re: I Can’t Remember, Did We Have Any Fauci Worshipers On Here?

quote:

---

It’s not that I don’t like what you’re writing. It’s that what you’re writing makes you look like a complete douche nozzle and biased idiot.

Perhaps this is your default setting and how you usually come off here.

---

It can be. Again, if I read bad-faith, I will dismiss you. If you have an honest question, I will answer you honestly. Many people in this thread absolutely don't care about my own words and are trying to paint discussions I've had in the past as broad support for Fauci. Nothing I've ever written could suggest that. I've said that he is one of the premier physician-scientists of this era. Looking at his h-index and his publication record reinforces that. He can be both one of the most impactful physician-scientists ever and also very bad at employing a disease control strategy. Those are two different things. That fact of his publication record also doesn't mean he is some god or that I believe he shouldn't be held accountable or that I believed him in the past. He is one of the main people responsible for what is the actual illness, which is the regulatory capture that pharmaceuticals have on US healthcare, and I would love nothing more than to dismantle that regulatory and academic capture.

I say that I don't think it will happen is primarily due to the behavior of the pharmaceutical companies themselves, despite some Trump efforts against them. The campaign to undo the regulatory capture has to be through subsequent administrations, and I just don't believe that will happen either.

quote:

---

It's only an eradication tool if it's a) effective at a much higher rate than currently shown, and b) can be "updated," manufactured and administered at such a speed that it precludes further mutation.

---

The main issue with eradication is that we cannot possibly control transmission. Smallpox eradication was aided by a consistent presentation, a viral exanthem which was pathognomonic for infection, and a low mutation rate due to the morphology of the virus itself. Even that process of eradication took great effort. Dr. DA Henderson wrote a wonderful book on smallpox eradication, and he notes that even in regions where it was still at an epidemic or endemic levels when the vaccination campaign began, there was still massive institutional pushback, with I believe a southeast Asian country's health department (possibly Indonesia) even returning the money that was allocated to them for the vaccination campaign, as the head of that program said it was impossible to eradicate. Regardless, it took several things and levels of cooperation between discrete political entities for eradication to even be possible, and I am skeptical we will ever get that sort of international cooperation ever again.

quote:

---

b) can be "updated," manufactured and administered at such a speed that it precludes further mutation.

---

I mean, this was one of the selling points of the vaccine as it was designed. As in, this was explicitly stated as one of the possible benefits of the mRNA approach. We never saw anything close to what was required and the piecemeal strategy ended up being the worst of all the possible solutions.

quote:

---

Even if both Pfizer and Moderna had been 100%, or even 95% effective with no long term side effects, eradication likely wouldn't have been possible even by today.

---

I posited in that earlier post, either in the one I linked or some other one, that the only way designing a vaccine with such a narrow molecular range would possibly work was if you wanted to manipulate the error mutation rate to push the virus towards genomic exhaustion as it were. I think and thought at the time, that was a pretty poor strategy, especially when Modern and Pfizer did not want to share their mRNA tech widely.

quote:

---

I know..... you just disagree with the behavior and are curious what's behind it?

carry on with your social experiment.

---

Thank you. I will do just that.