It is clear that you did not understand the refutation that I provided or else you did not read it. I linked and quoted the email that you misinterpreted at best.
Then you should have understood that when Fauci changed his claims it was because the science behind them changed and that there was no arrogance in his statement.
Wow! You are the king of cherry picking. That is not a proper debating technique. You should have read the part above:
"Since the start of the pandemic, the figure that many epidemiologists have offered has been 60 to 70 percent. That range is still cited by the World Health Organization and is often repeated during discussions of the future course of the disease."
Just as an FYI, the number can vary a lot depending upon the efficacy of the vaccine and the virulence of the disease. It is a bit on the optimistic side for Covid.
So let's see what else the article says:
"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.
- Dig deeper into the moment.
Special offer: Subscribe for $1 a week.
Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak."
Oopsy! It looks like you were caught with your pants down. Again. The article shows that Fauci was following the science.
Where? No it looks like you are making up nonsense. Your own article refutes you.
Wow! Another epic failure. Trump was an arrogant yutz. He still is. It does not matter if you supported him or not. The point is that I can tell that you almost certainly did. You make his mistakes. So you did not vote for Trump? Okay, I hope that is the case, but you sound like a chip off the old block quite often.
Nope, sorry, I am not guilty of your errors.
