4 ms·

Literally first line of the article: > A UK grandmother has become the first person in the world to be given the Pfizer Covid-19 jab as part of a mass vaccinat

Literally first line of the article: > A UK grandmother has become the first person in the world to be given the Pfizer Covid-19 jab as part of a mass vaccination programme.

CivBase 6y ago
Yes, I read it. Literally the second line of my comment: > This marks the official rollout with general public availability (pending supply issues), so that's cool. It's just weird that the article refers to this dose in particular as a "historic event". Here's the line from the article I'm referring to: > Prof Stephen Powis, national medical director of NHS England, who witnessed the "historic moment", said: "We couldn't hug her but we could clap and everybody did so in the room." They even quoted "historic moment" almost like they were being sarcastic about it. It's just weird.
- antientropic 6y ago
  It's between quotes presumably because it is, you know, a quote. And the start of the first public vaccination campaign against COVID-19 legitimately seems like a historic moment. But we're just nitpicking language now.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    Then who are they quoting?
    - prawn 6y ago
      Prof Stephen Powis - the guy mentioned in the same sentence. You can see the convention continues in the very next paragraph: "The second person vaccinated in Coventry was William Shakespeare, 81, from Warwickshire, who said he was "pleased" to be given the jab and hospital staff had been "wonderful"."
      - CivBase 6y ago
        Those quotes in the next paragraph are explicitly attributed to William. There is no explicit attribution for the "historic moment" quote.
        prawn 6y ago
        Seemed pretty obvious to me. There are further, similar examples in the story. Maybe you can write to them to clarify for peace of mind.
- prawn 6y ago
  It's likely that "historic moment" is quoted as Powis said those particular words. The vaccines would be a current and global talking point. It's natural that the first post-testing vaccines would be a significant moment, that someone involved would feel it was of historic note, and that a publication would use that phrasing to accentuate the story's weight. It's the/a major story on every news site I checked this evening.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    > It's likely that "historic moment" is quoted as Powls said those particular words. That could be. Hopefully it's understandable that I didn't come to that conclusion because the article does not attribute those words to anyone. > The vaccines would be a current and global talking point. It's natural that the first post-testing vaccines would be a significant moment, that someone involved would feel it was of historic note, and that a publication would use that phrasing to accentuate the story's weight. Yeah, I suppose, but it's still weird to me. I don't care about the details of the first publicly administered dose. What really matters to me is that doses are now publicly available (kind of, depending on need for now). Nothing about the "first" dose strikes me as being of historical note other than the timestamp and the milestone it represents. But I guess that's a matter of opinion and a lot of people seem to disagree with me.

Literally first line of the article: > A UK grandmother has become the first person in the world to be given the Pfizer Covid-19 jab as part of a mass vaccination programme.

CivBase 6y ago

Yes, I read it. Literally the second line of my comment: > This marks the official rollout with general public availability (pending supply issues), so that's cool. It's just weird that the article refers to this dose in particular as a "historic event". Here's the line from the article I'm referring to: > Prof Stephen Powis, national medical director of NHS England, who witnessed the "historic moment", said: "We couldn't hug her but we could clap and everybody did so in the room." They even quoted "historic moment" almost like they were being sarcastic about it. It's just weird.

antientropic 6y ago
It's between quotes presumably because it is, you know, a quote. And the start of the first public vaccination campaign against COVID-19 legitimately seems like a historic moment. But we're just nitpicking language now.
- CivBase 6y ago
  Then who are they quoting?
  - prawn 6y ago
    Prof Stephen Powis - the guy mentioned in the same sentence. You can see the convention continues in the very next paragraph: "The second person vaccinated in Coventry was William Shakespeare, 81, from Warwickshire, who said he was "pleased" to be given the jab and hospital staff had been "wonderful"."
    - CivBase 6y ago
      Those quotes in the next paragraph are explicitly attributed to William. There is no explicit attribution for the "historic moment" quote.
      - prawn 6y ago
        Seemed pretty obvious to me. There are further, similar examples in the story. Maybe you can write to them to clarify for peace of mind.
prawn 6y ago
It's likely that "historic moment" is quoted as Powis said those particular words. The vaccines would be a current and global talking point. It's natural that the first post-testing vaccines would be a significant moment, that someone involved would feel it was of historic note, and that a publication would use that phrasing to accentuate the story's weight. It's the/a major story on every news site I checked this evening.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > It's likely that "historic moment" is quoted as Powls said those particular words. That could be. Hopefully it's understandable that I didn't come to that conclusion because the article does not attribute those words to anyone. > The vaccines would be a current and global talking point. It's natural that the first post-testing vaccines would be a significant moment, that someone involved would feel it was of historic note, and that a publication would use that phrasing to accentuate the story's weight. Yeah, I suppose, but it's still weird to me. I don't care about the details of the first publicly administered dose. What really matters to me is that doses are now publicly available (kind of, depending on need for now). Nothing about the "first" dose strikes me as being of historical note other than the timestamp and the milestone it represents. But I guess that's a matter of opinion and a lot of people seem to disagree with me.