4 ms·

It is not how it happened at all. EMA looked at this and said – it is possible that these cases are related to vaccine but it doesn't change that the benefit ov

by NoPie 6y ago

It is not how it happened at all. EMA looked at this and said – it is possible that these cases are related to vaccine but it doesn't change that the benefit overweighs risk and there was no reason to stop the vaccine. Informing patients about new rare side-effects of new drugs is done all the time. Normally there is no reason to suspend the drug globally every time a rare side effect happens.

libertine 6y ago
>It is not how it happened at all. It's how it was communicated in the media, which might as well just be how it happened for the public opinion in many countries. I saw no USA/UK media outlet saying this is proper procedure, it's normal and happens all the time, and institutions are working as they should.
- shezi 6y ago
  So you agree that this was a breakdown in procedure and reporting, instead of an actual case of something interesting happening? As a German, to me it feels a lot like politicians covering their assets instead of properly evaluating the situation.
  - libertine 6y ago
    This matter is of public interest, it just isn't reported often or at all, yet all eyes are on these vaccines, specially on a controversial one such as AZ vaccine. I can only see the recurring mistake mentioning generic "blood clots", and that "the vaccine doesn't cause blood clots", when the only ones talking about blood clots were media outlets, while the anomaly was always reported as low pallets causing bleeding and a specific type of clots. This is what happens when you try to control the narrative of events, you end up creating noise - because regulators from Norway, Dernmark, and many other countries will continue to report this because it's still happening, while media outlets, and the WHO have the narrative that everything is fine and this wasn't even a subject. Literally two narratives came from this event: - "the vaccine is safe and effective and doesn't cause blood clots", which is true and always was true and no one ever questioned it. - "there's an ongoing investigation because the vaccine is causing a specific adverse reaction in very few people, most prevalent in women under 50 years old", which is also true and doesn't contradict the first narrative. Now how the hell are common people supposed to know what to believe, when both narratives are true but seem to contradict each other? Why did they spin off the first narrative, when it only adds noise and confusion. It's just extremely bad journalism and PR.
- NoPie 6y ago
  You are right, that's how it was communicated by irresponsible journalists and politicians. They managed to influence the public opinion against the vaccine. Now many countries will have to deal with growing anti-vaxx sentiments and delaying the successful resolution of covid crisis.

by NoPie 6y ago

libertine 6y ago

>It is not how it happened at all. It's how it was communicated in the media, which might as well just be how it happened for the public opinion in many countries. I saw no USA/UK media outlet saying this is proper procedure, it's normal and happens all the time, and institutions are working as they should.

shezi 6y ago
So you agree that this was a breakdown in procedure and reporting, instead of an actual case of something interesting happening? As a German, to me it feels a lot like politicians covering their assets instead of properly evaluating the situation.
- libertine 6y ago
  This matter is of public interest, it just isn't reported often or at all, yet all eyes are on these vaccines, specially on a controversial one such as AZ vaccine. I can only see the recurring mistake mentioning generic "blood clots", and that "the vaccine doesn't cause blood clots", when the only ones talking about blood clots were media outlets, while the anomaly was always reported as low pallets causing bleeding and a specific type of clots. This is what happens when you try to control the narrative of events, you end up creating noise - because regulators from Norway, Dernmark, and many other countries will continue to report this because it's still happening, while media outlets, and the WHO have the narrative that everything is fine and this wasn't even a subject. Literally two narratives came from this event: - "the vaccine is safe and effective and doesn't cause blood clots", which is true and always was true and no one ever questioned it. - "there's an ongoing investigation because the vaccine is causing a specific adverse reaction in very few people, most prevalent in women under 50 years old", which is also true and doesn't contradict the first narrative. Now how the hell are common people supposed to know what to believe, when both narratives are true but seem to contradict each other? Why did they spin off the first narrative, when it only adds noise and confusion. It's just extremely bad journalism and PR.
NoPie 6y ago
You are right, that's how it was communicated by irresponsible journalists and politicians. They managed to influence the public opinion against the vaccine. Now many countries will have to deal with growing anti-vaxx sentiments and delaying the successful resolution of covid crisis.