Public Truth

[Goose]

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.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

[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.

[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.

[JustAnotherFan]

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.

And Americans will continue to travel to less developed economies (that will have a much slower rollout of vaccines) and spread it there. It will be the american-exceptionalism-of-covid gift that keeps on giving.

[Genuine Realist]

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.

And Americans will continue to travel to less developed economies (that will have a much slower rollout of vaccines) and spread it there. It will be the american-exceptionalism-of-covid gift that keeps on giving.

How unfortunate for you two to live in such a bedeviled society. And how lucky you are that a superb elitist education saved you from the ignornant Yahoos that surround you!

[BostonCard]

I think it was an awful lapse in judgment by Faucci.

1) Public health measures depend on the public trusting our public health experts.  Anything that undermines that trust, even for noble reasons, is bad.
2) Consistent messaging is important, and this undermines the consistency of messaging.
3) Opponents of vaccination will latch on to this as justification for their opposition.
4) It displays an appalling lack of respect for the public at large.
5) It was unnecessary.  As has been noted, there is a lot of uncertainty in the measures, so just acknowledging the uncertainty would have accomplished the same goal as lying about it.

You think he would have learned something from the controversies generated by the mixed messages around masking.

BC

[Goose]

An interesting article on the Fauci situation. I msut say I pretty much agree with the position the author takes.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay...sad_Active