You can look at up any covid discussion and see what Fauci and Makary said about them all. Marty was right about vaccine spacing, you can look that up now. He literally told the guy giving him the 1st dose of vaccine (many months ago) that he'd be back in 3 months not 3 weeks because he knew 3 weeks was too soon and the guy was like I can't do that and Marty was like I don't care, I'll be back in 3 months. Fauci just waited the 3-4 weeks and got his 2nd dose...
Again, you don't really understand what's going on or what's at stake here.
We have data to demonstrate that the protection afforded by a single dose of the vaccine is substantially lower than two (irrespective of the gap). Thus if you're a reasonably healthy person young to middle age, spacing your vaccine is pretty reasonable. If you're elderly, much less so, as it may double your chances of a serious (potentially fatal) covid infection in those months waiting for the second.
Next, Fauci is a trusted, high ranking government official who needs to set an example for the US population, because the US population is full of fucking tools who are suspicious, afraid and complacent about vaccination. So in order to help establish confidence, Fauci goes and gets vaccinated consistent with the established protocol scientifically used in the trials. Thus when Fauci decides when to have his second shot, it's not necessarily because he thinks that's the optimal time to have it for his personal immune system. He's got to consider things that smug wankers like Marty Makary don't.
And frankly, I don't think facile YouTube love-ins with soft interviewers qualify as good data.
I admire people for saying "I don't know" when they don't know.
Then please, please try to give yourself more admiration.
Show me any data of super spreading that happened outdoors?
Are you being completely ignorant or deliberately disingenuous?
The flu indoors is more deadly than covid outside so if you didn't wear a mask inside for the flu before the pandemic, then why are you wearing a mask outside for covid? Stay consistent in your risk tolerance.
Random gibberish.
The spread of outdoor transmission is so low that there aren't any numbers for which activities are more dangerous. Outside of standing right in front of somebody and talking directly in their face, I don't see any other time being outside could be considered unsafe by any data that we have.
Yes, exactly. So if you plan on being in close proximity to someone outdoors, maybe consider wearing a mask. We know roughly about the distance of large droplet spatter - that's why social distancing was set at six feet, because it's pretty safe. But three feet is achievable just by breathing (never mind speaking or coughing): that's the sort of distance people might be facing each other over a picnic table.
So, let's use an analogy. In the UK, ~70 people a year die of electrocution, of which ~2 are hit by lightning. A parallel of your argument is that it is safe to go hillwalking in a thunderstorm because just 3% of electrocution deaths per year are due to lightning, and hey, show me the data of multikills that happened from lightning strikes! But actually, it's really not safe to be on a hill in a thunderstorm, as any experienced rambler knows.
There is furthermore additional context. Let's say 99% of infections occur indoors and 1% outdoors. So that means outdoors is ~100 times safer, right? But what if 95% of our time is spent and human contact occurs indoors? Actually, that suggests outdoors is only ~5 times safer than indoors, doesn't it? So without factoring in that sort of context the claim that 99% of infections occur indoors is, on its own, a lot less informative and representative of risk than you think it is.
This is the sort of thing smart and well informed people think about. That's why thank god they are making guidelines, not you.
Yeah, nobody should take Nobel Prize winning medication.
Okay then, I invite you to have this
Nobel Prize winning medical procedure.
