Fauci, on the other hand, does not believe himself. He says things as we are "ready to hear" them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
That's lying. If he got updated information and told us so, that's not lying. But he didn't; he just decided to say something different because it was now politically expedient.
Fauci is a political operative, not a scientist.
The relevant quote is:
> In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
(Emphasis added.)
In other words, he only tells us what is politically expedient. That is, by definition, what a political operative does.
I would suggest you not assume I'm ignorant before reading articles I link to.
Percentage of people/herd immunity: they straight up did not lie. They said that based on what we know of similar diseases the guess would be 75-95% of the population need to be vaccinated. Everyone immediately latched onto the 75% mark and also this was in 2020 when we knew comparatively approximately nothing about COVID. This is like saying “based on our knowledge of Toyota Corollas, a Ferrari will do 0-60 in at most 5 seconds”. Technically true, but not backed by studies until studies are able to be completed.
Your last sentence sounds like you formed an opinion before doing the research so I see no point in addressing it.
Sounds like there is no study you can point to that was compromised?
Any lie from an expert is a big deal. We are supposed to "trust experts", right? Any lie makes them lose trust.
> Percentage of people/herd immunity: they straight up did not lie.
Fauci did. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
> Sounds like there is no study you can point to that was compromised?
Not one from the CDC directly, but https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/health/coronavirus-hydrox... .
However, the CDC is definitely fudging the numbers on deaths, per https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-I... :
> COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.
But even if I did trust these scientists before, I don't know that they decided to put a political statement in a scientific study. The only agenda scientists should have is truth.
> He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
Sure, if he said it was because of more information, I could take him seriously. But when he says the above, it means he's making excuses for lying.
> “ We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”
We don’t know, he doesn’t know, no one knows the exact number. Yeah he’s being a bit coy, but all the numbers he’s thrown out since the delta are in that range
Btw Fauci technically isn’t cdc. Just saying bc we’re being ultra strict on the herd immunity estimates but very lax on other facts when accusing the cdc. Seems inconsistent.
Also, if "we need to have some humility," then perhaps maybe experts should stop thinking that they know best for everyone?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
So he lied. Plain and simple.
I used that word because it's the truth, even though it's strong because sugarcoating the truth is lying. Using the term "sugarcoating" is, in fact, trying to sugarcoat the fact that sugarcoating is lying!
Edit: I see that this study did begin with the desired end in mind because they have a blurb titled "What are the implications for public health practice?" that says:
> All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.
In other words, these "scientists" decided to comment on public policy in their study. Such an act makes it extremely suspect for several reasons, not least of which the scientists are making a political statement in what is supposed to be a scientific study.