Rahm signed up for this. He knew he had contact with a COVID positive person, directly. before the tournament. PGA gave him the option of not participating or going thru daily testing - knowing full well if he tested positive he was done.
This is an expert stating his professional opinion based in what was known at the time and providing a scientific justification for it. It’s mostly certainly NOT a dismissal as you stated.
I actually think the stupidest thing was that Rahm didn't get vaccinated (if all indications are true) then was in close contact with someone who had Covid. He's the one who took the chance and knew the rules. Had he been vaccinated the rules state he would not have been subject to contact tracing testing. Dude blew over a million for what reason? Hopefully he doesn't end up on a ventilator.
I was not aware of these issues. I had only heard that he was tested and then had to withdraw. So I stand corrected. If this is a situation of him knowingly assuming the risks rather than a case of inflexible rules, then yes it’s simply a case of rotten luck and a result of his choices.
Dismissing an alternate theory prior scientific evidence or having proven a different theory is not a proper way of handling things. BTW...The CBS article from the time that references this interview actually says “Fauci again dismisses lab leak theory”. Seems as though multiple media outlets see it the same way I do :dunno
the PGA is crazy about rules, so I am sort of shocked they didn't execute him after the test came back positive.
Some pretty big and unfounded assumptions you make here. Just curious...What field are you in?
You're conflating lab leak with source. The context of the interview was whether or not the virus was engineered or native.
No. Actually I’m not. What we are talking about is how the virus got out into the public, not how it was created (naturally or naturally while also being engineered/gain of function researched).
Then you should understand that Dr Fauci was asked a question and he answered it exactly how an expert who’s very calculated on what he says should. Based on the available information and past scientific data. He’s not going to entertain a lab leak theory when, at the time, had no evidence to back it up. Plus he’d be literally “throwing colleagues under the bus” without anything to back it up. You just don’t do that.
That quote doesn't show he concluded 100% that it did not escape from the Wuhan lab. It was too soon for him to be speculating about that without enough evidence. If the evidence presented itself, of course he say so.