Evidence from August–early November 2020 shows that information about COVID-19 vaccines did not "only continue to improve" nor did it on net strengthen public confidence during that window.

1. What Freiberg predicted (July 31, 2020)
He claimed that from then until November, vaccine news would only get better and provide “more and more indications of success,” implying a steadily improving information stream and rising confidence in vaccines’ effectiveness and inevitability.

2. Actual vaccine trial news, Aug–early Nov 2020

Positive / optimistic signals

• By late July 2020, large phase 3 efficacy trials for mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech were starting, a clear sign of scientific progress.(pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
• By late September, U.S. health officials testified that four vaccine candidates (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen) were in or about to enter phase 3, and they expressed “growing optimism” that one or more would prove safe and effective by late 2020 or early 2021.(fda.gov)

Negative / confidence‑reducing signals

• AstraZeneca/Oxford trial pause (September 2020): On Sept. 8–9, 2020, AstraZeneca paused global trials of its AZD1222 vaccine for a safety review after a participant developed an unexplained illness suspected to be a serious neurological event.(pharmtech.com) This was heavily covered as a setback and highlighted safety uncertainties.
• Johnson & Johnson/Janssen trial pause (October 2020): On Oct. 12, 2020, J&J temporarily paused dosing in all of its COVID-19 vaccine trials, including the large phase 3 ENSEMBLE trial, due to an unexplained illness in a participant.(jnj.com) Again, this was widely reported as a potential safety problem.
• These high‑profile pauses directly contradicted the idea that there would be only more indications of success; they were explicit signals of uncertainty and potential risk.

Key positive efficacy data arrived after the election

• The first major public announcements showing ~95% efficacy for the Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna vaccines came on Nov. 9 and Nov. 16, 2020, after the Nov. 3 U.S. election and thus outside Freiberg’s prediction window.(pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) Up to Election Day, there was no definitive public efficacy readout yet.

3. Public confidence trends in that period

Survey data show that public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine fell, rather than rose, by mid‑September 2020:

• Pew Research Center found that the share of U.S. adults who said they would definitely or probably get a COVID-19 vaccine dropped from 72% in late April–early May 2020 to 51% by Sept. 8–13, 2020—a 21‑point decline.(pewresearch.org)
• The same survey reported that 78% of Americans were more worried that the approval process would move too fast and not fully establish safety and effectiveness, indicating growing skepticism rather than increasing confidence.(pewresearch.org)

These attitudinal shifts occurred squarely within the July 31–early November 2020 window and are consistent with the impact of safety pauses and politicization of the vaccine timeline.

4. Assessment vs. the normalized prediction

The normalized claim is that, between July 31 and the early November election:

• The aggregate flow of vaccine information would increasingly indicate success, and
• New trial data and announcements would on net strengthen confidence that vaccines were effective and coming soon.

What actually happened:

• Scientifically, there were both positive signals (multiple candidates in phase 3, official optimism) and highly publicized negative signals (AstraZeneca and J&J safety pauses) before the election.(fda.gov)
• In terms of public reaction, measured willingness to be vaccinated declined sharply by mid‑September, indicating that, on balance, the information landscape did not strengthen overall confidence.(pewresearch.org)
• The strongest, unambiguous efficacy announcements that truly cemented confidence arrived after Election Day.

Because significant negative information emerged during the window and public confidence measurably fell rather than rose, Freiberg’s prediction that vaccine news would “only continue to improve” and provide ever‑stronger indications of success **did not come true.

Therefore, the prediction is best classified as: wrong.