[Genuine Realist]

While I agree truth is always important, it probably makes some sense to unpack this a bit.

First of all, it may be that Fauci thought it might take 90% immunity to stop pandemic, but wasn't 100% convinced, so he went with the more optimistic 70% number.  It's also possible that he thought if he said 90% when there was no vaccine on horizon, more people might have thrown up their hands and said "f*ck it," we aren't ever going to stop this even with a vaccine, so let's just go about our lives, which would have meant even more spread.

Second, it may be that the new more transmissible versions of the virus have made him less optimistic about getting out of this unless we do in fact get 90% vaccinated.  And maybe he felt that because the public opinion on vaccine has become more positive as Phizer and Moderna have been rolling out.

Of course, we also don't have any idea how long antibodies from vaccine will last either. Maybe Fauci has insight into this and is now feeling less optimistic about how long vaccines will provide effective antibody protection.

There are hundreds of variables and bits of information that determine what goes into what is said publicly, and many times new information and understanding leads to new opinions.  Now, if he in fact was convinced it would take 90% when he said it would take 70%, then we're just looking at what he says in terms of its impact on protecting the public's health and the health care system. It's a really tough spot to be in if being 100% transparent is going to actually cause more damage when your job is to mitigate it.

Unfortunately, we are living in a world in which nuanced statements are simply not possible. Public dialog is an arena of competing dialogs. Maybe the world has always been like that.

[Genuine Realist]

While I agree truth is always important, it probably makes some sense to unpack this a bit.

First of all, it may be that Fauci thought it might take 90% immunity to stop pandemic, but wasn't 100% convinced, so he went with the more optimistic 70% number.  It's also possible that he thought if he said 90% when there was no vaccine on horizon, more people might have thrown up their hands and said "f*ck it," we aren't ever going to stop this even with a vaccine, so let's just go about our lives, which would have meant even more spread.

Second, it may be that the new more transmissible versions of the virus have made him less optimistic about getting out of this unless we do in fact get 90% vaccinated.  And maybe he felt that because the public opinion on vaccine has become more positive as Phizer and Moderna have been rolling out.

Of course, we also don't have any idea how long antibodies from vaccine will last either. Maybe Fauci has insight into this and is now feeling less optimistic about how long vaccines will provide effective antibody protection.

There are hundreds of variables and bits of information that determine what goes into what is said publicly, and many times new information and understanding leads to new opinions.  Now, if he in fact was convinced it would take 90% when he said it would take 70%, then we're just looking at what he says in terms of its impact on protecting the public's health and the health care system. It's a really tough spot to be in if being 100% transparent is going to actually cause more damage when your job is to mitigate it.

Unfortunately, we are living in a world in which nuanced statements are simply not possible. Public dialog is an arena of competing dialogs. Maybe the world has always been like that.