They're both wrong.
Rand is overstating herd immunity while Fauci's "22%" is leaving out details that some areas of NYC that were hard hit have very high levels of immunity far beyond 22%.
His model puts the threshold for herd immunity
at 43 percent — that is, the virus cannot hang on in a community after that percentage of residents has been infected and recovered.
Still, that means many residents of the community will have been sickened or have died, a high price to pay for herd immunity. And experts like Dr. Hanage cautioned that even a community that may have reached herd immunity cannot afford to be complacent.
Rand is trying argue that NYC's lower (sustained) infection rates are because of "community immunity"
and, by extension, that mask mandates, social distancing, and other measure are no longer necessary.
Fauchi simply points out that an average 22% antibody rate in the population is not sufficient for herd
immunity. your article makes allusions to lower levels required to achieve herd immunity relative to
the historical precedent of 70%, but they are couched and caveated pretty thoroughly as model-based
and not necessarily reliable real-world guidelines.
I could see someone padding their numbers and saying....sh!t, let's just call 52% 70% to be safe....but
at the heart of their exchange, Rand Paul is being Rand fkn Paul and Fauchi fairly corrects him.
I am more piqued by the survival rates based on the CDC numbers someone posted recently
if you're 70 and up, IF you contract the virus, you have a 94.6% chance of surviving.
it was a nearly 5-9's survival rate for 1-30 age group (IIRC)...
open it the fk up already