Anthony Fauci

Fauci Attended a White House Correspondents' Dinner Pre-Party

The good doctor's "individual assessment of my personal risk" apparently lets him attend brunch but not dinner.


When celebrities, top political leaders, and media elites gathered on Saturday night for the first White House Correspondents' Dinner in three years, Anthony Fauci was not among them. The government's top COVID-19 adviser had opted not to attend, citing "my individual assessment of my personal risk" of contracting the disease.

But while Fauci did not attend the dinner itself, he was photographed at a pre-party: an indoor and outdoor Saturday brunch.

Fauci is certainly free to make whatever decision he thinks is best for him: In the post-vaccination landscape, as COVID-19 becomes a milder and milder illness for the overwhelming majority of healthy, vaccinated people who catch it, risk assessment absolutely rests with the individual. Much of the public frustration with Fauci and government health officials like him is that for far too long, they insisted risk assessment be calculated by federal health bureaucrats. Disastrously, these bureaucrats were often far less willing than the general public to countenance any risk whatsoever.  They also evinced misplaced priorities: Mask requirements for school children remained in place even as governments relaxed most other restrictions, despite COVID-19 posing less risk to kids and teenagers than any other cohort.

The U.S. is now moving swiftly away from this norm—the norm of needing permission from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—and letting people work out for themselves how they feel about the risk of catching COVID-19, as if it were any other illness. That's a relief, and any effort to go back to the old norm should be met with maximal resistance.

All that said, Fauci's personal risk assessment is not beyond criticism, given that he clearly sees himself as a model of good public health behavior and has remained a steadfast scold about holiday parties and other events. Skipping the White House Correspondents' Dinner is well in keeping with his stated coronavirus caution, but was the brunch all that much safer? The brunch was partly outdoors, but there were indoor components as well. Moreover, most attendants were in close proximity and unmasked—Fauci included.

Fauci also attended the annual Gridiron Dinner less than a month ago, which turned out to be a superspreader event, though Fauci evidently avoided the virus. Again, he is welcome to follow inconsistent or unclear standards, but given that he was the paramount standards setter for all Americans from March 2019 until just a few weeks ago, one should be forgiven for subjecting his assessment to scrutiny.

If you're hobnobbing with a large number of social people, you run some risk of catching COVID-19. That's as true for brunch as it is for dinner.

NEXT: Supreme Court Rules Boston Was Wrong To Bar Christian Flag From City Hall

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It all feels two and a half years too late...

  2. If you're hobnobbing with a large number of social people, you run some risk of catching COVID-19. That's as true for brunch as it is for dinner.

    The Coronavirus, like other Chinese evil spirits, only travels in straight lines.

    1. You can't catch Covid before noon. It is a lazy virus and always sleeps in late. Brunch is 100% safe. No?

  3. Give it a rest. Diane and her ilk, unlike Fauci, helped put a several hundred thousand into the ICU and ultimately to their death, but hopefully the new strains remain relatively safe.

    1. Joe gets it. Him and Fauci are the ones to listen to. They understand how to live healthy, happy lives. The others are just jealous of their wisdom.

      1. Yes, may they stay in the basement, in full hazmat suits, forever. Someone should tell them the Internet may spread viruses.

      2. Fauci has a grift to protect. I see him. So wrapped in the grift he can't get out. Maybe married so badly that the exes are sucking the dollars from his account like a wet-market vampire bat at a Wuhan street store. Whatever his needs, can we can this monster yet or is he still living in Section 9 housing at one Washington place.

        What a clown.

        Friday - get a clue. You know what happens to patients in the ICU? Most recover. Some pass. Doctors help with that. You don't even mention the case count or hospital overun rates anymore because it isn't relevant. Don't you know there is a war in Ukraine we are using to money launder? C'Mon Man.

        1. "You know what happens to patients in the ICU? Most recover. Some pass."

          Deep man.

          And a bunch get longer term health impact – lasting pulmonary complications, neurological damage including from encephalitis-related damage (brain fog associated with changes in spinal fluid, mobility, psychiatric), cardiovascular effects, long covid, amputations and so on. And lots don't.

          But yeah there's that "passing" thing too, and by simple math the partisan covid contrarian myth-making appears to have left tens of thousands on the wrong side of the portal between worlds and not quite able to return. Maybe to many not the most important endorsement of old-fashioned truth and reason but not exactly a trivial one.

          1. Actually, not so. The vast majority of those who catch COVID don't get any long-term complications. And most of those who died did not die directly by the disease itself, to the point that several states had to revise their death numbers.

            You're making things turn out worse than it actually is. That's not being truthful.

            1. Of course, you will all continue to repeat these utterly false claims, probably for generations now. Also, the South was not fighting for slavery, it was fighting against federalism and was leading the way in the abolition of slavery.

              "most of those who died did not die directly by the disease itself"

              This is the classic 'covid is a hoax, hospitals are misclassifying deaths' conspiracy claim. It is utterly falsified by data – spikes in total deaths exactly synchronized to spikes in positive covid tests, hospital diagnosis of covid symptoms and deaths from covid.

              Official counts of covid deaths undercount, they do not overcount, endless apocryphal claims to the contrary.

              Update on Excess Deaths Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, January 26, 2020–February 27, 2021
              "These updated estimates indicate that approximately one half to two thirds of one million excess deaths occurred during January 26, 2020–February 27, 2021, suggesting that the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality is substantially greater than the number of COVID-19 deaths"

              "The vast majority of those who catch COVID don't get any long-term complications"

              More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
              “80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms”

              You all are f***ing unbelievable with this. And it doesn't stop.

          2. Not a bunch. And it's an inconvenient element of being human that some of us pass each and every year. Those reasons are varied. Covid was one of them for some, for the last couple of years. There are myriad others. And as we can see, no vaccine, distancing, masking or lockdown policy has been able to stop or mitigate the deaths of some.

            Also, as Truthman says, the count was, is and has been skewed from day one, so when you quote a death count you have the credibility of the CDC and Dr. Faux chee immediately.

            1. "an inconvenient element of being human that some of us pass each and every year"

              An articulate justification of ... well any deaths we want. "Tim McVeigh struck a blow for gun rights in Oklahoma City and well it's an inconvenient element of being human that some pass from a wide variety of causes including sometimes explosive mixtures of agricultural fertilizer, diesel fuel, and other chemicals".

              No, I don't want to hear your no-doubt-noble-and-thoughtful justification of Russian destruction of civilians in Ukraine either.

              "count was, is and has been skewed from day one"

              I'm afraid it is the partisan conspiracy claims that have been cockeyed from day one, though profitable and a cultural phenomenon. See above. Feel free to try to explain *in logic and evidence* how total death counts are being invented globally to fake the pandemic.

      3. Well, horrifically frustrating politically enraging as it may be, viruses and vaccines are all too often amenable to empiricism, so yes those willing to apply tools like measurement and reason are "the ones to listen to" if your turn of phrase implies some value in truth and understanding how to assess personal risks.

        I understand it's been a rough couple of years, both politically and in terms of predictions, for the 'covid and vaccines are a hoax' road show, so some level of resentment and hysteria is endemic and fueling the need for grievance signaling puff pieces like the above. Absolutely hope it is providing some comfort in trying times!

        1. Who exactly are the "'covid and vaccines are hoax' road show"? And how do you explain those who acknowledge COVID and have taken the vaccine? It's been rough for them too, hasn't it? Considering that the dose didn't end up preventing the spread, and that their livelihood has been dented by government officials with ineffective mandates, to deny all the problems that come for so many students, employees, etc. is a disgusting minimization from you.

          1. "Who exactly are the "'covid and vaccines are hoax' road show"? "

            Gee I don't know. Turn on Fox News. Read your own comments: "those who died did not die directly by the disease itself".

            "how do you explain those who acknowledge COVID and have taken the vaccine?"

            I don't need to explain them. Their existence doesn't contradict anything I've written.

            "It's been rough for them too, hasn't it?"

            Of course. Just better – risk of death / long-term injury 10-50x less through Omicron etc.

            "to deny all the problems that come for so many students, employees, etc. is a disgusting minimization from you"

            Perhaps it would be, if I had done so.

            1. "Gee I don't know. Turn on Fox News."

              Can you provide an example of somebody there calling it a "hoax"? You seem to expect others to back up your claims for you.

              "Read your own comments: "those who died did not die directly by the disease itself"."

              Given that most officials have admitted to inflating the numbers, this is not your strongest example.

              "Of course. Just better – risk of death / long-term injury 10-50x less through Omicron etc."

              ...whose risk of death was microscopic regardless.

              1. "Given that most officials have admitted to inflating the numbers"

                FFS you people. No, they have not.

                all of this discussion always boils down to the same thing. It is the following. It is so simple and common sensical that you all simply cannot believe it applies to you.

                *Repeating what you believe over and over doesn't make it true.*

                Again, hard total death count data all over the world confirms (over and over) that the counts are not inflated. They are deflated.

                Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21
                “estimate that 18·2 million (95% uncertainty interval 17·1–19·6) people died worldwide because of the COVID-19 pandemic (as measured by excess mortality) over that period… highest numbers of cumulative excess deaths due to COVID-19 were estimated in India (4·07 million [3·71–4·36]), the USA (1·13 million [1·08–1·18])...”

                "Can you provide an example of somebody there calling it a "hoax"?"

                From literally the #1 cable news program:

                "Tucker Carlson: The coronavirus pandemic is a global fraud perpetrated by China, abetted by the powerful"

                Other examples of Fox and other political media pushing the "hospitals fake the death counts" story are trivial to find. Ingraham “New CDC Coronavirus Data Cuts American Death Toll Nearly In HALF” etc.

                You all repeat the same claims here so it is ridiculous to pretend they don't exist in media.

                "whose risk of death was microscopic regardless"

                Nearly a quarter of a million deaths that could have been prevented with vaccines that were available, but "microscopic" risk.

                Civilization-threatening levels of celebrated political delirium.

        2. viruses and vaccines are all too often amenable to empiricism

          Considering how badly that empiricism was managed in relation to the actual data I don't give the "ones to listen to" much credence. Sorry.

          1. CDC is not revealing its data on people under 50 years of age

            1. Nor on pregnant women or children. Which if they even did release the trial data, the trials had such small sample size they were barely statistically significant.

    2. Get the fuck back in your basement.

    3. I didn’t realize Diane was so powerful.

      1. He's the one who let the virus out of the lab.

      2. I’m jealous. I’ve always wanted two things for Christmas. I want to decide who lives, and who dies. Turns out Diane already got that.

    4. Yeah, all Fauci did was help to drive millions of children to serious depression and anxiety, keep thousands from getting timely cancer screenings and treatments, destroy thousands of businesses and livelihoods, stupidly and wastefully dump trillions of dollars into the economy, leading to significant inflation and ever more absurd budgets. All of those things lead to shortened lives too. And will continue to do so for many years to come.
      You want to put blame for covid deaths on people who disagreed with the policies, then you get to take the blame for the enormous damage caused by those policies.

      1. +1 Gallows

        1. Firing squad. 100% blind gunners. A single front loaded short barrel musket between them. No knowledge about the location or direction of the target. They work until the job is done.

    5. You consistently defend this shit (and Fauci)with religious fervor.

      I guess you choose to ignore Fauci's connection to the Wuhan lab.

  4. I kind of dislike these "person is a hypocrite" articles.
    Yeah, people are hypocrites. It doesn't actually make their argument any more or less wrong. If Fauci was perfect would it change how wrong he was?
    I do not believe it would.

    1. Certainly, the "rules for thee, freedom for me" stuff is worth reporting. The rules are gone now though, so yeah it's kind of hollow at this point.

      1. Are the rules gone? Look way in the back of the picture in the article, between Fauci and Lemon's heads.

        1. In fairness, that rule is more so the Somebodies can quickly discern and dismiss those people who are servant Nobodies at the party. Helps avoid the embarrassment of accidentally treating Nobodies like humans.

    2. The other problem with the hypocrite articles is it suggests (often through subtext) that the policy is enlightened.

      1. ^This. Fauci is not a bad example. He is a bad scientist and a bad health advisor.

        1. He belongs behind bars.

        2. This coming from someone who believes Native Americans are descended from Israelites and aren’t white because of sin.

          1. You had better commit suicide right away!

          2. "And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the devil will not support his children at the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell." - Alma 30:60

            1. That book was written by a proven fraud

        3. "bad scientist and a bad health advisor "

          I bet he knows real science when he sees it, just doesn't want to let it get out to the public. He likely has an ivermectin drip attached to his body at all times making him impervious to all viruses including covid and also slowing aging (it has been widely reported that he is much older than he appears and first founded the Wuhan lab under the Tang Dynasty). But will he let the little people have any of the actual fruits of such scientific breakthroughs? If you think the answer is yes I have a bridge to sell you.

      2. Well Robbie managed to get a Pfizer commercial in there ignoring the fact that the unvaccinated have as much or better immunity to the Omicron cold as the multi jabbed. When Fauci is finally tried and executed for denying cheap effective treatments leading to thousands of people dying with respirators jammed down their throats I'll give a shit.

        1. "the unvaccinated have as much or better immunity to the Omicron cold as the multi jabbed"


          1. Most of those who had Omicron were vaccinated. Those who weren't likely caught the virus earlier. This isn't hard to understand.

            1. Apparently it is hard to understand. When the majority of the population is vaccinated, you can still have more cases among the vaccinated, while having dramatically different odds of outcomes for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

              Your pandemic beliefs are just deeply and immorally untruthful, Truthfulness.

              (As another in our endless series of items of factual evidence you will ignore) take a look at the graph at the bottom of this page from Alberta showing ICU counts by vaccination status.

          2. Literally every single study done has shown, at minimum, 4x longer protection from natural immunity than vaccine. Most of them show 10x plus longer protection.

            Plus the studies done on bone marrow show that natural infection creates long term, and probably life long, immune cells in bone marrow that will produce antibodies basically forever.

            1. Putting aside the factual inaccuracy, more importantly you're falling into a common but colossal logic error, in equating "unvaccinated" with "natural immunity".

              The entire debate about vaccinated vs. not vaccinated is about *avoiding* the health risks and hospital load associated with covid infection. To get natural immunity *you have to get covid first*. You are comparing apples and oranges. "Natural immunity" is a euphemism for "getting covid".

              On the factual points, you make claims that are trivial to falsify.

              "Literally every single study..."

              "our data support the hypothesis that the omicron BA.1 variant is an extremely potent immune-escape variant that shows little cross-reactivity with the earlier variants. Therefore, unvaccinated persons who are infected with the omicron BA.1 variant only (without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection) might not be sufficiently protected against infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant other than omicron BA.1; for full protection, vaccination is warranted"

              QED, sorry.

    3. I respectfully disagree.
      1. If we're still at the 'deciding whether their argument is right or wrong' stage, an advocate's hypocrisy is a critical indicator of their personal credibility.
      2. If we're past the stage of evaluating the individual policy, an advocate's hypocrisy is still a negative (though weaker) indicator for their credibility in other arguments.
      3. As a general principle, uncovering the hypocrisy of advocate A in his/her chosen cause should lead us to caution against blindly trusting the motivations (and thus, the testimony) of future advocates in their chosen causes.

      The only situation where an advocate's hypocrisy is irrelevant is when the rightness or wrongness of the argument can be incontrovertibly evaluated from completely independent factors. That's a pretty rare set of circumstances.

      1. See, you nailed it with this explanation. Thank you.

      2. The problem with this type of thinking, though, is that it devalues moral arguments almost to the point of nothingness, since there is no such thing as a perfect human being. So it inexorably leads to a type of moral nihilism.

        For example if I say "It is immoral to lie", most of us would agree that this is a true statement at least under certain circumstances. And yet everyone on the planet has told a lie at least once in their life. Does the hypocrisy of all the liars on the planet disprove the claim that it is immoral to lie? If so, then lying no longer becomes immoral and becomes acceptable only because we cannot all live up to a perfect standard. It is the same with pretty much all moral standards.

        1. That's only if you take things to binary reductive extremes. Rather, maybe employ some nuance and scaled positioning.

          If you're against lying, best not to be Donald Trump or Jen Psaki. Otherwise it's clear your credibility is crap.

        2. Pretty big self-own with that example.

        3. re: "Does the hypocrisy of all the liars on the planet disprove the claim that it is immoral to lie?"

          You are committing a logical fallacy in your reply above. If as you say, the correct answer to "Is it immoral to lie" is "true sometimes", then when I sometimes lie, I am not being hypocritical to my prior statement about the morality of lying.

          When you, however, take my "true sometimes" answer and present it as if I'd said "true always", that's an example of lying to make your case, not exposing hypocrisy.

      3. Is it relevant to establish that someone *is* being hypocritical first, or nah?

        1. Yes, read Rossami's reasons above. You haven't shown any argument otherwise.

          1. Non sequitur. Rossami's 'reasons' do not even attempt to establish a case for Fauci being hypocritical by attending a brunch with (apologies for the upsetting language, but I'm just quoting from the article) "indoor components".

            You are free to make the argument yourself if Rossami is not available to make it for you.

            Here is a recent comment from Fauci that we can compare to his behavior:

            “And what’s going to happen is that we’re going to see that each individual is going to have to make their calculation of the amount of risk that they want to take.”

            Please explain how Fauci attending a brunch with "indoor components" establishes his "hypocrisy as a critical indicator of their personal credibility" in Rossami's exceedingly sober logical analysis.

            I'll wait. Why not. We're still waiting 2.5 years for any of the DK army to admit the host of predictions they got wrong so one more thing to add to the waiting queue can't hurt right.

    4. It kind of A touchstone test of their argument. If it was a practical usefull argument, that was also sensible they would live it. If someone is calling for a lifestyle change that is too austere/ascetic to be practical, or they don’t really believe their own argument, they won’t Live up to their own standards. QED

      1. That's why I've always thought Islam is a cult/street gang and not a religion.

        Mohammed said Muslims can only have one wife.... Except for Mohammed. He could bang anyone he wanted, including his "favorite wife", a 7 year old girl named Aisha that he raped multiple times before she ever even had her period.

        Happy Eid Mubarak you pedophile worshipping sickos!

        1. Careful, in your rush to condemn others (see Christ's comments on that topic), you are simply criticizing a sister Abrahamic faith with lots of shared history.

          e.g. child sex is celebrated in your holy text as well

          "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18


          "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
          and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" Matthew 7:5

    5. In logic it's called the tu quoque fallacy. But it pays the bills.

      1. Read Rossami's reply above.

      2. It's only that fallacy if you use it alone to prove or disprove a thesis. It is not a fallacy if you use it as supporting evidence of the credibility of the speaker.

        1. You know full well the purpose of criticizing the credibility of the speaker is to convince people to discount what he says.

          You are endlessly attacking a (relatively mediocre and hapless) messenger of the scientific community as part of a long-running partisan campaign to reduce confidence in the role of reason and science in society and public policy.

          How could a rational person possibly read this differently?

  5. I knew a guy in college who was a black studies major. Really smart guy until you got around to any discussion about race.

    This was back in the early 90s, when one of the favored conspiracy theories was that the government invented AIDS to kill black people.

    Knowing that Fauci was in charge of AIDS research since the 80s, I'm starting to think that he was right.

  6. It's ok, he held his breath.

    1. So he didn't inhale?

    2. Not long enough.

  7. Fauci has always been and will always be a conniving little cunt. I will bet he avoided the dinner more from the fear of being called out during the entertainment than from fear of COVID.

    1. The optics of being almost certainly on camera in one of the biggest "who's who" live televised event among the worst human beings in the country were probably what made the decision for him to pass on it. The hypocrisy of being the double masked triple jabbed guy sitting 20 feet away from congress and then being on camera surrounded by everyone unmasked would make it hard for anyone to not think he's been lying this whole time about masks, parties, distancing etc.

      Of course he just couldn't resist the urge to schmooze it up with the DC elite shit creatures. He is a little weasel, there was no way he was going to miss out on it. He just didnt want to be on camera doing it this time.

  8. "...The government's top COVID-19 adviser had opted not to attend, citing "my individual assessment of my personal risk" of contracting the disease..."

    The steaming pile of shit seems incapable of allowing the rest of us to make that sort of choice.

    1. So, he has no faith in vaccines?

  9. " COVID-19 becomes a milder and milder illness for the overwhelming majority of healthy, vaccinated people who catch it,..."

    Still my favorite line to read from journalists:
    "Vaccinated people who catch it."

    1. Still my favorite oblivious semantic pseudo-argument.

      1. Pseudo-argument my ass, it’s like throwing holy water on Dracula. It drives you people insane to hear that truth, lol.

        1. Lol. It sure does. I'm melting!

          That these vaccines were more effective in preventing disease outcomes and only provide partial protection against infection was the big news when the vaccines were still in early testing stages, and it only got more so with Delta. It's literally two years later and you're still struggling to grasp this, desperately making up fantasies that you've been lied to in service to eternal grievance signaling as a cultural identity.

          Sorry, something about "drives you people insane to hear that truth, lol".

          1. No, not so. Fauci was insistent that the vaccines were far more effective than they actually were:

            You haven't refuted Idaho Bob at all. Those who are vaccinated can still catch COVID. It's happened throughout the Omicron wave. We were indeed lied to, but the lies were from Fauci and the CDC!

            1. So fascinating. Your own links (again, if I recall) contradict your statement.

              Claim: "Fauci was insistent that the vaccines were far more effective than they actually were"

              Link: "Fauci says covid vaccines appear to be less effective against some new strains"

              Can you walk us old school rationalists through how you come to think that Fauci warning about reduced effectiveness against new variants is the same as "insistent that the vaccines were far more effective than they actually were"? You know that booster shots recovered a lot of the effectiveness right?

              How is it that every time we have a discussion you forget all of the prior discussions and revert to repetition of completely false viral claims?

  10. Do we know for sure Fauci has not had Covid. He disappeared from public appearances for a time, not sure if it was a full 10 days though. But it may have been long enough for a subsequent negative test.

    I would not be shocked if he had Covid and covered it up.

  11. Rules are for the peasants, not the elite class. Move along. Nothing to see here.

  12. Rest of world: Roe v. Wade getting overturned

    Reason: Fauci attended a brunch with "indoor components"

    1. Fauci deserves to be called out. May more lives be saved!

      1. No matter how many times facts and evidence contradict, the rallying around untruth continues, as if untruth alone is the key to desired power.

        “We find that approximately 234,000 deaths since June 2021 could have been prevented with primary series vaccination”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.