4 ms·

Fauci has admitted it: “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. Fau

Fauci has admitted it: “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.” “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.” -- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...

mythrwy 5y ago
And now we know the truth. 100% won't achieve herd immunity.
- carschno 5y ago
  This is another good example of the issue of misinterpretating true statistics by large portions of the population as outlined above about climate change. Many now understand that even 100% vaccination alone might not end the pandemic, so the conclusion is often "vaccination doesn't work" -- which is much further away from the truth, but fits better into binary thinking and "intuition". Of course, the problem with people who don't believe in vaccination is not only due to their lack of statistical understanding, but it's massively enforced by politicians and "journalist" who spread those lies.
  - vixen99 5y ago
    Belief is comforting. Many prefer to focus on established findings and accepted facts as they emerge. We know that the vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission. Its advantage lies in its effect in reducing but not always preventing severe symptoms and death in vulnerable people. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-.... Both believers and non-believers tend to be immune - to any findings that run counter to their belief systems. Instead of objectively weighing up pros and cons they get rather heated and adopt binary thinking along pro- and anti-vaccination lines with some indulging in the same trap themselves.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    I think the more likely issue is that they are assuming that the vaccine's efficacy is aligned with the strength of the efforts being put into mandating it. When they discover those efforts are excessive they get upset. A reasonable scenario that doesn't get bought up enough is that average people have a radically different risk tolerance than professionals working in the healthcare industry. 1 in 10,000 incidents mean very little to a person on the street but translate into actual work for a healthcare worker.
    - avereveard 5y ago
      I was perfectly fine with the initial take - vaccine once or twice, side effects are rare. Now that it's becoming vaccinate every six months, the outlook of the cumulative probability of side effects doesn't look that good anymore. And, going trough an inflammatory process every six months doesn't seem good on its own, even if the vaccine wouldn't have side effect.
      - kwhitefoot 5y ago
        > going trough an inflammatory process every six months Are you claiming this as a universal truth? Or your specific experience? My experience and that of two of my three adult children is that it was like a slight bruise at the injection site for about 24 hours. The other child felt slightly under the weather for a couple of days, similar severity to having a cold. We all had Pfizer. My impression is that my experience is the more common one, but it is not the one that grabs anyone's attention. The more serious side effects seem to be vanishingly rare.
        avereveard 5y ago
        > My experience and that of two of my three adult children is that it was like a slight bruise at the injection site for about 24 hours. The other child felt slightly under the weather for a couple of days, similar severity to having a cold. We all had Pfizer. so, an inflammatory response.
        5y ago

mythrwy 5y ago

And now we know the truth. 100% won't achieve herd immunity.

carschno 5y ago
This is another good example of the issue of misinterpretating true statistics by large portions of the population as outlined above about climate change. Many now understand that even 100% vaccination alone might not end the pandemic, so the conclusion is often "vaccination doesn't work" -- which is much further away from the truth, but fits better into binary thinking and "intuition". Of course, the problem with people who don't believe in vaccination is not only due to their lack of statistical understanding, but it's massively enforced by politicians and "journalist" who spread those lies.
- vixen99 5y ago
  Belief is comforting. Many prefer to focus on established findings and accepted facts as they emerge. We know that the vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission. Its advantage lies in its effect in reducing but not always preventing severe symptoms and death in vulnerable people. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-.... Both believers and non-believers tend to be immune - to any findings that run counter to their belief systems. Instead of objectively weighing up pros and cons they get rather heated and adopt binary thinking along pro- and anti-vaccination lines with some indulging in the same trap themselves.
- roenxi 5y ago
  I think the more likely issue is that they are assuming that the vaccine's efficacy is aligned with the strength of the efforts being put into mandating it. When they discover those efforts are excessive they get upset. A reasonable scenario that doesn't get bought up enough is that average people have a radically different risk tolerance than professionals working in the healthcare industry. 1 in 10,000 incidents mean very little to a person on the street but translate into actual work for a healthcare worker.
  - avereveard 5y ago
    I was perfectly fine with the initial take - vaccine once or twice, side effects are rare. Now that it's becoming vaccinate every six months, the outlook of the cumulative probability of side effects doesn't look that good anymore. And, going trough an inflammatory process every six months doesn't seem good on its own, even if the vaccine wouldn't have side effect.
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      > going trough an inflammatory process every six months Are you claiming this as a universal truth? Or your specific experience? My experience and that of two of my three adult children is that it was like a slight bruise at the injection site for about 24 hours. The other child felt slightly under the weather for a couple of days, similar severity to having a cold. We all had Pfizer. My impression is that my experience is the more common one, but it is not the one that grabs anyone's attention. The more serious side effects seem to be vanishingly rare.
      - avereveard 5y ago
        > My experience and that of two of my three adult children is that it was like a slight bruise at the injection site for about 24 hours. The other child felt slightly under the weather for a couple of days, similar severity to having a cold. We all had Pfizer. so, an inflammatory response.
        5y ago