Rogan vs Fauci: The 0.7% problem

Pay attention to the detail

It all started with Joe Rogan saying that he did not think young people needed to get the vaccine. Fair enough as far as I am concerned.

But because of Rogan’s public reach, the Fauci led establishment came after him.

On MSNBC, Fauci was emphatic, “Well that’s incorrect” he said. But it was something else in his rebuttal that stood out for me. He said “…and even if you don’t have any symptoms, you’re propagating the outbreak…”. He went on to say something quite specific: “…that it is likely that you, even if you have no symptoms, that you may inadvertently and innocently then infect someone else who might infect someone…” Here is the full clip.

So, here is Fauci, making a case that the young and healthy, without symptoms, need to take the vaccine, and using Asymptomatic Spread as a prime argument.

The two foundational fallacies of this dreadful COVID theatre are PCR testing and Asymptomatic Spread.

What is new here is Asymptomatic Spread being used as an argument for vaccination. This argument has been used for many other non-pharmaceutical interventions but not, to my knowledge, for vaccines.

But, Fauci also said, in late January 2020:

“The one thing historically people need to realise, that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.” Here is the clip.

Well, he was right then, and for reasons we will not speculate on, he has changed his narrative and he is wrong now.

But this is no innocent mistake. He knows that he is wrong. He is lying. I will not speculate as to why he is lying, but we can, without a shadow of doubt, say that he is lying.

My evidence your honour is the meta-analysis published by JAMA in December 2020 titled: Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

In simple English, this was a study of studies, 54 studies in fact with 77,758 total participants. It studied households with at least one member of the family having the virus, and how many other people in that family they infected. In other words, “secondary transmission”.

Buried in the bowels of this study is this innocent looking partial sentence:

Household secondary attack rates…from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)

0.7%!

When this societal debacle is honestly reviewed and studied, good people will focus on this study and this number and what it means.

For every 100 people that have the virus without symptoms, living with their families, kissing, hugging, arguing, shouting, sexing, and sleeping together without masks, distancing, or vaccines, less than ONE other person caught the virus from them. POINT SEVEN to be precise.

Please pause and reflect on this. This is how hard it is to catch the virus from someone without symptoms, while LIVING with them. Let alone passing them in the shopping centre, or at the park or simply walking down the street.

Let us play with this number a bit more.

143

0.7% means that you need 143 people with the virus, but without symptoms for 1 other person in their families to catch the virus. Fauci would like these 143 people to get vaccinated to “save” this 1 person from a disease that has an IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) of about 0.2% and dropping. More on the IFR in a minute.

4,337

But Fauci said “…you may inadvertently and innocently then infect someone else who might infect someone…”. Well, the maths on that is interesting. We know that about 85% (probably higher) of those that get the virus have no symptoms. In the same JAMA meta-analysis, they confirmed that for those with symptoms, 18% of others in the family caught the virus (meaning that 82% did not).

So, let us work the numbers.

If we start out with 4,337 people that have the virus without symptoms, 30 people (0.7%) will catch the virus from them (within the same households remember).

Of these 30 people, 4.6 people (15%) will have symptoms (and at an 18% infection rate will infect 0.8 of a person) and 25.8 people (85%) will not have symptoms (and they will infect 0.2 of a person).

So, when we add it all up, these 30 people will go on to infect 1 other person.

In other words, you need 4,337 people without symptoms to infect 30 to infect 1. This is the scenario that Fauci is warning about.

But it gets better.

71,430

This is where the amplifying effect of the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) kicks in. It is around 0.2%, the equivalent of a bad flu season.

We start out with 71,430 people who have the virus without symptoms. At 0.7%, that means 500 other people sharing a household with them will catch the virus. About 15% with symptoms and the other 85% without.

Of those 500, 1 person will die. That is the 0.2% IFR.

So, what Fauci is really saying is that he wants 71,430 young and healthy people to get vaccinated (and risk vaccine injury or death) so that 1 old and frail person (most likely in their 80s and with other life-threatening conditions) does not die.

I am really writing to those that are still trying to think critically about this situation and feel that something is not quite right but cannot put their finger on it. I hope this helps.

To those like Andrew Cuomo that say or believe “if everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy” this article will make no difference.