4 ms·

I think part of the problem is we were told it would take 18 months, then in half that time we have a vaccine with a fast track testing process. And then within

I think part of the problem is we were told it would take 18 months, then in half that time we have a vaccine with a fast track testing process. And then within 24 hours of the vaccine being used in the UK there were reports of people having bad reactions to it due to that group being excluded from the testing. Vaccines have been getting hit hard by anti-vaxers for so long that this seems to have fallen right into their lap with a bunch of easy to use propaganda.

mssundaram 6y ago
Is it propaganda if it's true events?
- abstrakraft 6y ago
  Just because the event is true doesn't mean it's presented with the correct statistical context. For example, if, hypothetically, 2 people developed complications from the vaccine out of a treated population of 20 million, a front page headline exclaiming "Covid Vaccine Causing Complications" would be technically true, but also propaganda.
  - rimliu 6y ago
    The same goes the other way. We see articles "A young person dies from COVID-19". True, but it aldo true that half of the COVID-19 victims were in the age bracket that is 10 years older than the life expectancy in the country.
standardUser 6y ago
"I think part of the problem is we were told it would take 18 months" We were told a lot of things by the media, nearly all of it oriented towards pessimistic outlooks, worst-case scenarios and often just complete misrepresentation of the science. If you asked the people working on these vaccines back in May, they would have told you 18 months was some made up nonsense.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  > We were told a lot of things by the media This actually came from experts. Maybe not the same ones working on the specific vaccines but ones who have decades of experience within the vaccine space. Just because you read it in the media does not mean the media came up with it. They don't actually make things up. And 18 months was not worst-case it was average case with the best case in the media being Autumn. Just because the best case came out, doesn't remove the point that we were repeatedly told by experts (WHO) that 18 months was a good case scenario. While other experts said that was super optimistic.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    "And 18 months was not worst-case it was average case " It was the average case for a once-in-a-generation vaccine development process with unlimited resources, occurring in 2020, with ample research done on similar virus mere years prior? If not, then it sounds like a useless "average" that was picked to fill air time and not to represent the best data we had at the time. And who had the best data at the time? The vaccine teams that had already developed the vaccines that are now being injected into the arms of Americans today. But they don't trot out on TV, so they had to grab some filler scientists to pretend they knew what they were talking about.
alwayseasy 6y ago
The two allergic reactions were from health workers who were allergic to vaccines. They knew it might happen and were ready. People who are allergic to vaccines are not in trials for obvious reasons...

mssundaram 6y ago

Is it propaganda if it's true events?

abstrakraft 6y ago
Just because the event is true doesn't mean it's presented with the correct statistical context. For example, if, hypothetically, 2 people developed complications from the vaccine out of a treated population of 20 million, a front page headline exclaiming "Covid Vaccine Causing Complications" would be technically true, but also propaganda.
- rimliu 6y ago
  The same goes the other way. We see articles "A young person dies from COVID-19". True, but it aldo true that half of the COVID-19 victims were in the age bracket that is 10 years older than the life expectancy in the country.

standardUser 6y ago

"I think part of the problem is we were told it would take 18 months" We were told a lot of things by the media, nearly all of it oriented towards pessimistic outlooks, worst-case scenarios and often just complete misrepresentation of the science. If you asked the people working on these vaccines back in May, they would have told you 18 months was some made up nonsense.

that_guy_iain 6y ago
> We were told a lot of things by the media This actually came from experts. Maybe not the same ones working on the specific vaccines but ones who have decades of experience within the vaccine space. Just because you read it in the media does not mean the media came up with it. They don't actually make things up. And 18 months was not worst-case it was average case with the best case in the media being Autumn. Just because the best case came out, doesn't remove the point that we were repeatedly told by experts (WHO) that 18 months was a good case scenario. While other experts said that was super optimistic.
- standardUser 6y ago
  "And 18 months was not worst-case it was average case " It was the average case for a once-in-a-generation vaccine development process with unlimited resources, occurring in 2020, with ample research done on similar virus mere years prior? If not, then it sounds like a useless "average" that was picked to fill air time and not to represent the best data we had at the time. And who had the best data at the time? The vaccine teams that had already developed the vaccines that are now being injected into the arms of Americans today. But they don't trot out on TV, so they had to grab some filler scientists to pretend they knew what they were talking about.

alwayseasy 6y ago

The two allergic reactions were from health workers who were allergic to vaccines. They knew it might happen and were ready. People who are allergic to vaccines are not in trials for obvious reasons...