The GOVERNMENT should stay out of SCIENCE. That got blown up by them. Activist scientists are a perfect descriptor. I understand a desire for fame and it is not all it’s cracked up to be. There must be some sort of a genetic response when people get drunk on power. Perhaps that choice of words says a lot.
Vinay, I have a question and would love to discuss this with you. I know Dr. Francis Collins indirectly ( as a fellow Christian, founder of BioLogos, speaker at my son's college years ago).
I think he is a man of integrity, and of course an accomplished scientist. Do you know Francis?
Whether you do or not, I wondered if he would dialogue with you ( and maybe me) about these issues? ( not this post; about Covid and "the scandal")
I doubt he would do this publicly, unless the forum for conversation was protected. ( Some kind of seminar or friendly " round table" group with limited and controlled press coverage. Would be amazing to have this occur, with you, Jay B. , etc. Even behind closed doors)
But maybe Francis would talk with you privately? I think his input on this would be invaluable. The future is what matters. But the past may shape this. What do you think?
Do you think Dr. Collins would discuss this? ( I realize he is very proximate to Fauci. But is Collins part of the malignancy or a OAR?)
Feel free to contact me directly, or just comment here if you prefer.
Thanks for what you do. It really matters. Tony Gerard ( ironicly the same name as someone far more famous/ infamous)
In general you are correct that's how it should work.
Scientist gives best estimates of risks, and advises politician who makes correct decision. Trouble with this is that the politician is an idiot who has no grasp of statistics, probabilities or public health. He assured the public that COVID would just disappear in 3 months. He suggested using bleach (good grief - he was serious). So Fauci feeding what little data was available to Trump would guarantee disaster.
Early on it was known as a respiratory virus that had quite a high mortality in elderly or immunosuppressed people (up to 2% over 75yrs. Fauci applied current knowledge of dealing with pandemic. Spread depends on reinfection rate R°. No change to behaviour and the rate is 4.0 so that every case would infect 4 other cases. Spread will then be exponential. Apply separation, hand washing, masks and the rate drops to 1.5 or 1.0 if really strictly applied. These things won't be applied in the land of the free under bad leadership. In countries where those same things were applied the reinfection rate was much lower. In some places the R° was less than 1 so there were NO CASES AT ALL. The logic was to do this in the hope that there would be an effective vaccine.
Miraculously an effective vaccine(s) were found. A randomised double blind trial in 60,000 patients showed a 95% reduction COVID in patients receiving vaccine compared with placebo (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577). Subsequent large trials showed a 92% reduction in admission to intensive care.
This was in 2000. If the vaccine was applied to as many people as possible the attack rate and mortality would have been dramatically reduced. However 1.3M Americans died from COVID. Per capita mortality rates were dramatically lower in countries that followed Fauci's advice.
Personally I supported the early recommendations. In the absence of any evidence follow the general advice. Once a vaccine was developed and proven protective, it would have been reasonable to encourage everyone to get vaccinated, and those that chose not to could accept the consequences. But those that worked with sick and vulnerable hospitals, nursing homes etc had to be very careful.
In Western Australia these policies were followed. 2500 deaths in a population 3.1M. Mortality rate 0.08%. USA deaths 1.23M population 340M mortality rate 0.3%. The mortality rate was nearly 4 times greater than West Australia (obviously a very different state, but shows how it can be controlled).
Leaving the decision to the Trump administration would have resulted in an even greater mortality rate. Vinay's obsession with Fauci (Vinay by the way never mentions outcomes in countries that applied Fauci's suggestions, nor does he mention R°) along with the freedom lovers and antivaxxers lead to the preventable deaths of 100s of thousands of Americans.
Anyone that cares about learning something from the pandemic wants a careful analysis of the pandemic and workout what worked and what didn't. That isn't achieved by this political manhunt against one person by one political party.
By the way, the strategy that resulted in the miraculously rapid development of the vaccines that were very effective in high-risk individuals was called Operation Warp Speed initiated by guess who. In my mid 80's I was happy to get immunized, in Florida where they prioritized high risk individuals. 3 months later my wife and I got Covid. So much for preventing transmission.
The randomised trials involving over 60,000 patients showed that infection was reduced by 70%, so obviously many people still get the infection, however if you are infected the risk of ending in intensive care is reduced by 92%. Most likely your wife's illness was greatly attenuated. It is amazing that people expected the vaccine to eliminate infection. The trials were very clear.
Isn't elimination of the infection by the vaccine and the shutdown of social and economic activity what was implied in the effort to obtain herd immunity? Here's what I think. Original Covid was a man-made coronavirus, engineered to cause widespread infection and at least partly financed, contrary to prudent opinion, by our own public health authorities. In light of its novelty, it 1. spread like wildfire, and 2. caused a major problem in those with a somewhat impaired immune system by bypassing the upper respiratory tract to cause pulmonary failure. Subsequent iterations of the virus have transformed it into a much more benign status similar to other coronaviruses. The problem addressing the public health people after the initial smoke cleared was how to handle the issue in the minority who were at risk and not adversely affect the majority who were not. They badly botched it. The armamentarium in the battle was enormously enriched by the strategy of the Trump administration in expediting an effective vaccine but once again the authorities misused it, delaying its availability for those who wanted and needed it and forcing its use upon those who didn't want it or need it. The bad response of the public health authorities, aided by the politicians after the 2020 election, was compounded by their active suppression of any expert disagreement such as most particularly in the Great Barrington Declaration. I can't think of having seen a more unscientific response in my 50+ years of medical practice. The ironic thing about the political attitude toward the vaccines was that the anti-Trump forces initially cautioned against its use while Mr. Trump was in control and became intense advocates for its use as soon as they gained power, even in those such as children who had infinitesimally low risk from the virus and uncertain potential long-term risk from the vaccine. I think you are letting your anti-Trump feelings cloud your thinking on this issue.
Herd immunity will occur either by exposure or vaccination. Well over a million Americans died from COVID and the number would have been much higher if not for vaccination. There doesn't appear to be any way to tell at the moment where the virus came from. Numerous experts have leaned one way or another. One thing is for sure conducting a ridiculous show trial where the Senate President stated before he started that he wanted to put Fauci into Jail was NOT THE WAY TO FIND OUT ANSWERS, especially when the Dept of Justice is now clearly controlled by Mr Trump, as evidenced by the Olympian handcuffed and prosecuted for looking into Trumps botched pool. Nobody can expect fair treatment from this administration at the moment. That's not TDS, that's simply the facts. I watched the senate discussion about this and the Democrats pointed this out: that if you want the answers to these questions give Fauci complete immunity, so that he can answer freely. If however you want to excite the bloodlust of the US right then continue with the show trial.
Anthony I might be missing your argument. Were you suggesting that the vaccination should have been given to the most vulnerable group before the randomised double blind trials were published? I think it should have been given as soon as possible after those trials were published.
Incidentally that old saw about Trump advising people to take bleach is fake news, but you seem predisposed to believe it. If you're interested in the truth, watch a video of the actual press conference. Someone from the scientific community had just presented evidence that bleach applied to fomites effectively killed the virus. Trump suggested off hand that an injection of bleach into a room, such as a spray, possibly could be effective. He was later asked directly whether he was talking about injecting bleach into people and he clarified the statement. Of course, the fake media went with the fake story for the gullible.
If anyone is interested in the musings of a brilliant politician about COVID here's the actual press conference. It got a lot of laughs around the world.
Trump says a lot of off the cuff things, oftentimes more than he should. However, he most specifically, despite the fake news, did not say that people with Covid should take bleach, either orally or by injection. But I really don't get your virulent hostility to the guy. If anything, after the initial "2 weeks to stop the spread" I think he gave far better advice to the general public than did Dr. Fauci. Specifically in March 2020 he advised that "we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself". I consider that to have been excellent advice.
Sounds like a bad case of TDS. What's a politician, who admittedly has no scientific background supposed to do when the "scientist" gives him advice. Actually, when it comes right down to it my opinion is that Trump, with common sense, eventually had a better handle on how to approach the problem of whether to shut down social and commercial activity than his scientist adviser. How about the fact that 40% of the deaths were occurring in nursing home patients. Why did not Fauci recommend carrying out phase 3 studies of the vaccine in nursing home volunteers, saving many months of withholding in those who would have clearly benefitted? Would have had a dramatic impact on the mortality rate. The serious event rate in younger, healthier individuals was infinitesimally better and yet they were being fired from their jobs for not taking a yet long-term unproven vaccine. There was no data to strongly indicate that this unproven strategy of infringement on civil rights and economic well being was going to benefit the public. That summer our grandkids in MD were getting online schooling, a disaster for low income kids, but when we went back to FL the kids were getting on the school buses as usual, with no adverse impact. Regarding other countries, liberal Sweden handled the problem much less dictatorially with decent outcomes and much less social and economic destruction of their citizen's lives and livelihoods.
Sweden had a higher per capita death rate than the other Scandinavian countries. Also Swedes are far more likely to follow the advice they were given. Better educated than the US. Sweden's approach might have been preferable. What we need is those in power to invest in a serious study of the best course of action for the next one, rather than a frantic witch hunt to hunt down an ideological enemy. Why would anyone do a study in nursing home volunteers? Thousands would die while waiting for the result. A single infected volunteer in a nursing home would kill many of the residents. The thing about a pandemic that kills many people is that you can't wait for all the answers, act on best advice and modify as evidence comes in.
I also am not a fan of punishing Dr. Fauci at this late date, but I do think it's reasonable to get at the truth, as you say to "study the best course of action for the next one". It appears that Dr Fauci, whose reputation I had not questioned in the past, did a lot of underhanded stuff, including pushing gain of function research and combining with political forces to block any questioning of his pronouncements by other perfectly sound scientific voices. He was ultimately responsible for a lot of farcical and harmful government infringements on the public and false information.
I agree it is most important. However the US has a dept of Justice that just handcuffed an Olympian for looking in the great pool and arresting him for damaging it - with his bare hands FCS!! This is justice at the whim of a President that regards justice as an extension of his vengeful imagination. If the committee wanted these critical questions answered they could have given Fauci immunity for any answers he gave. But of course that isn't what they wanted. In medicine in Australia in root cause analysis of a possible dangerous error - it is accepted that the truth is more important than punishment so that all witnesses can speak the truth without fear of charges. I was shocked at Fauci refusing to answer but it was clear this was all about retribution and not truth and he was in very dangerous ground.
You're missing the point. In April and May of 2020 it was known that 40-50% of original Covid deaths were occurring in institutionalized patients, whereas the death rate in young otherwise healthy individuals was miniscule. The first results of the 600 person Moderna trial showing excellent antibody response were in early summer. So, even though the public health experts were considering the problem a public health emergency, one worth disrupting the lives of millions of small business owners and children and causing major socioeconomic disruption, 5 or 6 months were wasted and hundreds of thousands of deaths were allowed to occur in order to prove that the vaccine was effective in the general public, most of whom had limited need for it. A vaccine, mind you, that prevented serious consequences in the vulnerable but did not prevent broad transmission, a fact that could have been predicted considering the large reservoir of mild and minimally symptomatic cases known to be present. Some public health experts!
I'm scratchy on those dates. But it is essential to wait for randomised double blind trials. The Moderna trial was published in January 2021. This and other massive trials reduced COVID infections by around 70%. This reduced reinfection rate quotient R°, which in combination with masks and separation and isolation can drastically reduce and prevent the spread of the disease. In doing this it prevents exposure to the more vulnerable people. If you don't understand R° it's best you avoid commenting. Once we had a proven vaccine it might have been reasonable to allow people to go back to normal life, but still encourage hand washing masks and isolating where appropriate.
why don't we start with the real picture: 9 out o 10 Americans have CKM. And 70% have a waistline inches or more and that is too big. So since no MD will call out the facts, it matters little about one specific vaccine for a tiny group. The issue is that 90% of ht populations damaged good. Seconds.
You would like 'some evidence of how he is a threat to democracy'.
Separation of powers
1. The judiciary. By appointing judges on the basis of their ideology rather than their qualities as a judge, he is attempting to create a Judiciary that follows his orders. In turn he criticises and abuses judges that make decisions he doesn't like. He has converted the justice department into an organisation chiefly to punish and persecute those that disagree with him. He completely destroys a sense of justice by giving pardons to those that the courts convict (because the criminals like him, or because they pay him a lot of money). Any Trump loyalist knows that they can break the law knowing they will be pardoned and anyone who disagrees with him is persecuted. No President has ever behaved like this.
2. The Executive. Again he has appointed people on the basis that they will be subservient to him and not express opinions that contradict him. His universal Tarriffs were illegal as he bypassed the House. The Tarriffs were really to pay for his Beautiful big bill which contained massive tax cuts to the wealthy.
3. The legislature. This organisation represent the entire country but he has created an organisation that never questions his demands. Any Republican that challenges his crazy ideas are hunted down and generally removed by the party. As a result the Legislature has been completely ineffective in doing their job of providing a separate voice for the people.
4. The Media. His constant abuse of and gaslighting of the media has been intended once again to make the media less effective. Any question that is important he replies with personal insults and the charge of 'fake news' instead of actually answering important questions. His appalling behaviour towards female journalists is also unprecedented.
5. Elections. Elections provides the opportunity for the people to get rid of an unpopular president or party. His endless claims that the 2000 election was rigged has been repudiated by there being zero evidence and 40 court cases many from Republican appointed judges. The gullible followers were so convinced this was the case that we had a violent attack on parliament . He demanded to get rid of the vice president who refused to overturn the election. All this is an unprecedented fundamental challenge to US democracy. Of course since then he pardoned all the protestors and he has initiated efforts to Gerrymander the election roles to further undermine democracy.
Then there's the massive corruption and deals with foreign affairs and leaders who are paying his businesses funds while he makes decisions about their countries.
“Every bargain for influence carries a receipt.”
— Fausti
The GOVERNMENT should stay out of SCIENCE. That got blown up by them. Activist scientists are a perfect descriptor. I understand a desire for fame and it is not all it’s cracked up to be. There must be some sort of a genetic response when people get drunk on power. Perhaps that choice of words says a lot.
Vinay, I have a question and would love to discuss this with you. I know Dr. Francis Collins indirectly ( as a fellow Christian, founder of BioLogos, speaker at my son's college years ago).
I think he is a man of integrity, and of course an accomplished scientist. Do you know Francis?
Whether you do or not, I wondered if he would dialogue with you ( and maybe me) about these issues? ( not this post; about Covid and "the scandal")
I doubt he would do this publicly, unless the forum for conversation was protected. ( Some kind of seminar or friendly " round table" group with limited and controlled press coverage. Would be amazing to have this occur, with you, Jay B. , etc. Even behind closed doors)
But maybe Francis would talk with you privately? I think his input on this would be invaluable. The future is what matters. But the past may shape this. What do you think?
Do you think Dr. Collins would discuss this? ( I realize he is very proximate to Fauci. But is Collins part of the malignancy or a OAR?)
Feel free to contact me directly, or just comment here if you prefer.
Thanks for what you do. It really matters. Tony Gerard ( ironicly the same name as someone far more famous/ infamous)
W. Anthony Gerard, MD FAAFP, FACEP
wanthonygerard@gmail.com
717-926-7641
Advisor to Donald Trump on Operation Warp Speed was this person: https://carnegie.org/great-immigrants/moncef-slaoui/ - not independent given his 30 years at GSK developing vaccines across Africa
Then there is this incriminating evidence: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/10/30/929284620/after-months-of-questions-key-operation-warp-speed-advisers-contract-emerges
In general you are correct that's how it should work.
Scientist gives best estimates of risks, and advises politician who makes correct decision. Trouble with this is that the politician is an idiot who has no grasp of statistics, probabilities or public health. He assured the public that COVID would just disappear in 3 months. He suggested using bleach (good grief - he was serious). So Fauci feeding what little data was available to Trump would guarantee disaster.
Early on it was known as a respiratory virus that had quite a high mortality in elderly or immunosuppressed people (up to 2% over 75yrs. Fauci applied current knowledge of dealing with pandemic. Spread depends on reinfection rate R°. No change to behaviour and the rate is 4.0 so that every case would infect 4 other cases. Spread will then be exponential. Apply separation, hand washing, masks and the rate drops to 1.5 or 1.0 if really strictly applied. These things won't be applied in the land of the free under bad leadership. In countries where those same things were applied the reinfection rate was much lower. In some places the R° was less than 1 so there were NO CASES AT ALL. The logic was to do this in the hope that there would be an effective vaccine.
Miraculously an effective vaccine(s) were found. A randomised double blind trial in 60,000 patients showed a 95% reduction COVID in patients receiving vaccine compared with placebo (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577). Subsequent large trials showed a 92% reduction in admission to intensive care.
This was in 2000. If the vaccine was applied to as many people as possible the attack rate and mortality would have been dramatically reduced. However 1.3M Americans died from COVID. Per capita mortality rates were dramatically lower in countries that followed Fauci's advice.
Personally I supported the early recommendations. In the absence of any evidence follow the general advice. Once a vaccine was developed and proven protective, it would have been reasonable to encourage everyone to get vaccinated, and those that chose not to could accept the consequences. But those that worked with sick and vulnerable hospitals, nursing homes etc had to be very careful.
In Western Australia these policies were followed. 2500 deaths in a population 3.1M. Mortality rate 0.08%. USA deaths 1.23M population 340M mortality rate 0.3%. The mortality rate was nearly 4 times greater than West Australia (obviously a very different state, but shows how it can be controlled).
Leaving the decision to the Trump administration would have resulted in an even greater mortality rate. Vinay's obsession with Fauci (Vinay by the way never mentions outcomes in countries that applied Fauci's suggestions, nor does he mention R°) along with the freedom lovers and antivaxxers lead to the preventable deaths of 100s of thousands of Americans.
Anyone that cares about learning something from the pandemic wants a careful analysis of the pandemic and workout what worked and what didn't. That isn't achieved by this political manhunt against one person by one political party.
By the way, the strategy that resulted in the miraculously rapid development of the vaccines that were very effective in high-risk individuals was called Operation Warp Speed initiated by guess who. In my mid 80's I was happy to get immunized, in Florida where they prioritized high risk individuals. 3 months later my wife and I got Covid. So much for preventing transmission.
The randomised trials involving over 60,000 patients showed that infection was reduced by 70%, so obviously many people still get the infection, however if you are infected the risk of ending in intensive care is reduced by 92%. Most likely your wife's illness was greatly attenuated. It is amazing that people expected the vaccine to eliminate infection. The trials were very clear.
Isn't elimination of the infection by the vaccine and the shutdown of social and economic activity what was implied in the effort to obtain herd immunity? Here's what I think. Original Covid was a man-made coronavirus, engineered to cause widespread infection and at least partly financed, contrary to prudent opinion, by our own public health authorities. In light of its novelty, it 1. spread like wildfire, and 2. caused a major problem in those with a somewhat impaired immune system by bypassing the upper respiratory tract to cause pulmonary failure. Subsequent iterations of the virus have transformed it into a much more benign status similar to other coronaviruses. The problem addressing the public health people after the initial smoke cleared was how to handle the issue in the minority who were at risk and not adversely affect the majority who were not. They badly botched it. The armamentarium in the battle was enormously enriched by the strategy of the Trump administration in expediting an effective vaccine but once again the authorities misused it, delaying its availability for those who wanted and needed it and forcing its use upon those who didn't want it or need it. The bad response of the public health authorities, aided by the politicians after the 2020 election, was compounded by their active suppression of any expert disagreement such as most particularly in the Great Barrington Declaration. I can't think of having seen a more unscientific response in my 50+ years of medical practice. The ironic thing about the political attitude toward the vaccines was that the anti-Trump forces initially cautioned against its use while Mr. Trump was in control and became intense advocates for its use as soon as they gained power, even in those such as children who had infinitesimally low risk from the virus and uncertain potential long-term risk from the vaccine. I think you are letting your anti-Trump feelings cloud your thinking on this issue.
Herd immunity will occur either by exposure or vaccination. Well over a million Americans died from COVID and the number would have been much higher if not for vaccination. There doesn't appear to be any way to tell at the moment where the virus came from. Numerous experts have leaned one way or another. One thing is for sure conducting a ridiculous show trial where the Senate President stated before he started that he wanted to put Fauci into Jail was NOT THE WAY TO FIND OUT ANSWERS, especially when the Dept of Justice is now clearly controlled by Mr Trump, as evidenced by the Olympian handcuffed and prosecuted for looking into Trumps botched pool. Nobody can expect fair treatment from this administration at the moment. That's not TDS, that's simply the facts. I watched the senate discussion about this and the Democrats pointed this out: that if you want the answers to these questions give Fauci complete immunity, so that he can answer freely. If however you want to excite the bloodlust of the US right then continue with the show trial.
Anthony I might be missing your argument. Were you suggesting that the vaccination should have been given to the most vulnerable group before the randomised double blind trials were published? I think it should have been given as soon as possible after those trials were published.
Incidentally that old saw about Trump advising people to take bleach is fake news, but you seem predisposed to believe it. If you're interested in the truth, watch a video of the actual press conference. Someone from the scientific community had just presented evidence that bleach applied to fomites effectively killed the virus. Trump suggested off hand that an injection of bleach into a room, such as a spray, possibly could be effective. He was later asked directly whether he was talking about injecting bleach into people and he clarified the statement. Of course, the fake media went with the fake story for the gullible.
If anyone is interested in the musings of a brilliant politician about COVID here's the actual press conference. It got a lot of laughs around the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicGxU5MfwE
Oh I did see it and remember it very differently. Do you also remember him saying the disease would magically disappear around Easter?
Trump says a lot of off the cuff things, oftentimes more than he should. However, he most specifically, despite the fake news, did not say that people with Covid should take bleach, either orally or by injection. But I really don't get your virulent hostility to the guy. If anything, after the initial "2 weeks to stop the spread" I think he gave far better advice to the general public than did Dr. Fauci. Specifically in March 2020 he advised that "we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself". I consider that to have been excellent advice.
Sounds like a bad case of TDS. What's a politician, who admittedly has no scientific background supposed to do when the "scientist" gives him advice. Actually, when it comes right down to it my opinion is that Trump, with common sense, eventually had a better handle on how to approach the problem of whether to shut down social and commercial activity than his scientist adviser. How about the fact that 40% of the deaths were occurring in nursing home patients. Why did not Fauci recommend carrying out phase 3 studies of the vaccine in nursing home volunteers, saving many months of withholding in those who would have clearly benefitted? Would have had a dramatic impact on the mortality rate. The serious event rate in younger, healthier individuals was infinitesimally better and yet they were being fired from their jobs for not taking a yet long-term unproven vaccine. There was no data to strongly indicate that this unproven strategy of infringement on civil rights and economic well being was going to benefit the public. That summer our grandkids in MD were getting online schooling, a disaster for low income kids, but when we went back to FL the kids were getting on the school buses as usual, with no adverse impact. Regarding other countries, liberal Sweden handled the problem much less dictatorially with decent outcomes and much less social and economic destruction of their citizen's lives and livelihoods.
Sweden had a higher per capita death rate than the other Scandinavian countries. Also Swedes are far more likely to follow the advice they were given. Better educated than the US. Sweden's approach might have been preferable. What we need is those in power to invest in a serious study of the best course of action for the next one, rather than a frantic witch hunt to hunt down an ideological enemy. Why would anyone do a study in nursing home volunteers? Thousands would die while waiting for the result. A single infected volunteer in a nursing home would kill many of the residents. The thing about a pandemic that kills many people is that you can't wait for all the answers, act on best advice and modify as evidence comes in.
I also am not a fan of punishing Dr. Fauci at this late date, but I do think it's reasonable to get at the truth, as you say to "study the best course of action for the next one". It appears that Dr Fauci, whose reputation I had not questioned in the past, did a lot of underhanded stuff, including pushing gain of function research and combining with political forces to block any questioning of his pronouncements by other perfectly sound scientific voices. He was ultimately responsible for a lot of farcical and harmful government infringements on the public and false information.
I agree it is most important. However the US has a dept of Justice that just handcuffed an Olympian for looking in the great pool and arresting him for damaging it - with his bare hands FCS!! This is justice at the whim of a President that regards justice as an extension of his vengeful imagination. If the committee wanted these critical questions answered they could have given Fauci immunity for any answers he gave. But of course that isn't what they wanted. In medicine in Australia in root cause analysis of a possible dangerous error - it is accepted that the truth is more important than punishment so that all witnesses can speak the truth without fear of charges. I was shocked at Fauci refusing to answer but it was clear this was all about retribution and not truth and he was in very dangerous ground.
You're missing the point. In April and May of 2020 it was known that 40-50% of original Covid deaths were occurring in institutionalized patients, whereas the death rate in young otherwise healthy individuals was miniscule. The first results of the 600 person Moderna trial showing excellent antibody response were in early summer. So, even though the public health experts were considering the problem a public health emergency, one worth disrupting the lives of millions of small business owners and children and causing major socioeconomic disruption, 5 or 6 months were wasted and hundreds of thousands of deaths were allowed to occur in order to prove that the vaccine was effective in the general public, most of whom had limited need for it. A vaccine, mind you, that prevented serious consequences in the vulnerable but did not prevent broad transmission, a fact that could have been predicted considering the large reservoir of mild and minimally symptomatic cases known to be present. Some public health experts!
I'm scratchy on those dates. But it is essential to wait for randomised double blind trials. The Moderna trial was published in January 2021. This and other massive trials reduced COVID infections by around 70%. This reduced reinfection rate quotient R°, which in combination with masks and separation and isolation can drastically reduce and prevent the spread of the disease. In doing this it prevents exposure to the more vulnerable people. If you don't understand R° it's best you avoid commenting. Once we had a proven vaccine it might have been reasonable to allow people to go back to normal life, but still encourage hand washing masks and isolating where appropriate.
why don't we start with the real picture: 9 out o 10 Americans have CKM. And 70% have a waistline inches or more and that is too big. So since no MD will call out the facts, it matters little about one specific vaccine for a tiny group. The issue is that 90% of ht populations damaged good. Seconds.
You would like 'some evidence of how he is a threat to democracy'.
Separation of powers
1. The judiciary. By appointing judges on the basis of their ideology rather than their qualities as a judge, he is attempting to create a Judiciary that follows his orders. In turn he criticises and abuses judges that make decisions he doesn't like. He has converted the justice department into an organisation chiefly to punish and persecute those that disagree with him. He completely destroys a sense of justice by giving pardons to those that the courts convict (because the criminals like him, or because they pay him a lot of money). Any Trump loyalist knows that they can break the law knowing they will be pardoned and anyone who disagrees with him is persecuted. No President has ever behaved like this.
2. The Executive. Again he has appointed people on the basis that they will be subservient to him and not express opinions that contradict him. His universal Tarriffs were illegal as he bypassed the House. The Tarriffs were really to pay for his Beautiful big bill which contained massive tax cuts to the wealthy.
3. The legislature. This organisation represent the entire country but he has created an organisation that never questions his demands. Any Republican that challenges his crazy ideas are hunted down and generally removed by the party. As a result the Legislature has been completely ineffective in doing their job of providing a separate voice for the people.
4. The Media. His constant abuse of and gaslighting of the media has been intended once again to make the media less effective. Any question that is important he replies with personal insults and the charge of 'fake news' instead of actually answering important questions. His appalling behaviour towards female journalists is also unprecedented.
5. Elections. Elections provides the opportunity for the people to get rid of an unpopular president or party. His endless claims that the 2000 election was rigged has been repudiated by there being zero evidence and 40 court cases many from Republican appointed judges. The gullible followers were so convinced this was the case that we had a violent attack on parliament . He demanded to get rid of the vice president who refused to overturn the election. All this is an unprecedented fundamental challenge to US democracy. Of course since then he pardoned all the protestors and he has initiated efforts to Gerrymander the election roles to further undermine democracy.
Then there's the massive corruption and deals with foreign affairs and leaders who are paying his businesses funds while he makes decisions about their countries.