What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Unofficial Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, MD thread. (1 Viewer)

One of the experts in her own words Dr. Birx
and?  as usual, listen to the whole clip --so sick of disinformation. 
Yeah, I find you can usually summarily dismiss Twitter "split clips" like that one and a zillion others.

I'll put it this way: I never want to get informed of anything important strictly via Twitter, YouTube, podcasts, or social media. Might be good for getting my attention and prompting a deeper dive into other sources. But as far as drawing conclusions and making important decisions based on those conclusions? No.

 
1) We knew very early on the vaccine didn't stop transmission. We just kept saying it was rare and minimal while we watched the efficacy drop week to week.  There was clearly a trend developing.  When delta hit, the efficacy reduced even further. The vaccine was the best way for someone without a prior covid infection to prevent a serious outcome. Instead of prioritizing people without a covid infection, we left the population to get one as they could.  People not at risk were getting shots before vulnerable people could.  This was an absolute failure in our policy. 

2) We all had the ability to get a covid antibody test.  That was a very quick and easy to determine protection. The argument back then was that antibodies don't equal protection.  Right now its that the boosters increase your antibody count, therefor providing protection, even if its only for 8 weeks. The current study from Qatar is showing substantially more protection from a prior Omicron infection than the vaccine. 

As far as if it was a good public health policy, I don't think it was.  Others can disagree. It was however a public health policy that came with serious repercussions if someone disagreed with it. When the policy was questionable to begin with, one coming with repercussions is outright evil. 
1) poor assumption, especially with what COVID was doing to people. We did not “let the population get one as the could” we had a priority system during the roll out (elderly and medical professionals).  Now, some people with means figured out ways to jump the line. That isn’t the government’s fault; people were scared. 
 

2) the argument that antibodies doesn’t equal protection wasn’t borne out of malice. It was born out of uncertainty. Most of the COVID policies we saw were borne out of uncertainty, politics, and (to be quite frank) stupidity by those who didn’t want to be inconvenienced in the face of a worldwide pandemic. 
 

3) finally, we are lucky that delta was replaced by omicron, a much more “survivable” variant. I had this latest variant a few weeks back (triple vaxxed btw) and I felt like crap but 4 days later right as rain. Thank you vaccine. As for “repercussions”:  the world comes with personal responsibility and then responsibility to society (because we live in one). Our society has plenty of bad choices to be part of it. The people who chose to make this their hill to die on simply made their responsibility to themselves greater than their responsibility to society. It would be one thing if the vaccines had true side effects (not the anecdotal nonsense people tried to drum up) and you were risking one issue for another, but the truth is it did not. So when you say all you say above it is simply about being contrarian and selfish and because of that all that vitriol is focused on a public servant (Fauci) because he becomes the “THEY” in you persecution narrative. Again, medical professionals do the best they can with the data at hand. Time and a vast amount of data will allow us to understand what worked and what didn’t with this pandemic perhaps better preparing us for the next one. 

 
1) poor assumption, especially with what COVID was doing to people. We did not “let the population get one as the could” we had a priority system during the roll out (elderly and medical professionals).  Now, some people with means figured out ways to jump the line. That isn’t the government’s fault; people were scared. 
 

2) the argument that antibodies doesn’t equal protection wasn’t borne out of malice. It was born out of uncertainty. Most of the COVID policies we saw were borne out of uncertainty, politics, and (to be quite frank) stupidity by those who didn’t want to be inconvenienced in the face of a worldwide pandemic. 
 

3) finally, we are lucky that delta was replaced by omicron, a much more “survivable” variant. I had this latest variant a few weeks back (triple vaxxed btw) and I felt like crap but 4 days later right as rain. Thank you vaccine. As for “repercussions”:  the world comes with personal responsibility and then responsibility to society (because we live in one). Our society has plenty of bad choices to be part of it. The people who chose to make this their hill to die on simply made their responsibility to themselves greater than their responsibility to society. It would be one thing if the vaccines had true side effects (not the anecdotal nonsense people tried to drum up) and you were risking one issue for another, but the truth is it did not. So when you say all you say above it is simply about being contrarian and selfish and because of that all that vitriol is focused on a public servant (Fauci) because he becomes the “THEY” in you persecution narrative. Again, medical professionals do the best they can with the data at hand. Time and a vast amount of data will allow us to understand what worked and what didn’t with this pandemic perhaps better preparing us for the next one. 
:goodposting:

 
1) poor assumption, especially with what COVID was doing to people. We did not “let the population get one as the could” we had a priority system during the roll out (elderly and medical professionals).  Now, some people with means figured out ways to jump the line. That isn’t the government’s fault; people were scared. 
 

2) the argument that antibodies doesn’t equal protection wasn’t borne out of malice. It was born out of uncertainty. Most of the COVID policies we saw were borne out of uncertainty, politics, and (to be quite frank) stupidity by those who didn’t want to be inconvenienced in the face of a worldwide pandemic. 
 

3) finally, we are lucky that delta was replaced by omicron, a much more “survivable” variant. I had this latest variant a few weeks back (triple vaxxed btw) and I felt like crap but 4 days later right as rain. Thank you vaccine. As for “repercussions”:  the world comes with personal responsibility and then responsibility to society (because we live in one). Our society has plenty of bad choices to be part of it. The people who chose to make this their hill to die on simply made their responsibility to themselves greater than their responsibility to society. It would be one thing if the vaccines had true side effects (not the anecdotal nonsense people tried to drum up) and you were risking one issue for another, but the truth is it did not. So when you say all you say above it is simply about being contrarian and selfish and because of that all that vitriol is focused on a public servant (Fauci) because he becomes the “THEY” in you persecution narrative. Again, medical professionals do the best they can with the data at hand. Time and a vast amount of data will allow us to understand what worked and what didn’t with this pandemic perhaps better preparing us for the next one. 
I'll give you 1) to an extent. It was state officials who distributed vaccines based on health official guidance. Some states did a lot better than others, and prioritization issues were state level. My mother has a pretty substantial "cant get a vaccine" horror story that led to me to make an overly broad claim. Federal policy did however miss the opportunity to factor in prior infection into their priority plan and there was no good reason for that. 

2) I understand the uncertainty angle. Where I fault the policy makers was that they equated the uncertainty around natural immunity as poor, while the uncertainty around vaccination was dismissed as not an issue to be concerned with. The durability of both natural and vaccine immunity was unknown, yet was only used against one. The CDC loved their 250 person Kentucky study on natural immunity vs vaccine immunity that showed vaccine immunity was superior. The 200,000+ person Israeli study showing vaccine immunity warned more quickly than natural immunity was dismissed even though the vaccine rollout occurred earlier in Israel so it better reflected where each level of durability was headed.  We're now at the point where its hard to argue that vaccine immunity is more robust than naturally acquired immunity. All these signs were there pre- mandate, we just discounted them.

3) I disagree with the whole societal responsibility angle. That might make sense if the vaccine stopped transmission. It does not, so that angle is out the door. They're also telling people to make personal health decisions based on a one size fits all policy. Medicine without nuance should be allowed to be dismissed. In this case it was mandated without even a mesuarable goal in mind. 

 

A trove of newly released documents detailing U.S.-funded coronavirus research in China prior to the COVID-19 pandemic shows that Dr. Anthony Fauci was “untruthful” when he claimed that his agency did not finance gain-of-function research in Wuhan, an infectious disease expert says.

Documents published by The Intercept on Sunday show that Fauci’s agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided federal funds to the U.S. nonprofit group EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology to construct laboratory-generated SARS- and MERS-related coronaviruses that demonstrated enhanced pathogenicity in humanized mice cells, according to Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard Ebright.

“The documents make it clear that assertions by the [National Institutes of Health] director, Francis Collins, and the [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at [the Wuhan Institute of Virology] are untruthful,” Ebright said in a tweet Sunday evening.

[“Gain of function” describes a risky process of making a disease more dangerous or contagious for the purpose of studying a response.]
 

A trove of newly released documents detailing U.S.-funded coronavirus research in China prior to the COVID-19 pandemic shows that Dr. Anthony Fauci was “untruthful” when he claimed that his agency did not finance gain-of-function research in Wuhan, an infectious disease expert says.

Documents published by The Intercept on Sunday show that Fauci’s agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided federal funds to the U.S. nonprofit group EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology to construct laboratory-generated SARS- and MERS-related coronaviruses that demonstrated enhanced pathogenicity in humanized mice cells, according to Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard Ebright.

“The documents make it clear that assertions by the [National Institutes of Health] director, Francis Collins, and the [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at [the Wuhan Institute of Virology] are untruthful,” Ebright said in a tweet Sunday evening.

[“Gain of function” describes a risky process of making a disease more dangerous or contagious for the purpose of studying a response.]

How long before this professor is cancelled?
 

A trove of newly released documents detailing U.S.-funded coronavirus research in China prior to the COVID-19 pandemic shows that Dr. Anthony Fauci was “untruthful” when he claimed that his agency did not finance gain-of-function research in Wuhan, an infectious disease expert says.

Documents published by The Intercept on Sunday show that Fauci’s agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided federal funds to the U.S. nonprofit group EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology to construct laboratory-generated SARS- and MERS-related coronaviruses that demonstrated enhanced pathogenicity in humanized mice cells, according to Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard Ebright.

“The documents make it clear that assertions by the [National Institutes of Health] director, Francis Collins, and the [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at [the Wuhan Institute of Virology] are untruthful,” Ebright said in a tweet Sunday evening.

[“Gain of function” describes a risky process of making a disease more dangerous or contagious for the purpose of studying a response.]

How long before this professor is cancelled?

This was a good watch as well. He brings the receipts. I guess maybe a case can be made this wasnt gain of function because gain of function has a potential benefit to humanity.

This Dr.s' opinion is covid was engineered as a bio-weapon and we have known all along.
 
FYSA, he just resigned officially. Not sure on last day but the email went out to all of NIH about 20 minutes ago.
 
I saw this clip last night. People keep mentioning how Biden said the vaccine would protect you from infection, but I don't remember Fauci saying it.
All in with Chris Hayes - May 17, 2021

So, low likelihood of transmission, low likelihood of getting infected. When you do get infected, the chances are, you`re going to be without symptoms. And because of that, that was the accumulating scientific data that prompted the CDC to make that recommendation, that when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected, whether they`re outdoors or indoors. That`s the bottom line of that to get people to appreciate you get vaccinated and you`re really quite safe from getting infected.
 
I saw this clip last night. People keep mentioning how Biden said the vaccine would protect you from infection, but I don't remember Fauci saying it.
All in with Chris Hayes - May 17, 2021

So, low likelihood of transmission, low likelihood of getting infected. When you do get infected, the chances are, you`re going to be without symptoms. And because of that, that was the accumulating scientific data that prompted the CDC to make that recommendation, that when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected, whether they`re outdoors or indoors. That`s the bottom line of that to get people to appreciate you get vaccinated and you`re really quite safe from getting infected.
That was factually true at that point.
Then the virus mutated into a new variant and the vaccine stayed the same.
 
I saw this clip last night. People keep mentioning how Biden said the vaccine would protect you from infection, but I don't remember Fauci saying it.
All in with Chris Hayes - May 17, 2021

So, low likelihood of transmission, low likelihood of getting infected. When you do get infected, the chances are, you`re going to be without symptoms. And because of that, that was the accumulating scientific data that prompted the CDC to make that recommendation, that when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected, whether they`re outdoors or indoors. That`s the bottom line of that to get people to appreciate you get vaccinated and you`re really quite safe from getting infected.
That was factually true at that point.
Then the virus mutated into a new variant and the vaccine stayed the same.
Understood but surely he knew that was likely and could have mentioned it at the time instead of sounding like the vaccine would be the end of the virus for most people. It's just another example of poor communication.
 
I saw this clip last night. People keep mentioning how Biden said the vaccine would protect you from infection, but I don't remember Fauci saying it.
All in with Chris Hayes - May 17, 2021

So, low likelihood of transmission, low likelihood of getting infected. When you do get infected, the chances are, you`re going to be without symptoms. And because of that, that was the accumulating scientific data that prompted the CDC to make that recommendation, that when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected, whether they`re outdoors or indoors. That`s the bottom line of that to get people to appreciate you get vaccinated and you`re really quite safe from getting infected.
That was factually true at that point.
Then the virus mutated into a new variant and the vaccine stayed the same.
Understood but surely he knew that was likely and could have mentioned it at the time instead of sounding like the vaccine would be the end of the virus for most people. It's just another example of poor communication.
I think his goal was to get the most people vaccinated as that would improve public health, so he probably didn't want to go into a hypothetical about future variants and the vaccine potentially losing some effectiveness.
 
I think his goal was to get the most people vaccinated as that would improve public health, so he probably didn't want to go into a hypothetical about future variants and the vaccine potentially losing some effectiveness.
He was in too important a position to me to be making a statement like that without clarifying. I actually never thought he had put it quite like that until hearing it the other day. I can understand Biden saying it. No one expects him to know all the details but Fauci should have made it clear that it was likely that a future variant would require another vaccine and getting the vax that was currently available could only be counted on preventing infection from the virus as it was at the time. It was dishonest to say "when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected" no matter what the motive was for the statement. I understand wanting to get people vaccinated but it's things like this that foster mistrust from people.
 
I think his goal was to get the most people vaccinated as that would improve public health, so he probably didn't want to go into a hypothetical about future variants and the vaccine potentially losing some effectiveness.
He was in too important a position to me to be making a statement like that without clarifying. I actually never thought he had put it quite like that until hearing it the other day. I can understand Biden saying it. No one expects him to know all the details but Fauci should have made it clear that it was likely that a future variant would require another vaccine and getting the vax that was currently available could only be counted on preventing infection from the virus as it was at the time. It was dishonest to say "when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected" no matter what the motive was for the statement. I understand wanting to get people vaccinated but it's things like this that foster mistrust from people.
I think you're still glossing over a lot of context. When he said that it was factually accurate. Any future variant was hypothetical. He knew that variants would be likely, but he had no idea as to the extent that the vaccine would be protective against these variants. It could've remained highly effective. Or, it could've gone like it has, or even worse with no benefit from vaccination at all. It makes zero sense for him, at that point, to say anything about it.
 
I think you're still glossing over a lot of context. When he said that it was factually accurate. Any future variant was hypothetical. He knew that variants would be likely, but he had no idea as to the extent that the vaccine would be protective against these variants. It could've remained highly effective. Or, it could've gone like it has, or even worse with no benefit from vaccination at all. It makes zero sense for him, at that point, to say anything about it.
I don't agree but that's fine.
 
Actually, did no one get the first version of covid after getting vaccinated?

Some did for sure -- the early mRNA vaccines trialed at about 90% effective against specifically symptomatic infection. So you'd have the ~10% that would've gotten symptomatic infections plus however many more got asymptomatic infections (which were not accounted for during trials AFAIK).

...

One component of COVID vaccine effectiveness against transmission that was not understood until several months in was how long it would be until protection waned. In spring 2021, this was still a black box because data was just barely beginning to get collected on how long past their second vaccines people with breakthrough infections actually were. The picture got clearer by late summer 2021, when the ball got rolling on booster recommendations.
 
Actually, did no one get the first version of covid after getting vaccinated?
It was like ~99% effective at preventing catching it for the Alpha and Beta variants. That dropped to like ~60% with Delta. And then like ~10% with Omicron.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top