[akiddoc]

The following report (originally from the NYT) disturbs me greatly.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/much-herd-imm...58469.html

It would appear that Fauci made public statements about the epidemic at least partially based on what he thinks the public wanted to hear, or would accept. I feel very strongly that a person in his position should not, in fact must not, ever do that. It may mean that the statements he makes have to be qualified by saying "We really don't know but ..." a lot more than he would like, but saying it is 60 to 70% when you really don't believe that is just unacceptable. It is a "You can't handle the truth" from A Few Good Men couched in polite verbiage. It is one thing to say that new data has made him change his mind. It is another to hear him say his "truth" depends on the listener. We know politicians do that. That is one reason we can't trust their analysis of this epidemic. In these times of uncertainty we need somebody who always tells it like it is to the best of their knowledge. Unfortunately, it appears once again that isn't Anthony Fauci.

It really depends what you mean by herd immunity. If you want 100% elimination of the virus, yeah, it's going to take 90 to 95% immunity. I've never thought we will get to that, and I'll bet most people in the field do not expect that to happen. We will continue with a low level of this disease for years on end. Remember H1N1 Influenza? It first appeared in 2009. It's still with us, even though we have been immunizing against it every year since. 

If herd immunity means that we knock it down to a low level like Hepatitis B or Hepatitis A, we can do that with 70% immunization rates. I think Fauci is getting greedy now that we have an unbelievably good looking vaccine (2). It would be nice to eliminate the virus, but looking at what we have learned about human nature, or at least American nature, over the past 9 months, I expect that the USA will be a breeding ground for Covid for years to come.

[akiddoc]

The following report (originally from the NYT) disturbs me greatly.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/much-herd-imm...58469.html

It would appear that Fauci made public statements about the epidemic at least partially based on what he thinks the public wanted to hear, or would accept. I feel very strongly that a person in his position should not, in fact must not, ever do that. It may mean that the statements he makes have to be qualified by saying "We really don't know but ..." a lot more than he would like, but saying it is 60 to 70% when you really don't believe that is just unacceptable. It is a "You can't handle the truth" from A Few Good Men couched in polite verbiage. It is one thing to say that new data has made him change his mind. It is another to hear him say his "truth" depends on the listener. We know politicians do that. That is one reason we can't trust their analysis of this epidemic. In these times of uncertainty we need somebody who always tells it like it is to the best of their knowledge. Unfortunately, it appears once again that isn't Anthony Fauci.

It really depends what you mean by herd immunity. If you want 100% elimination of the virus, yeah, it's going to take 90 to 95% immunity. I've never thought we will get to that, and I'll bet most people in the field do not expect that to happen. We will continue with a low level of this disease for years on end. Remember H1N1 Influenza? It first appeared in 2009. It's still with us, even though we have been immunizing against it every year since. 

If herd immunity means that we knock it down to a low level like Hepatitis B or Hepatitis A, we can do that with 70% immunization rates. I think Fauci is getting greedy now that we have an unbelievably good looking vaccine (2). It would be nice to eliminate the virus, but looking at what we have learned about human nature, or at least American nature, over the past 9 months, I expect that the USA will be a breeding ground for Covid for years to come.