extravagantly they rant on CNN about haters putting others' lives at risk. This would also invite complaint in a clinical scenario, so perhaps that's one of the differences between physicians who practiced, and physicians who spent their career in academia.

Perhaps a better approach would be to trust the public with the facts, which are that unless worn properly, N95 masks can *increase* risk; that he is unable to wear a N95 mask properly himself because they fit very tight and can't be touched for hours at a time; and he could have shown images of the bruised faces of healthcare personnel after proper N95 use. The media could have backed this up with lots of stories about frontline workers with their facial abrasions thanking the public for making sure there's enough N95. Some did, e.g. https://www.boredpanda.com/doctors-nurses-photos-fighting-coronavirus

IMHO the US public is more than capable of responding responsibly and generously to such a campaign. I'd expect $millions would have been raised to make sure healthcare workers have N95 and it could have been a unifying rather than a dividing moment.

The final mistake was that once you're comfortable with justifiable economy of truth, it's easy to slip into "you can fool all the people all the time" so you go to Congress and use slippery words to deny funding gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute. Unfortunately that puts you in the sights of people like Rand who is highly familiar with clinical papers and medical uncertainty and in the hyper-partisan USA is highly motivated to call Fauci out for this, despite fierce covering fire from mainstream media. That was a terrible mistake IMHO: white lies to avoid N95 shortages at the coalface is one thing, but trying to conceal from Congress that you had fingers in the pie very close to the action, is another. It was an unforced error about what may only be a nit, but now creates a "what else are they lying about" scenario and must reduce his credibility for thinking people even if you ignore the political aspects. IMHO. Shame; Fauci had a long glittering career and deserved to retire with honor and hopefully will yet.