Possible fallacy regarding the political term flip-flopping?

I have been seeing people use the term flip flopping incorrectly lately regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. My understanding is that Flip-flopping is usually only valid when its in regards to something subjective. For example, if a politician says he is for lower taxes, but then later on says he is for higher taxes. That would be a good example of flip flip flopping as it is not in reference to data. 

However, I have been seeing Dr. Fauci being scapegoated as being a flip flopper on everything from masks, to you name it. But I think this is a phenomena of science and data itself and people dont understand that difference. The things they claim he is flop flopping on are not subjective opinions, they are based on the data. And in a new and novel anything there is limited data. And so as new data comes in that new data will change things, change how an advisor advises. New incoming data is not flip flopping, its just the nature of data and statistics. 

So my question is, what logical fallacy might this misuse of the term flip flopping be?

Here is an example: 

"Flip Flop Fauci is back in the news… What a better way to cover yourself than to hype the fear for the new Omicron variant, then walk it back as maybe not as bad, but only after getting professionally and “scientifically” hammered by the doctors in South Africa and the WHO itself.
What a political hack and joke this “I represent science” guy has become."

Dr Bo's answer is good. However, people who say "it's not flip-flopping; when the data changes, of course policy should change" need to bear in mind that there is one key assumption up for debate: "when the data changes."

To avoid possibly begging the question, we must ask:

- did the data really change?

- does the change in the data justify a change in policy?

For instance, the claim that the data "changed" might be due to discrepancies between measurement methods, measured periods, or some other form of noise-introducing factor.

Changes in data also do not always justify policy changes - or at least, this should be debated first. In the case of Covid-19, perhaps cases do rise significantly. Panicking, the government decides to enable a lockdown policy, despite claiming previously that, because of vaccines, the threat of mass hospitalisation has heavily subsided and a lockdown is no longer needed. One may say, "the data changed, so of course they should flip flop" - but so what? It is possible that the vaccines have reduced incidence of severe illness to the point where a rise in cases may actually be acceptable, or at least, would imply a less drastic policy than a full shutdown.

So we must check to make sure "the data" actually implies the policy change we support. Otherwise, this becomes another fact-to-fiction fallacy where we accuse people who disagree of being "anti-science", a popular cliché during the first wave of lockdowns in early 2020.

I wrote about this in my book, Uncomfortable Ideas. To answer your question, there is no fallacy. I believe it is simply a misunderstanding of an important concept in critical thinking—following the evidence.

It is Okay to Change Your Mind
There is a story attributed to several people in the last century about changing one’s mind. Regardless of who first said it, the point made is a strong one. The story involves an accusation of inconsistency and goes something like this:

Interviewer: You have been quoted previously as being in support for this position, now you no longer support it. Don’t you think you’re being inconsistent?
Interviewee: When the information changes, I update my conclusions based on the new information. What do you do?

It seems as if berating politicians and leaders is a favorite pastime here in America. Those who are anti-Obama like to remind us of the time when Obama was against gay marriage. During the 2016 Presidential election, videos lampooning Trump’s different opinions over time were not in short supply. In the 2004 Presidential election, John Kerry was synonymous with the term “flip-flopper.” Those who are unfamiliar with the scientific method commonly criticize science for “changing its mind,” referring to the seemingly never-ending stream of new studies that appear to contradict the scientific norm. This obsession with consistency is part of our personal lives, as well.

In his book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini discusses the research that demonstrates our desire for commitment and consistency. He writes, “Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. Those pressures will cause us to respond in ways that justify our earlier decision.” Not only do we desire consistency from ourselves, but this desire extends to the behavior we expect from others. The problem is, this desire is just another of our heuristics in place to conserve mental energy at the expense of making calculated, rational decisions.

It’s not unreasonable to be initially suspect of someone who claims to have changed their mind. Not everybody who claims to have changed their mind has updated conclusions based on new information. Perhaps they are

• pandering to different audiences - This is a common tactic in politics where a person will change their views depending on their audience. Kids might tell their friends that they like to drink alcohol while at the same time telling their parents that they don’t like alcohol. While pandering could be outright lying, milder forms could include telling half-truths or adjusting the level of commitment one has to an idea. In any case, pandering is a form of deceit and should be interpreted as a negative.
• confusing noise with the signal - Those who don’t have strong critical thinking skills have a difficult time judging the quality of information that may or may not warrant an updated conclusion. For example, you might accept that climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but you come across a blog post on bucks-government-coverups.com that explains how climate change is really just a hoax by the Chinese. Unable or unwilling to fact check, you change your mind and decide climate change is a hoax. This “flip-flopping” might frequently happen when you come across a piece of information that shouldn’t justify a complete change of view, but still results in a complete change of view.
• bad at making good initial choices - People who frequently change their minds may be doing so because their initial view was based on poor information, and rather than suspending judgment until more information is available, they hastily form an opinion when such an opinion is unnecessary. Once information does become available, they correctly evaluate the information and form a reasonable opinion. In such cases, it is not the update of the opinion that is problematic; it is the commitment to the initial opinion that is the problem.

The key point is that the negatives associated with changing one’s mind all depend on the reasons. Reactively, we can’t know the reasons since knowing the reasons take deliberate cognitive thought.
We need to accept the uncomfortable idea that we are not right all the time, and that admitting we were wrong brings us one step closer to actually being right. Those who “stick to their guns” in the face of overwhelming evidence and relevant information as it becomes available might be doing so as a way to protect their self-esteem or create a public image of infallibility. We should want leaders who update their conclusions based on new information. We should want scientists to tell us when new evidence is found even it is evidence against an idea that we already accept as true. And we should want our friends and family to make choices and live their lives based on the best information available.

We are our minds. When our minds change, we change. Every idea, opinion, belief and value we have that changes, changes who we are even if in the smallest of ways. We become better people by making an effort to understand the world in such a way that promotes universal well-being. This involves changing our minds at times and accepting uncomfortable ideas.