Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2112981?query=featured_coronavirus&fbclid=IwAR34DjPpZgrEfUy1QtP62lCq79ysa7Uv8vkWHDF6EqL5ON-oRmulrrkQrrQ

"Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Highly Vaccinated Health System Workforce"

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Dr. Fauci is not only perceived as an expert in his field, he is a preeminent expert and one of the most cited scientific researchers in his field.... He's someone that should be given serious attention and listened to regarding the current pandemic.

The problem with technical experts is when they wade into politics. His flip-flopping on many subjects reduced his credibility among the general public (to which he is addressing his opinion, btw).

So, which Dr. Fauci should we listen to?

Fauci did this interview in 2019 less than a year before COVID. Most people have never seen it. Listen to him laugh off the idea of wearing a mask to stop yourself from getting an infection.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CTyOJSUjxsG/?utm_medium=share_sheet&fbclid=IwAR3PcT9etyAs6p0TX-6xG7Lcy5MzRqbDf8qLQKfLOUkHA1XTibEPKF8KurQ

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...

[TechTalk]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing infection, serious illness, and death. Most people who get COVID-19 are unvaccinated. However, since vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, some people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19. An infection of a fully vaccinated person is referred to as a “vaccine breakthrough infection.”

What We Know about Vaccine Breakthrough Infections

• Vaccine breakthrough infections are expected. COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing most infections. However, like other vaccines, they are not 100% effective.

• Fully vaccinated people with a vaccine breakthrough infection are less likely to develop serious illness than those who are unvaccinated and get COVID-19.

• Even when fully vaccinated people develop symptoms, they tend to be less severe symptoms than in unvaccinated people. This means they are much less likely to be hospitalized or die than people who are not vaccinated.

• People who get vaccine breakthrough infections can be contagious.

CDC is collecting data on vaccine breakthrough infections and closely monitors the safety and effectiveness of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccines. Because vaccines are not 100% effective, as the number of people who are fully vaccinated goes up, the number of vaccine breakthrough infections will also increase. However, the risk of infection remains much higher for unvaccinated than vaccinated people. Studies so far show that vaccinated people are 8 times less likely to be infected and 25 times less likely to experience hospitalization or death. Vaccines remain effective in protecting most people from COVID-19 infection and its complications.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Once again, your verbosity and quoting masks the lack of point or the lack of answers to the points others raised. You are just regurgitating the known. Nobody is claiming that vaccines, in general, are not useful.

[Manoli]

My apologies if it was perceived as an attempt to offend (even if so by others, not you).

My question was genuine, because I heard such an explanation several times, the last from my friend, a doctor. So it sounded like a common source.

If you say so, I’ll take you at your word.
I’ll retract the post and add an apology into the mix.

[TechTalk]

Nobody is claiming that vaccines, in general, are not useful.

Great! Then the entire population will soon be vaccinated!

[TechTalk]

Well, thank you for finding the quote I had in mind.

Your point?

Because the quote seems to confirm what I was saying, no?

Your statement attributed to Dr. Fauci was "that the vaccinated are equally likely to be infectious as the unvaccinated" which leaves out the the portion of his statement which in full said "people who are vaccinated, who get breakthrough infections" can spread the virus to others. He is not saying that everyone vaccinated is "equally likely to be infectious as the unvaccinated" as your edited version of his statement suggests. He and the CDC are only referring to vaccinated people whose immune systems were not able to eradicate contact with the virus before it has had time to replicate and become a more widely spread internal infection—a breakthrough infection.

I added the verbose regurgitation, as you have framed it, from the CDC to better explain what is meant by a "breakthrough infection". The verbose regurgitation from the CDC which I posted says: "the risk of infection remains much higher for unvaccinated than vaccinated people. Studies so far show that vaccinated people are 8 times less likely to be infected". So, the statement "that the vaccinated are equally likely to be infectious as the unvaccinated" which you attribute it to Dr.Fauci is not accurate, due to the way you have edited what he actually said.

Perhaps you didn't find my verbose regurgitation helpful, maybe someone else will. Sorry, but I couldn't find an appropriate internet meme.

It would be worthwhile to watch the entire interview...

https://www.youtube.com/Fauci says unvaccinated Americans are "propagating this outbreak" as Delta spreads

[TechTalk]

So, which Dr. Fauci should we listen to?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CTyOJSUjxsG/?utm_medium=share_sheet&fbclid=IwAR3PcT9etyAs6p0TX-6xG7Lcy5MzRqbDf8qLQKfLOUkHA1XTibEPKF8KurQ

There is only one Dr. Fauci and I would listen to anything that he has to say regarding infectious diseases. One common ploy used by those that want to dismiss scientific expertise is to point to changes in the advice and opinions of scientists. This is usually done by people that have very rigid views and are extremely reluctant to change them—under any circumstances.

A good example is the video to which you linked. It's eagerly lapped up by those that have a bias against "experts" and their opinions. What those people will willfully ignore and never take into consideration is that what would be recommended by public health officials under normal conditions, a year before a deadly pandemic, are not the same recommendations they would be giving during the ongoing spread and evolution of a deadly pandemic.

While changes in the recommendations under those two very different circumstances are understandable and reasonable to the majority of the population seeking to protect themselves and others during a pandemic; those with a blind spot caused by a deeply ingrained resentment of "experts" who have deep knowledge in areas which they don't posses, will latch on to any excuse not to listen and dismiss their advice as phony.

Science is rarely, if ever, certain in an absolute sense. It would go against the fundamental principles of science if views didn't change with new evidence or under different conditions. Unfortunately, there is always a portion of the population with an inherent deep seated fear of uncertainty who cannot understand or accept changing ideas and circumstances whether it involves science or anything else.

[Peter McLennan]

They may have just wanted to read the original source.

It was crystal clear who wrote that post because of the very absence of a link.

[TechTalk]

The problem with technical experts is when they wade into politics.

Dr. Fauci is a career research scientist, educator training immunologists, and physician treating patients to this day. In addition to all of that, he has also been the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which also includes the national Vaccine Research Center, since 1984. NIAID has a congressionally appropriated budget of slightly over $6 billion; the institute which he directs is part of the executive branch; and he has been called upon as a scientific advisor to multiple presidents. So, yes—regardless of what his interests and preferences might be—he is frequently in contact with a variety of political figures by the necessity of his work.

His flip-flopping on many subjects reduced his credibility among the general public (to which he is addressing his opinion, btw).

There has certainly been a concerted effort to reduce "his credibility among the general public" by Trump acolytes who greatly resented interviews in which Dr. Fauci diplomatically corrected some of the inconsistent statements and incorrect assertions made by Trump regarding COVID. Of course, efforts to reduce "his credibility among the general public" have also come from the anti-mask and anti-vaccination crowd, largely made up of the previously mentioned group.

I'm not sure how successful those efforts have been with the "general public" as a whole. I suspect those supporting those efforts believe they have been wildly successful.

[Peter McLennan]

Once again, your verbosity and quoting masks the lack of point or the lack of answers to the points others raised. ...

However, his accurate and succinct curation of the truth is a cool breeze in the torrid climate of falsehood, rhetoric and disinformation.

I suspect those supporting those efforts believe they have been wildly successful.

They have indeed.

[TechTalk]

EDIT: someone even suggested these (C19 and the flu) shouldn't even be called vaccines, but rather shots, given that they do not create immunity, just reduce the symptoms.

Complete hogwash by whoever "someone" might be. "Someone" is clueless.

Which was quietly confirmed recently by CDC changing the very definition of a vaccine.

Conspiratorial baloney with cheese. The definition is the same as it has always been. The language was changed to more clearly and accurately reflect what vaccines have always been and done.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... what would be recommended by public health officials under normal conditions, a year before a deadly pandemic, are not the same recommendations they would be giving during the ongoing spread and evolution of a deadly pandemic...

This isn't the first (deadly) pandemic in history. He wasn't asked about a seasonal cold. So, no I do not buy the distinction.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It was crystal clear who wrote that post because of the very absence of a link.

Which could be a consequence of a simple oversight or haste. Or pressing "post" too soon. Happened to me on occasion.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Your statement attributed to Dr. Fauci was "that the vaccinated are equally likely to be infectious as the unvaccinated" which leaves out the the portion of his statement which in full said "people who are vaccinated, who get breakthrough infections" can spread the virus to others. He is not saying that everyone vaccinated is "equally likely to be infectious as the unvaccinated" as your edited version of his statement suggests. He and the CDC are only referring to vaccinated people whose immune systems were not able to eradicate contact with the virus before it has had time to replicate and become a more widely spread internal infection—a breakthrough infection....

Fair enough, I accept the distinction.

However, just as not all vaccinated will get a breakthrough infection, not all unvaccinated are going to get infected either, and even those who do, a good portion will have such small or non-existent symptoms as to not be infectious.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The definition is the same as it has always been. The language was changed to more clearly and accurately reflect what vaccines have always been and done.

Definitely not. The language is substantially different. "More accurately reflect" is just weaseling out. You had 100 years to change the language, and yet... it is done now, when the "vaccines" subscribe to a subscription model.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

There is only one Dr. Fauci ...

There is a video of him repeatedly stating, numerous times, that there should be no vaccine mandates, up until now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBtYEDMy9Bk

[TechTalk]

This isn't the first (deadly) pandemic in history. He wasn't asked about a seasonal cold. So, no I do not buy the distinction.

No he wasn't asked about "a seasonal cold" nor was he asked about a pandemic virus. What he was specifically asked about was "an infectious disease" which sounds pretty generic to me.

If you don't see a distinction between "an infectious disease" and a deadly pandemic. That's up to you.

[TechTalk]

Definitely not. The language is substantially different. "More accurately reflect" is just weaseling out. You had 100 years to change the language, and yet... it is done now, when the "vaccines" subscribe to a subscription model.

I don't think the CDC has had a website for a 100 years. I could be wrong.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/09/vaccine-skeptics-claim-new-cdc-gotcha-moment-they-havent-got-much/

It’s interesting that the CDC changed the Web page. But as for the conclusions being drawn about its significance? Those leave a lot to be desired, and they rest upon continual misrepresentations and misunderstandings of what vaccination and “immunity” are supposed to mean.

From the start of the vaccination campaigns, critics have searched long and hard for evidence that the vaccines don’t work as well as they were supposed to. This has sometimes involved suggesting that anything less than 100 percent efficacy means they don’t work.

In truth, though, medical experts have long said that no vaccine, including the coronavirus vaccines, is 100 percent effective. If “immunity” connotes complete protection, then no vaccine actually provides it.