ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

The standard was vastly exceeded against the initial variant, effectiveness against infection waned significantly as the virus mutated.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

The standard was vastly exceeded against the initial variant, effectiveness against infection waned significantly as the virus mutated.

---

We typically maintain a 50% immunity standard with the influenza vaccines, and it's more genetically complicated with more sub variants. With the COVID vaccine, we've tossed aside any semblance of immune efficacy that impacts spread and simply settled on an immune booster that prevents severe disease. That is certainly a benefit, but some of you are pretending that the intent of a vaccine and what was touted wasn't supposed to incorporate a reduction in infection rate. We measure the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the percentage of reduction in getting the virus, not how well it minimizes symptoms. That's just an added side benefit of being immunized. And you can claim mutations all you want, but that's standard viral behavior that we deal with in all vaccines.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

The standard was vastly exceeded against the initial variant, effectiveness against infection waned significantly as the virus mutated.

---

We typically maintain a 50% immunity standard with the influenza vaccines, and it's more genetically complicated with more sub variants. With the COVID vaccine, we've tossed aside any semblance of immune efficacy that impacts spread and simply settled on an immune booster that prevents severe disease. That is certainly a benefit, but some of you are pretending that the intent of a vaccine and what was touted wasn't supposed to incorporate a reduction in infection rate. We measure the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the percentage of reduction in getting the virus, not how well it minimizes symptoms. That's just an added side benefit of being immunized. And you can claim mutations all you want, but that's standard viral behavior that we deal with in all vaccines.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

The standard was vastly exceeded against the initial variant, effectiveness against infection waned significantly as the virus mutated.

---

We typically maintain a 50% immunity standard with the influenza vaccines, and it's more genetically complicated with more sub variants. With the COVID vaccine, we've tossed aside any semblance of immune efficacy that impacts spread and simply settled on an immune booster that prevents severe disease. That is certainly a benefit, but some of you are pretending that the intent of a vaccine and what was touted wasn't supposed to incorporate a reduction in infection rate. We measure the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the percentage of reduction in getting the virus, not how well it minimizes symptoms. That's just an added side benefit of being immunized. And you can claim mutations all you want, but that's standard viral behavior that we deal with in all vaccines.

---

I am not pretending anything. I am reminding you that standard for acceptance of a vaccine for COVID was a 50 percent reduction in cases OR a 50 percent reduction in severe illness.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

The standard was vastly exceeded against the initial variant, effectiveness against infection waned significantly as the virus mutated.

---

We typically maintain a 50% immunity standard with the influenza vaccines, and it's more genetically complicated with more sub variants. With the COVID vaccine, we've tossed aside any semblance of immune efficacy that impacts spread and simply settled on an immune booster that prevents severe disease. That is certainly a benefit, but some of you are pretending that the intent of a vaccine and what was touted wasn't supposed to incorporate a reduction in infection rate. We measure the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the percentage of reduction in getting the virus, not how well it minimizes symptoms. That's just an added side benefit of being immunized. And you can claim mutations all you want, but that's standard viral behavior that we deal with in all vaccines.

---

I am not pretending anything. I am reminding you that standard for acceptance of a vaccine for COVID was a 50 percent reduction in cases OR a 50 percent reduction in severe illness.

---

Not sure I read it as an either or, nevertheless the conversation was about what the "experts" were saying, not the FDA EUA standard.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

Don't straw man. The pharmaceutical companies and Fauci promoted the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines as > 90% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2. They clearly did not. That does not mean they are not valuable in reducing the severity of symptoms, but as noted by the article I posted they were not nearly as effective as the "experts" told us they would be.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

I didn't make that claim. And it wasn't effective against spread.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

The standard was vastly exceeded against the initial variant, effectiveness against infection waned significantly as the virus mutated.

---

We typically maintain a 50% immunity standard with the influenza vaccines, and it's more genetically complicated with more sub variants. With the COVID vaccine, we've tossed aside any semblance of immune efficacy that impacts spread and simply settled on an immune booster that prevents severe disease. That is certainly a benefit, but some of you are pretending that the intent of a vaccine and what was touted wasn't supposed to incorporate a reduction in infection rate. We measure the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the percentage of reduction in getting the virus, not how well it minimizes symptoms. That's just an added side benefit of being immunized. And you can claim mutations all you want, but that's standard viral behavior that we deal with in all vaccines.

---

I am not pretending anything. I am reminding you that standard for acceptance of a vaccine for COVID was a 50 percent reduction in cases OR a 50 percent reduction in severe illness.

---

Not sure I read it as an either or, nevertheless the conversation was about what the "experts" were saying, not the FDA EUA standard.

---

It was or, not and. If it did absolutely nothing to reduce cases but reduced severe illness by 50 percent, it would have been approved.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

I didn't make that claim. And it wasn't effective against spread.

---

And yes it was.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

The standard was vastly exceeded against the initial variant, effectiveness against infection waned significantly as the virus mutated.

---

We typically maintain a 50% immunity standard with the influenza vaccines, and it's more genetically complicated with more sub variants. With the COVID vaccine, we've tossed aside any semblance of immune efficacy that impacts spread and simply settled on an immune booster that prevents severe disease. That is certainly a benefit, but some of you are pretending that the intent of a vaccine and what was touted wasn't supposed to incorporate a reduction in infection rate. We measure the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the percentage of reduction in getting the virus, not how well it minimizes symptoms. That's just an added side benefit of being immunized. And you can claim mutations all you want, but that's standard viral behavior that we deal with in all vaccines.

---

I am not pretending anything. I am reminding you that standard for acceptance of a vaccine for COVID was a 50 percent reduction in cases OR a 50 percent reduction in severe illness.

---

Not sure I read it as an either or, nevertheless the conversation was about what the "experts" were saying, not the FDA EUA standard.

---

It was or, not and. If it did absolutely nothing to reduce cases but reduced severe illness by 50 percent, it would have been approved.

---

It was and/or. Question is does that make it a vaccine or a therapeutic (vaccine therapy if you will)?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

I didn't make that claim. And it wasn't effective against spread.

---

And yes it was.

---

Maybe for one moment in 2020 against the weak Alpha strain in a controlled test environment. Since then it's done little to nothing against infection.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

I didn't make that claim. And it wasn't effective against spread.

---

And yes it was.

---

Maybe for one moment in 2020 against the weak Alpha strain in a controlled test environment. Since then it's done little to nothing against infection.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

I didn't make that claim. And it wasn't effective against spread.

---

And yes it was.

---

Maybe for one moment in 2020 against the weak Alpha strain in a controlled test environment. Since then it's done little to nothing against infection.

---

Are you referring to the "weak alpha strain" that was overwhelming our medical system or something else?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

The standard was vastly exceeded against the initial variant, effectiveness against infection waned significantly as the virus mutated.

---

We typically maintain a 50% immunity standard with the influenza vaccines, and it's more genetically complicated with more sub variants. With the COVID vaccine, we've tossed aside any semblance of immune efficacy that impacts spread and simply settled on an immune booster that prevents severe disease. That is certainly a benefit, but some of you are pretending that the intent of a vaccine and what was touted wasn't supposed to incorporate a reduction in infection rate. We measure the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the percentage of reduction in getting the virus, not how well it minimizes symptoms. That's just an added side benefit of being immunized. And you can claim mutations all you want, but that's standard viral behavior that we deal with in all vaccines.

---

I am not pretending anything. I am reminding you that standard for acceptance of a vaccine for COVID was a 50 percent reduction in cases OR a 50 percent reduction in severe illness.

---

Not sure I read it as an either or, nevertheless the conversation was about what the "experts" were saying, not the FDA EUA standard.

---

It was or, not and. If it did absolutely nothing to reduce cases but reduced severe illness by 50 percent, it would have been approved.

---

It was and/or. Question is does that make it a vaccine or a therapeutic (vaccine therapy if you will)?

---

It is a vaccine because it stimulates the immune system to respond to a pathogen. Knowing its level of effectiveness against particular pathogens depends on data.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

Let's be intellectually honest and admit that the benchmark for approval of these vaccines was a 50 percent reduction in infection or severe illness.

---

According to who?

---

FDA.

---

Ah, the minimum EUA requirement. Not sure we even met that on infection.

---

The standard was vastly exceeded against the initial variant, effectiveness against infection waned significantly as the virus mutated.

---

We typically maintain a 50% immunity standard with the influenza vaccines, and it's more genetically complicated with more sub variants. With the COVID vaccine, we've tossed aside any semblance of immune efficacy that impacts spread and simply settled on an immune booster that prevents severe disease. That is certainly a benefit, but some of you are pretending that the intent of a vaccine and what was touted wasn't supposed to incorporate a reduction in infection rate. We measure the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the percentage of reduction in getting the virus, not how well it minimizes symptoms. That's just an added side benefit of being immunized. And you can claim mutations all you want, but that's standard viral behavior that we deal with in all vaccines.

---

I am not pretending anything. I am reminding you that standard for acceptance of a vaccine for COVID was a 50 percent reduction in cases OR a 50 percent reduction in severe illness.

---

Not sure I read it as an either or, nevertheless the conversation was about what the "experts" were saying, not the FDA EUA standard.

---

It was or, not and. If it did absolutely nothing to reduce cases but reduced severe illness by 50 percent, it would have been approved.

---

It was and/or. Question is does that make it a vaccine or a therapeutic (vaccine therapy if you will)?

---

It is a vaccine because it stimulates the immune system to respond to a pathogen. Knowing its level of effectiveness against particular pathogens depends on data.

---

That's immuno therapy. They do it with cancer all the time, but we don't call it cancer vaccines.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

Don't straw man. The pharmaceutical companies and Fauci promoted the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines as > 90% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2. They clearly did not. That does not mean they are not valuable in reducing the severity of symptoms, but as noted by the article I posted they were not nearly as effective as the "experts" told us they would be.

---

Yes they were.

---

no they were not.

Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine as a way to slow the spread.
He promoted the vaccine as the best way to STOP the spread. (95% effective....)

Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine as temporary protection.
He promoted the vaccine as long term protection.

Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine asvthe first of what would be many booster shots to provide continuing protection against death.
He promoted the vaccine as long term protection against infection.

Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine as a solution with a primary benefit of reduce severity of illness.
Fauci promoted the reduction of severity of illness as a side-benefit.

Sam, we all heard that arrogant ***** all day, every day, for days on end, droning on and on, constantly contradicting what he had said on previous days. We remember exactly what he said. He wanted every single American vaccinated by hook or crook. He said whatever he thought he needed to say to make that happen, to include taking affirmative steps to use his own bureaucratic power to have people fired for refusing the vaccine.

Why on earth would you waste ink defending that little Nazi?

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/

"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"

"Experts"

---

Not even close.

---

Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.

---

Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."

---

I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.

Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.

---

The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.

---

Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.

---

Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?

---

Don't straw man. The pharmaceutical companies and Fauci promoted the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines as > 90% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2. They clearly did not. That does not mean they are not valuable in reducing the severity of symptoms, but as noted by the article I posted they were not nearly as effective as the "experts" told us they would be.

---

Yes they were.

---

no they were not.

Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine as a way to slow the spread.
He promoted the vaccine as the best way to STOP the spread. (95% effective....)

Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine as temporary protection.
He promoted the vaccine as long term protection.

Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine asvthe first of what would be many booster shots to provide continuing protection against death.
He promoted the vaccine as long term protection against infection.

Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine as a solution with a primary benefit of reduce severity of illness.
Fauci promoted the reduction of severity of illness as a side-benefit.

Sam, we all heard that arrogant ***** all day, every day, for days on end, droning on and on, constantly contradicting what he had said on previous days. We remember exactly what he said. He wanted every single American vaccinated by hook or crook. He said whatever he thought he needed to say to make that happen, to include taking affirmative steps to use his own bureaucratic power to have people fired for refusing the vaccine.

Why on earth would you waste ink defending that little Nazi?

---

I understand these are your perceptions. I'm still waiting for the quotes.

---

We all saw & heard what he said.

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

Quote:

---

. DR. FAUCI: Well, what's happened, there's been an accumulation of data on showing in the real-world effectiveness of the vaccines. It is even better than in the clinical trials, well over 90% protecting you against disease, number one. Number two, a number of papers have come out in the past couple of weeks showing that the vaccine protects even against the variants that are circulating. And thirdly, we're seeing that it is very unlikely that a vaccinated person, even if there's a breakthrough infection, would transmit it to someone else. So, the accumulation of all of those scientific facts, information and evidence brought the CDC to make that decision to say now when you're vaccinated, you don't need to wear a mask, not only outdoors, but you don't need to wear it indoors.

JOHN DICKERSON: So, on that third point, let me ask you this. If I have no symptoms and I have been vaccinated, but I- but I am infected, what's the difference between that? And if I have no symptoms and I'm infected but have not been vaccinated?

DR. FAUCI: Good question, JOHN. And what the- what the issue is, is that the level of virus in your nasal pharynx, which is correlated with whether or not you were going to transmit it to someone else, is considerably lower. So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic, and the level of virus is so low, it makes it extremely unlikely, not impossible, but very, very low likelihood that they are going to transmit it. Whereas when people who are getting infected, who were without symptoms, who are not vaccinated, generally the titer or the level of virus, relatively speaking, is higher than in the vaccinated individuals.

---

Quote:

---

DR. FAUCI: Well, yeah. I mean, it's not going to be absolute zero, but the likelihood, JOHN, of this spreading is really very, very low. And that's one of the reasons why they're even talking about if you are vaccinated, that you're going to cut down on the testing of individuals, because even if they test positive, the likelihood of their transmitting to someone else is really very, very low.

JOHN DICKERSON: So, if- if a person is deciding whether or not to get vaccinated, they have to keep in mind whether it's going to keep them healthy. But based on these new findings, it would suggest they also have an opportunity, if vaccinated, to knock off or block their ability to transmit it to other people. So, does it increase the public health good of getting the vaccination or make that clearer based on these new findings?

DR. FAUCI: And you know, JOHN, you said it very well. I could have said it better. It's absolutely the case. And that's the reason why we say when you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community. And that's exactly the reason, and you said it very well, of why we encourage people and want people to get vaccinated. The more people you get vaccinated, the safer the entire community is.

---

whiterock said:

---

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/bay-area-mask-mandate-results-17271294.php

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

50%+ more dead every day a year later.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

1. Not my claim, and nothing is EVER 100% effective.
2. Yes, it talks about the "dead end" of the vaccinated.
3. He literally talks about the studies showing it works against variants. Delta was ravaging India at this point and in process of ramping up here.

But the fascinating aspect is that since this interview there have been the same number of COVID deaths and nearly twice as many cases, and double the number of vaccinated Americans.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

1. Not my claim, and nothing is EVER 100% effective.
2. Yes, it talks about the "dead end" of the vaccinated.
3. He literally talks about the studies showing it works against variants. Delta was ravaging India at this point and in process of ramping up here.

But the fascinating aspect is that since this interview there have been the same number of COVID deaths and nearly twice as many cases, and double the number of vaccinated Americans.

---

That's not what he means by dead end. He's saying the virus reaches a dead end in each case where it can't transmit through a vaccinated person. Studies do show the vaccine worked against Delta, not quite as well as Alpha, but far better than Omicron.

---

Quote:

---

And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

50%+ more dead every day a year later.

---

Debunked.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/109287

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Good information from Fauci. Still nothing about:

1. 100% effectiveness
2. On a permanent basis
3. Against current and future variants

---

1. Not my claim, and nothing is EVER 100% effective.
2. Yes, it talks about the "dead end" of the vaccinated.
3. He literally talks about the studies showing it works against variants. Delta was ravaging India at this point and in process of ramping up here.

But the fascinating aspect is that since this interview there have been the same number of COVID deaths and nearly twice as many cases, and double the number of vaccinated Americans.

---

That's not what he means by dead end. He's saying the virus reaches a dead end in each case where it can't transmit through a vaccinated person. Studies do show the vaccine worked against Delta, not quite as well as Alpha, but far better than Omicron.

---

Cmon. You know exactly what he meant by a "dead end". Vaccinated people stop the spread. If vaccinated people stop spread, then the virus is stopped/slowed. That proved to be wrong.

Quote:

---

And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.

---

And it was a booster that slowed Delta. Original vaccines failed to stop it. They aren't even trying with Omicron and stealth Omicron, just relying on its tendency to stay upper respiratory and mild.

---