4 ms·
The article checks two bad boxes for me. 1. It disparages the work of individuals/organizations unjustly, who have done society a great service throughout this
by colincooke 6y ago
The article checks two bad boxes for me.
1. It disparages the work of individuals/organizations unjustly, who have done society a great service throughout this trying time. An attitude which has the potential to feed anti-vax sentiment/scepticism.
2. It suggests and endorses, without the proper caveats, something which is potentially dangerous, that is injecting yourself with a homegrown vaccine.
Might be interesting to read a commentary on this individuals experience from a measured place (a practicing scientist for example breaking down the risks of what he/his group did), but the content as it stands doesn't deserve to be promoted in my opinion.
- StavrosK 6y agoThose bad boxes were checked for me too, but the realization it gave me that "wait, I can actually synthesize a vaccine myself" trumped the first two.
- colincooke 6y agoGood point, could have been a great article if it took a more careful tone and just demonstrated how cool it is that the tech now exists to do this yourself (with sufficient means + skills), without adding the other negative elements/suggesting that folks should do this themselves.
- gus_massa 6y agoYou can synthetize a vaccine candidate yourself. The problem is to be sure that it creates enough immunity and that is safe enough.