Walter Isaacson is usually pretty good. I think he was internally channeling a right-wing critique of the interview, and then implicitly turning those critiques on Walensky in his rhetorial approach. A bit obnoxious, but it certainly wasn't uncivil, definitely when you compare it to what passes for civility (much less journalism) in other available outlets.
Yes, I usually enjoy Walter Isaacson but was really disappointed in this interview. Rochelle Walensky handled it with grace and dignity, but I felt sorry for her -- I would expect more respect from PBS for somebody in her position.
The problem with this stuff is that is just isn't as simple as people like this interviewer want it to be. For example, if the vaccine is initially 90% effective in preventing hospitalization and it goes down to 80% after 6 months, does that mean it's still 89% as effective, or does it mean it's only half as effective, because breakthroughs are twice as frequent? The average person in the general public is going to have a hard time keeping that straight.
I think that the average person would not over analyze as in your examples. From 90% effective down to 80% in 6 months is pretty straightforward. One can imagine wearing an armour that covers 90% of their body, and after 6 months it only covers 80%. The breakthrough infection rate (in your example) doubles from 10% to 20%, but in terms of protection, 80% is obviously not half of 90%.
I thought the interviewer did a good job. Perhaps that's because I am watching from the UK, where there is a journalistic tradition of not conducting softball interviews. He was knowledgeable and simply pressed her to answer the question and he detected when she was contradicting herself or veering off. All authorities must be held to account; it helps keep them honest.
I was pretty surprised to hear him talk to her like that, not allowing her to finish her sentences. It's not expected from PBS or Amanpour, that's more FOX. I turned it off at 5:13.
Why ask her a question then interrupt her answer? The CDC is making decisions about whether to make a Type 1 or Type 2 error based upon what is an evolving body of scientific knowledge. If the CDC make decisions to play it safer than we later find out was necessary the consequences are less tragic than if they don’t.
I’ll repeat what many have said: The interviewer’s style is confrontational, almost to the point of badgering to get the answer he wants. Also, interrupting the person trying to answer his questions is rude. Five minutes into the interview, I’m done.
These agencies must take responsibility for the claims made about the effects of vaccines on individuals especially kids and pregnant women. The providers of vaccines must review their policies and disclaimers to take responsibility for any and all side effects of their vaccines. This is about life and death and individuals have to protect their lives from exploitation and any quesswork or malpractice. I hope you probe those charged with making public assertions of scientific efficacy of anything a bit more so as to prevent mass casualties and losses of life for which no one could be blamed. Thanks for such interviews.
Interview? No. This was an attack on the Guest. As a subscriber, I'm surprised at this negativity. Usually, Amanpour is informative without being judgemental.
Walter pressed her on specifics that you don't normally see in most interviews. Was he a little pushy, a bit, but overall the interview was professional and respectful.
Normally a fan of the channel, but thia interviewer sounds like such an unprofessional jerk, keeps cutting off the guest and asking terrible questions.
Isaccson did a terrible interview of Dr. Walensky. He kept pushing her aggressively and put her in a rapid-fire defensive posture that resulted in a disjointed, fractured presentation. Isaccson's goal was obviously just to sound like a probing investigative journalist, but the result was that he failed to elicit coherent info. It was image over substance on his part. Isaccson did a thoroughly rotten job interviewing Walensky.
The reason is he trying to get non conflicted information,she has a happen of running around a straight question,I believe this has to be fully explained on a regular
Great interview by Walter Isaacson! He asked some tough questions and multiple times Dr. Rochelle Walensky tried to evade answering the questions but he didn't let her off the hook. I was very interested to hear specific answers to his questions so I really appreciate that he nailed her down. Some of the comments here say he was rude to her and interrupting her but he only did that when she tried to evade the questions. We need more journalists like Walter Isaacson who demand answers, especially when interviewing politicians who never give a straight answer.
I suspect that it was because of the virtual format as he stops interrupting her towards the end did not pay attention to the time stamp. I have seen other news shows it has happened on and the interviewer did something similar but when they heard the person continuing on they apologized and told them to continue provided that they had the time available.
He asked great questions, unfortunately, she was not prepared with reasonable answers. They’re pushing the booster for people vaccinated 6 months ago because of waning immunity. Then in the next breath says she’s not sure if the “waning immunity” is due to the vaccine wearing for or if the vaccine efficacy is reduced because of the Delta strain; they’re looking into that now. That should’ve been looked into and confirmed BEFORE she overruled the FDA’s decision.
Fyi vaccine immunity is different for each person. To know your antibody count, you would need a titer test to see your percentage of immunity and if it has waned. Since there is no way to do large amounts of affordable titer testing available for the larger public, percentages of immunity is a bit of a guessing game. However, vaccination is still extremely important to keep people safe.
We have to vaccinate the world? When did the virus become a disease. I worked in healthcare after watching my elders held down and given the jab. Some had immediate allergic reactions which no one showed any concern for.
The interviewer is doing his job. The CDC lost credibility long ago by it’s mixed messages, and this is just another example of wavering and inconsistency. There is no evidence that boosters are necessary, and she is vague and inconsistent as usual. She cites no strong evidence and admits that data is “just coming in” and she is anxious to see that data. What? And then she says “Studies show . . . .” What studies? And why would anyone criticize Walter for digging when these questions are critical? It seems to me based on the agency’s actions and statements throughout that the CDC does no more than take a shot in the dark. And by encouraging boosters when there is nothing to support the necessity, the CDC is undermining the drive to get more people vaccinated. The CDC is showing by it’s actions that it has little or very limited faith in the vaccine no matter that this wavering, waffling specialist says otherwise.
Interviewer does a GREAT job! I am shocked on PBS that usually caters and panders to the ‘narrative’. GOOD FOR YOU PBS for asking the TOUGH questions! Bravo! So, sounds like they don’t know if the vaccine can’t hold up to Delta OR the vaccine loses it’s efficacy over time. Hm. Seems like that would be an IMPORTANT question to know the answer to especially given they are mandating them for everyone?! The argument I keep hearing about less cases in high vaccination rates makes NO sense to me since high vaccinated areas are going to be areas that are practicing mitigation strategies routinely more which HUGELY impacts the rates of transmissions-but CDC is not even looking at this with good statisticians to determine how that variable in playing into this dynamic. ALL our good data seems to come from Israel?! What the heck?
Watch the interview, despite some comments here. Two intelligent, educated adults are discussing an important, complex “once-in-a-hundred years” deadly pandemic via Q&A. I teach English, Social Sciences/History, & Debate and honestly don’t see or hear anything “out-of-line” with either participant. I think BOTH participants would be shocked at the negative characterizations of themselves AND of the other person, regarding this interview as “just another day at the ZOOM office.”
Thank you Amanpour and Co. always insightful. I'm curious as to why no one is talking about Functional Medicine that includes Nutrition and how we build our Immune Systems . All pathogen in the system are protein overages that need to be digested. That's simple when the Body has the right ingredients. We are made from food air and water. All that needs to be digested or we get allergies to auto immune disease. Whether from stomach acid, pancreatic protease or even the proteolytic enzymes Food is digesting virus in the Body. Why are we pretending we created humans? We are back engineering the GENIUS of the Universe. Please stop pretending.
I am a healthcare worker, take daily medication for asthma, thank you for allowing me to get a third vaccine. I wear a mask in stores and all day at work. I am constantly cleaning surfaces after every patient. I got lucky, I had vaccinated in January and February with Pfizer.
Great interviewer! I had such high expectations for Wallensky, but her inability to answer his questions proves that she is a terrible communicator and needs to be replaced.
Sure. With a vaccine for a contagious respiratory disease that doesn't confer 100% protection (BTW, none for respiratory illness in existence are 100%), your risk of contracting the virus and becoming ill increases steadily as the people around you become ill, then spew a large amount of infectious particles in your shared air, and do this throughout your day as you make various contacts. A third grader could follow that.
Many people want more direct information, so I give him credit for pursuing better answers. She is a nice lady, but not clear enough. In order to help people to make a decision to vaccinate, we need info we can rely on.
Personally, I think that it would be better to say the vaccine which is meant for people who have yet to get even a first shot after a certain amount of time is going to be sent to countries that are poorer and do not have the amount of vaccine available to give people who want the vaccine to have it.
I work in Emergency Room. Thank you for thinking of us for the booster shot.
He keeps interrupting and doesn't let her finish. I hope another channel does a better job because I can't listen to him. Moving on.
Ditto. What's wrong with him?
I considered her answers more than adequate and the interviewer to be obnoxious and kept cutting her off.
I think he drinks a bit sometimes. No excuse I think he was rude also
I agree with you completely...he badgered her. She handled it well.
Walter Isaacson is usually pretty good. I think he was internally channeling a right-wing critique of the interview, and then implicitly turning those critiques on Walensky in his rhetorial approach. A bit obnoxious, but it certainly wasn't uncivil, definitely when you compare it to what passes for civility (much less journalism) in other available outlets.
Yes, I usually enjoy Walter Isaacson but was really disappointed in this interview. Rochelle Walensky handled it with grace and dignity, but I felt sorry for her -- I would expect more respect from PBS for somebody in her position.
A narrative toadie.
Didn’t see any reason for the confrontational interview style… it seemed misplaced and an unnecessary distraction
You can't change a flat earther's mind. That's what we're trying to do.
The interviewer was being argumentative for no reason. Horrible. Science is evolving. Collecting data is evolving.
The science on Covid is evolving...but it never evolves on climate change...hmm.
They are doing the best they can but the full truth isn’t being told, it won’t be known to people who put their heads in the sand.
The problem with this stuff is that is just isn't as simple as people like this interviewer want it to be. For example, if the vaccine is initially 90% effective in preventing hospitalization and it goes down to 80% after 6 months, does that mean it's still 89% as effective, or does it mean it's only half as effective, because breakthroughs are twice as frequent? The average person in the general public is going to have a hard time keeping that straight.
I think that the average person would not over analyze as in your examples. From 90% effective down to 80% in 6 months is pretty straightforward. One can imagine wearing an armour that covers 90% of their body, and after 6 months it only covers 80%.
The breakthrough infection rate (in your example) doubles from 10% to 20%, but in terms of protection, 80% is obviously not half of 90%.
I thought the interviewer did a good job. Perhaps that's because I am watching from the UK, where there is a journalistic tradition of not conducting softball interviews. He was knowledgeable and simply pressed her to answer the question and he detected when she was contradicting herself or veering off. All authorities must be held to account; it helps keep them honest.
I was pretty surprised to hear him talk to her like that, not allowing her to finish her sentences. It's not expected from PBS or Amanpour, that's more FOX. I turned it off at 5:13.
she needs to stand up for herself!! be a strong women not be weak like a man
I felt the same way - not the kind of interview I expected from PBS. There's hard-hitting, and there's just plain rude!
Why ask her a question then interrupt her answer? The CDC is making decisions about whether to make a Type 1 or Type 2 error based upon what is an evolving body of scientific knowledge. If the CDC make decisions to play it safer than we later find out was necessary the consequences are less tragic than if they don’t.
Because you don’t let people go on a monologue to get information, people do it and get away with it. That is how you are lied to.
It’s good to hold people accountable.
The interviewer is so disrespectful in the way he interrupts her. Please stop that.
He is rude and unprofessional. Does not meet Amanpour standards
I’ll repeat what many have said: The interviewer’s style is confrontational, almost to the point of badgering to get the answer he wants. Also, interrupting the person trying to answer his questions is rude. Five minutes into the interview, I’m done.
Wow
These agencies must take responsibility for the claims made about the effects of vaccines on individuals especially kids and pregnant women. The providers of vaccines must review their policies and disclaimers to take responsibility for any and all side effects of their vaccines. This is about life and death and individuals have to protect their lives from exploitation and any quesswork or malpractice. I hope you probe those charged with making public assertions of scientific efficacy of anything a bit more so as to prevent mass casualties and losses of life for which no one could be blamed. Thanks for such interviews.
Interview? No. This was an attack on the Guest. As a subscriber, I'm surprised at this negativity. Usually, Amanpour is informative without being judgemental.
That interviewer needs to retire. Asking tough questions is different than being a disrespectful jerk. I’ll tune again when he’s gone.
Walter pressed her on specifics that you don't normally see in most interviews. Was he a little pushy, a bit, but overall the interview was professional and respectful.
Normally a fan of the channel, but thia interviewer sounds like such an unprofessional jerk, keeps cutting off the guest and asking terrible questions.
Quit being a snow ❄️
Isaccson did a terrible interview of Dr. Walensky. He kept pushing her aggressively and put her in a rapid-fire defensive posture that resulted in a disjointed, fractured presentation. Isaccson's goal was obviously just to sound like a probing investigative journalist, but the result was that he failed to elicit coherent info. It was image over substance on his part. Isaccson did a thoroughly rotten job interviewing Walensky.
The reason is he trying to get non conflicted information,she has a happen of running around a straight question,I believe this has to be fully explained on a regular
He sure is grilling her!
Great interview by Walter Isaacson! He asked some tough questions and multiple times Dr. Rochelle Walensky tried to evade answering the questions but he didn't let her off the hook. I was very interested to hear specific answers to his questions so I really appreciate that he nailed her down. Some of the comments here say he was rude to her and interrupting her but he only did that when she tried to evade the questions. We need more journalists like Walter Isaacson who demand answers, especially when interviewing politicians who never give a straight answer.
Yes thank you for extending the booster to front line workers.. also the shots should last longer than just a few months !!!
Awww it's this cute...
A mock "tough" interview
Not effective method of regaining lost trust in journalism 😏
Disagree totally
I feel like the man was kind of rude… But maybe it’s because it was virtual and it’s hard to figure out when to speak with the other persons finished
I suspect that it was because of the virtual format as he stops interrupting her towards the end did not pay attention to the time stamp. I have seen other news shows it has happened on and the interviewer did something similar but when they heard the person continuing on they apologized and told them to continue provided that they had the time available.
He asked great questions, unfortunately, she was not prepared with reasonable answers. They’re pushing the booster for people vaccinated 6 months ago because of waning immunity. Then in the next breath says she’s not sure if the “waning immunity” is due to the vaccine wearing for or if the vaccine efficacy is reduced because of the Delta strain; they’re looking into that now. That should’ve been looked into and confirmed BEFORE she overruled the FDA’s decision.
Fyi vaccine immunity is different for each person. To know your antibody count, you would need a titer test to see your percentage of immunity and if it has waned. Since there is no way to do large amounts of affordable titer testing available for the larger public, percentages of immunity is a bit of a guessing game. However, vaccination is still extremely important to keep people safe.
Stopped listening. Annoying display of bad manners by the interviewer. :-/
We have to vaccinate the world? When did the virus become a disease. I worked in healthcare after watching my elders held down and given the jab. Some had immediate allergic reactions which no one showed any concern for.
This comment makes no sense.
The interviewer is doing his job. The CDC lost credibility long ago by it’s mixed messages, and this is just another example of wavering and inconsistency. There is no evidence that boosters are necessary, and she is vague and inconsistent as usual. She cites no strong evidence and admits that data is “just coming in” and she is anxious to see that data. What? And then she says “Studies show . . . .” What studies? And why would anyone criticize Walter for digging when these questions are critical? It seems to me based on the agency’s actions and statements throughout that the CDC does no more than take a shot in the dark. And by encouraging boosters when there is nothing to support the necessity, the CDC is undermining the drive to get more people vaccinated. The CDC is showing by it’s actions that it has little or very limited faith in the vaccine no matter that this wavering, waffling specialist says otherwise.
It amazes me that people use 'vague and inconsistent' to describe an issue that is 'complex'. That's what it is, period.
This guy is a pit bull….she is not going to get away with her male answers……..that’s what I call journalism. Well done
He's an unprofessional idiot and cutting her off. I clicked off after the 5 min mark. Obviously a Trumper and Covidiot.
Interviewer does a GREAT job! I am shocked on PBS that usually caters and panders to the ‘narrative’. GOOD FOR YOU PBS for asking the TOUGH questions! Bravo!
So, sounds like they don’t know if the vaccine can’t hold up to Delta OR the vaccine loses it’s efficacy over time. Hm. Seems like that would be an IMPORTANT question to know the answer to especially given they are mandating them for everyone?!
The argument I keep hearing about less cases in high vaccination rates makes NO sense to me since high vaccinated areas are going to be areas that are practicing mitigation strategies routinely more which HUGELY impacts the rates of transmissions-but CDC is not even looking at this with good statisticians to determine how that variable in playing into this dynamic. ALL our good data seems to come from Israel?! What the heck?
Glad she cited Lyme Disease victims.
Stop interrupting her so we can hear what she has to say.
Terrible interview, he usually shows much more respect to other guests.
Good god…..she kept dancing around the issue…..it’s not a tea party…..it’s an official being asked for straight answers.
Wtf they aren't inmune
The interviewer is so rude.
Watch the interview, despite some comments here. Two intelligent, educated adults are discussing an important, complex “once-in-a-hundred years” deadly pandemic via Q&A. I teach English, Social Sciences/History, & Debate and honestly don’t see or hear anything “out-of-line” with either participant. I think BOTH participants would be shocked at the negative characterizations of themselves AND of the other person, regarding this interview as “just another day at the ZOOM office.”
Thank you Amanpour and Co. always insightful. I'm curious as to why no one is talking about Functional Medicine that includes Nutrition and how we build our Immune Systems . All pathogen in the system are protein overages that need to be digested. That's simple when the Body has the right ingredients. We are made from food air and water. All that needs to be digested or we get allergies to auto immune disease. Whether from stomach acid, pancreatic protease or even the proteolytic enzymes Food is digesting virus in the Body. Why are we pretending we created humans? We are back engineering the GENIUS of the Universe. Please stop pretending.
"The UK and other rich nations..." Jeesh. I'm surprised she didn't just come out and say "white" nations. Or "colonial" nations.
I am a healthcare worker, take daily medication for asthma, thank you for allowing me to get a third vaccine. I wear a mask in stores and all day at work. I am constantly cleaning surfaces after every patient. I got lucky, I had vaccinated in January and February with Pfizer.
Great interviewer! I had such high expectations for Wallensky, but her inability to answer his questions proves that she is a terrible communicator and needs to be replaced.
My vaccination only works when everybody else is vaccinated, can someone explain that to me?
Sure. With a vaccine for a contagious respiratory disease that doesn't confer 100% protection (BTW, none for respiratory illness in existence are 100%), your risk of contracting the virus and becoming ill increases steadily as the people around you become ill, then spew a large amount of infectious particles in your shared air, and do this throughout your day as you make various contacts. A third grader could follow that.
Simple--never let an Earth gripping fear go to waste.
@@JLewis-jk5yw A page right out of the Nazi and Communist playbook.
6 minutes is too long listening to HIM babble over her... im outa here.
Wow. This interviewer is both rude and antagonistic. I can't watch him.
Risk death by vaccine to avoid a 0.05 percent risk at what risk. ??
can someone please give walensky her walking papers already
I wonder if not worry, or even more panic, it self can make you sick,
Let's drive on the roads like we care about all others.
Hope Moderna booster gets also approved soon.
Rude
yeah the interviewer was really poor
Good Questions.
He looks ill.
Many people want more direct information, so I give him credit for pursuing better answers. She is a nice lady, but not clear enough. In order to help people to make a decision to vaccinate, we need info we can rely on.
Personally, I think that it would be better to say the vaccine which is meant for people who have yet to get even a first shot after a certain amount of time is going to be sent to countries that are poorer and do not have the amount of vaccine available to give people who want the vaccine to have it.
Why is he being so hostile? Had me bouncing at 5".
It sounds like he's been watching too many 'interviews' conducted by Chris "My favorite thing in the world is the sound of my own voice" Matthews.
The vaccinated shouldn’t worry at all, they should simply get their booster at the appropriate time.
Dude rude much!
Wow with the hostile interview Walter! Lordy!
He’s a journalist. His job is to ask the TOUGH questions.
He asked and she gave evasive answers. He asked for percentages and proportions and she wouldnt give him specifics. Why wouldnt she?
Health workers also want to have children.
I think my immunity is Garth Algaring. Ugh!
Is this interviewer some old guy the network can’t get rid of? He’s terrible.
He keeps interrupting her and cutting her off. He’s aggressive and argumentative. Bad interviewer. Couldn’t even watch.
Complete complete complete complete complete idiocy
Hey Christianne!! Every other country recognizes NATURAL IMMUNITY!!!! Why aren’t you reporting that? Why aren’t you interviewing Dr Marty Makary?????
Scam