4 ms·

All the mRNA vaccines being deployed in the U.S. appear to also have an increased risk: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D8/D137F981 https://wonder.cdc.

All the mRNA vaccines being deployed in the U.S. appear to also have an increased risk: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D8/D137F981 https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D8/D137F981 I think it would be better to be honest about the risks, rather than hide them. Sure, less people may take the vaccine, but covid19 is an easily transmissible airborne illness (per the cdc and who). Given that, herd immunity is unlikely to be achieved and regular vaccines would be suggested (like the flu). Of course, that means we need to trust the vaccines... lying about risks isn’t a good start.

cm2187 6y ago
Making a big deal about a one in a million risk isn’t helpful either (and borderline dishonest). Most people suck at dealing with small probabilities (otherwise lotteries would be out of business).
TheBlight 6y ago
We were already lied to at least about masks and required threshold for herd immunity. I feel like our public health officials have done serious damage to their credibility. Perhaps irreversibly so as far as many are concerned.
- injidup 6y ago
  You were not lied to. The CDC and WHO originally said that masks were not needed. That advice was wrong. That doesn't mean the people giving that advice were being malicious. They just got it badly wrong and eventually they corrected it and changed their position. A leader who can say they screwed up and then try and fix it is better than one who won't admit they are wrong and keeps to the wrong position just to save face. Bolsanaro in Brazil comes to mind.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    > [someone] originally said that masks were not needed. That advice was wrong. That doesn't mean the people giving that advice were being malicious. They just got it badly wrong and eventually they corrected it and changed their position. It shouldn't be that hard to not say things you can't support. Fauci should have told the truth, which is that however effective masks are they were in short supply and would do more good for doctors/etc. At some point, being more concerned with controlling people than educating them is maliciousness. He wanted masks for doctors but was willing to give bad advice to citizens to make it happen. We deserve honest scientists, not politicians, making policy.
    - injidup 6y ago
      You are looking at this with hindsight. At the time they believed (wrongly) that masks were important to prevent yourself being infected and there was a shortage of N95 masks. Under that assumption it did not make sense for a healthy population to panic buy all the masks and leave the health care workers exposed. It was an incorrect decision based on incorrect science but not malicious. Later on aerosole scientists made the correct analysis that the more important path was to prevent the small droplets from infected people spreading over shirt distances and then any old mask is better than none. Once this was realised the messaging changed. Was it an error not to know this up front? Yes! Was it malicious? Unlikely. The malicious activity came from the trump administration who till the end kept ridiculing the scientists and telling its supporters all is fine just to win votes. Fauci and the CDC and the scientists are not the fall guy here.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        > You are looking at this with hindsight. I wasn't when I criticized it the day I heard it. It was obviously not right. > Later on aerosole scientists made the correct analysis that the more important path was to prevent the small droplets from infected people spreading over shirt distances (I quoted this just because I laughed at 'shirt distances' in this context.) > Was it malicious? Unlikely. Was using his authority to say something absolutely unproven and implausible malicious? Or just extremely obviously going to have negative consequences which he ignored? > the trump administration [...] Fauci and the CDC and the scientists are not the fall guy here. Fauci and the WHO both go out of their way to say things that they can't know. Sure, Trump is also awful, but that's not relevant to our "scientists" overstepping. At this point Fauci is a politician. Better than some, but still.
        injidup 6y ago
        You are missing the point. The CDC and WHO believed (incorrectly) that N95 masks did not provide any benefit to a healthy population when the number of infections were concentrated in healthcare facilities. You can't pick and choose only part of the message and claim maliciousness. The whole perspective is important. I also was arguing with people on Facebook weeks before the CDC and who changed their position and I predicted masks would become mandatory. But that was my personal opinion and not proof that Fauci acted in bad faith. You and are I anecdotal data points with no responsibility to anybody . Nobody got it "right" but the scientists were at least putting the effort in the right direction instead of right wing politicians. Typing on a mobile without my glasses so autocorrect will have its day!
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I'm not sure how to interpret the results that returns. Can anyone summarize? Also, I have heard rumors that the only things recorded as adverse reactions to the vaccine are things that begin in the 15/30 minutes before the person leaves the vaccine facility. Can anyone confirm or refute that?

cm2187 6y ago

Making a big deal about a one in a million risk isn’t helpful either (and borderline dishonest). Most people suck at dealing with small probabilities (otherwise lotteries would be out of business).

TheBlight 6y ago

We were already lied to at least about masks and required threshold for herd immunity. I feel like our public health officials have done serious damage to their credibility. Perhaps irreversibly so as far as many are concerned.

injidup 6y ago
You were not lied to. The CDC and WHO originally said that masks were not needed. That advice was wrong. That doesn't mean the people giving that advice were being malicious. They just got it badly wrong and eventually they corrected it and changed their position. A leader who can say they screwed up and then try and fix it is better than one who won't admit they are wrong and keeps to the wrong position just to save face. Bolsanaro in Brazil comes to mind.
- Rule35 6y ago
  > [someone] originally said that masks were not needed. That advice was wrong. That doesn't mean the people giving that advice were being malicious. They just got it badly wrong and eventually they corrected it and changed their position. It shouldn't be that hard to not say things you can't support. Fauci should have told the truth, which is that however effective masks are they were in short supply and would do more good for doctors/etc. At some point, being more concerned with controlling people than educating them is maliciousness. He wanted masks for doctors but was willing to give bad advice to citizens to make it happen. We deserve honest scientists, not politicians, making policy.
  - injidup 6y ago
    You are looking at this with hindsight. At the time they believed (wrongly) that masks were important to prevent yourself being infected and there was a shortage of N95 masks. Under that assumption it did not make sense for a healthy population to panic buy all the masks and leave the health care workers exposed. It was an incorrect decision based on incorrect science but not malicious. Later on aerosole scientists made the correct analysis that the more important path was to prevent the small droplets from infected people spreading over shirt distances and then any old mask is better than none. Once this was realised the messaging changed. Was it an error not to know this up front? Yes! Was it malicious? Unlikely. The malicious activity came from the trump administration who till the end kept ridiculing the scientists and telling its supporters all is fine just to win votes. Fauci and the CDC and the scientists are not the fall guy here.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      > You are looking at this with hindsight. I wasn't when I criticized it the day I heard it. It was obviously not right. > Later on aerosole scientists made the correct analysis that the more important path was to prevent the small droplets from infected people spreading over shirt distances (I quoted this just because I laughed at 'shirt distances' in this context.) > Was it malicious? Unlikely. Was using his authority to say something absolutely unproven and implausible malicious? Or just extremely obviously going to have negative consequences which he ignored? > the trump administration [...] Fauci and the CDC and the scientists are not the fall guy here. Fauci and the WHO both go out of their way to say things that they can't know. Sure, Trump is also awful, but that's not relevant to our "scientists" overstepping. At this point Fauci is a politician. Better than some, but still.
      - injidup 6y ago
        You are missing the point. The CDC and WHO believed (incorrectly) that N95 masks did not provide any benefit to a healthy population when the number of infections were concentrated in healthcare facilities. You can't pick and choose only part of the message and claim maliciousness. The whole perspective is important. I also was arguing with people on Facebook weeks before the CDC and who changed their position and I predicted masks would become mandatory. But that was my personal opinion and not proof that Fauci acted in bad faith. You and are I anecdotal data points with no responsibility to anybody . Nobody got it "right" but the scientists were at least putting the effort in the right direction instead of right wing politicians. Typing on a mobile without my glasses so autocorrect will have its day!

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

I'm not sure how to interpret the results that returns. Can anyone summarize? Also, I have heard rumors that the only things recorded as adverse reactions to the vaccine are things that begin in the 15/30 minutes before the person leaves the vaccine facility. Can anyone confirm or refute that?