CDC updates guidance, recommends vaccinated people wear masks indoors in certain areas

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Wrong. Fauci admitted in a New York Times interview that the numbers he gave for herd immunity didn't change due to the science of herd immunity changing, rather he changed the numbers presented based on polling in the US on vaccine receptiveness and what he thought would get more people to take the vaccine.

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

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.

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.
...
Now that some polls are showing that many more Americans are ready, even eager, for vaccines, he said he felt he could deliver the tough message that the return to normal might take longer than anticipated.

When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.


How much herd immunity is enough?

Fauci expressly said to the NYT that he deliberately moved the goalposts of what vaccine threshold was needed for herd immunity.
I quoted and linked the source that shows that you are wrong. You are making the error of cherry picking and ignoring the science. Again.

The source that I used specifically referred to measles, which is extremely virulent. It needs a 90% vaccination rate. Fauci's claims changed as the knowledge of the virulence of this disease changed.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
You need to read the whole post to understand it.

When you read the whole thing he STILL said that and he even says why. It's fascinating to watch folks try so hard to make him say something different than what he said. He moved to he goal posts. He didn't listen to the science and continued to shift his message, not dependant on science, but partly on his gut and on polling. So that's how we do it these days?

Yeah, I'm not going to place my trust in someone who bases his message on whatever is convenient, his gut and polling. Not gonna do it.
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,247
2,921
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Nope. I understood it just fine. Fauci told a "noble lie" at some point. His claim that he knew that masks were effective but was telling people not to wear them to preserve supply for healthcare workers is a textbook example of a "noble lie".


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.

You've conflated actual science with The Science™, which is a common error.

So let's see what else the article says:

Indeed. Let's see.

"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.

Holy guacamole, batman! Could you show me wear "moving the goalposts" and "gut feelings" are part of the scientific process?

Oopsy! It looks like you were caught with your pants down. Again. The article shows that Fauci was following the science.
Nope. Even the part YOU chose to quote shows there's nothing scientific about it.

Where? No it looks like you are making up nonsense. Your own article refutes you.
My own article doesn't even mention Dr. Fauci saying that attacking him was akin to attacking science, which he absolutely did say, no matter how much you try to spin it.


Trump was an arrogant yutz. He still is.
No argument there.

It does not matter if you supported him or not.

Then why did you bring it up?

The point is that I can tell that you almost certainly did.
You're wrong. Perhaps your judgment of other things is equally as wrong.

You make his mistakes.

Um, no. Nothing I've said in this thread even remotely sounds like Donald Trump. This is just a baseless aspersion.

Nope, sorry, I am not guilty of your errors.

Yeah, sorry. You are.

You're trying to say that Dr. Fauci taking about "moving the goalposts" and his "gut feelings" and that he was changing what he said based on polls and popular opinions is "science". It absolutely is not.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
When you read the whole thing he STILL said that and he even says why. It's fascinating to watch folks try so hard to make him say something different than what he said. He moved to he goal posts. He didn't listen to the science and continued to shift his message, not dependant on science, but partly on his gut and on polling. So that's how we do it these days?

Yeah, I'm not going to place my trust in someone who bases his message on whatever is convenient, his gut and polling. Not gonna do it.
Yes, and cherry picking one line out of it where he explains why if anything he lowballed the original figure does not help you.

Do you understand that there is no one vaccination rate for herd immunity?
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,247
2,921
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This looks like a source which lands at the very bottom of your food pyramid of research quality.

This constant attempt at marginalization of the evidence pyramid is odd. I mean, I didn't make this is up. This is how we are supposed to judge quality of information. You'd think such highly intelligent people would know this.

One might wonder why you'd expect your audience to bother with it after also claiming that sources like these are the worst possible way to get information about scientific topics.
This is an op-ed.

Do you know the difference between a commentary and "evidence"? Apparently not.

Is there anything in the op-ed that you specifically disagree with? Any content you take issue with?
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,247
2,921
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Probably because they have older populations than the US.

UK vs US age distribution;

Screen Shot 2021-07-30 at 11.21.25 AM.png


Screen Shot 2021-07-30 at 11.22.28 AM.png
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,247
2,921
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you understand that there is no one vaccination rate for herd immunity?

Yes.

Do you understand what a "noble lie" is?

I'm going to quote from Dr. Prasad's article again;

Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information to influence the public to take specific actions?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Nope. I understood it just fine. Fauci told a "noble lie" at some point. His claim that he knew that masks were effective but was telling people not to wear them to preserve supply for healthcare workers is a textbook example of a "noble lie".

The only "noble lie" that he might have told was an overly low optimistic original estimate. He went along with other experts in the field. But even they admitted that they might be wrong at the time.

You've conflated actual science with The Science™, which is a common error.

LOL! Projection. Try again.

Indeed. Let's see.



Holy guacamole, batman! Could you show me wear "moving the goalposts" and "gut feelings" are part of the scientific process?

Sometimes yes. He was probably being more polite than anything else. Again, the original rate that was estimated by other scientists as well was too low. And he also had a better idea of how stupid people can be. I am unfortunately overly optimistic and still have a hard time understanding why people would refuse the vaccine.
Nope. Even the part YOU chose to quote shows there's nothing scientific about it.

Wrong again. But then you are once again cherry picking. Tell me what parts you did not understand and I will see if I can explain them to you.

My own article doesn't even mention Dr. Fauci saying that attacking him was akin to attacking science, which he absolutely did say, no matter how much you try to spin it.

In context it was not as you claimed it to be. It was not an arrogant statement.

No argument there.



Then why did you bring it up?

Because in your posts you sound amazingly similar to Trump.

You're wrong. Perhaps your judgment of other things is equally as wrong.



Um, no. Nothing I've said in this thread even remotely sounds like Donald Trump. This is just a baseless aspersion.



Yeah, sorry. You are.

You're trying to say that Dr. Fauci taking about "moving the goalposts" and his "gut feelings" and that he was changing what he said based on polls and popular opinions is "science". It absolutely is not.

I get tired of people that cannot properly respond to a post. Trying to quote only part of it and breaking it up excessively is always indicative of your major flaw, that of cherry picking. Yes, you constantly sound like Trump. But I am surprised to hear that you voted for Biden, or perhaps a thrid party candidate, though the latter is throwing away your vote. Like Trump you seem to have an unjustified animosity against Fauci. He was in a difficult position. You have to remember who he was working for and how he had to constantly correct Trump and try not to make him look like the fool that he is. He had to be part politician.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
I quoted and linked the source that shows that you are wrong. You are making the error of cherry picking and ignoring the science. Again.

The source that I used specifically referred to measles, which is extremely virulent. It needs a 90% vaccination rate. Fauci's claims changed as the knowledge of the virulence of this disease changed.

You're either lying or deceiving yourself.

It wasn't a single sentence in which Fauci talks about how what guidance and information he gave was dependent on his perception of public reaction. He wasn't providing evolving information, he was changing his information to manipulate a response.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes.

Do you understand what a "noble lie" is?

I'm going to quote from Dr. Prasad's article again;

Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information to influence the public to take specific actions?
Yes, I know what a noble lie is. But the claims about Fauci are often inaccurate in this matter. There is no doubt that he was forced by the situation that he was in to fudge a bit here and there, but there were quite a few inaccuracies in the Slate article.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You're either lying or deceiving yourself.

It wasn't a single sentence in which Fauci talks about how what guidance and information he gave was dependent on his perception of public reaction. He wasn't providing evolving information, he was changing his information to manipulate a response.
Sorry, but your have it one hundred percent backwards.

Why the hatred of Fauci?
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
  • Agree
Reactions: busrider
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This constant attempt at marginalization of the evidence pyramid is odd. I mean, I didn't make this is up. This is how we are supposed to judge quality of information. You'd think such highly intelligent people would know this.


This is an op-ed.

Do you know the difference between a commentary and "evidence"? Apparently not.

Is there anything in the op-ed that you specifically disagree with? Any content you take issue with?
I can't help but notice in all of the attempts at childish insults you didn't manage to answer my simple question. Almost as if my post points out an uncomfortable truth which requires a distraction.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Yes, and cherry picking one line out of it where he explains why if anything he lowballed the original figure does not help you.

Do you understand that there is no one vaccination rate for herd immunity?

There is nothing in his interview that changes his statements. Can you quote something that says he didn't use his gut? Or he didn't use polling or public readiness like he said he did?

You call it cherry picking and then actually quote what he said and then claim he didn't mean what he said? LOL. Your defenses aren't helpingbyou. They are just confirming what we said.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,456.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Somebody that believes in the Bible has no business lecturing the rest of us about the evils of "noble lies", if we are to take what most biblical scholars actually have to say about the Bible seriously.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
I linked the entire article. Fauci's clear manipulation of the message was something he said he did. You trying to misrepresent the obvious is dishonest.



Calling him out on lies that he admits is not "hatred".

Why is everything hatred these days if you disagree with someone?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Somebody that believes in the Bible has no business lecturing the rest of us about the evils of "noble lies", if we are to take what most biblical scholars actually have to say about the Bible seriously.

Of course I do. God does not lie. And you toss out "most biblical scholars" as if it's the truth. More disinformation.
 
Upvote 0