7 ms·

I'd say the opposite: maybe the news reports should have less detail. The efficacy percentages of different vaccines mean different things but the way they have

by ufo 5y ago

I'd say the opposite: maybe the news reports should have less detail. The efficacy percentages of different vaccines mean different things but the way they have been publicized has lead many people to think one vaccine is better than the other. We're starting to see some people refuse to get vaccinated, because they're shopping aroung for a vaccine that they think is more effective. At the end of the day, what really matters is vaccinating as many people as soon as possible.

skocznymroczny 5y ago
I disagree. Hiding data from the public in the name of public good has been the basis of every censorship throughout history.
- ufo 5y ago
  I don't see a problem with the information being available. But in my opinion it shouldn't be in the headline. IMO, it would be better if the headline just said that the vaccine is safe and effective.
kube-system 5y ago
While I share your frustration with the general public's opinion on vaccination, I don't think that the idiots who can't comprehend the details would be convinced with fewer details. Those people aren't paying attention to the details anyway. For instance, when the J&J clot "issue" hit the news cycle, vaccinations across the board went down, even for vaccines other than J&J. These people aren't looking at any kind of details or data and getting confused by them, they're just making a decision based on word-of-mouth sentiment from their social/media circles. They would have never been confused by details in the article, because they never read it.
pyuser583 5y ago
I agree - way too many people think they know what they’re talking about. Data is only helpful if you know how to use it. The data should be publicly available, but that doesn’t mean it belongs in an article for general consumption.
- int_19h 5y ago
  And how would you achieve that? If data is publicly available, somebody somewhere will decide to write an article based on it. And if it sounds interesting, it will spread.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    In just saying it’s not a good editorial decision to include excess data in an mainstream news article. If a more specialized publication wants to offer a more explanatory story, fine. But I don’t think that’s what people are looking for from a regular newspapers. Knowing a vaccine is considered by experts to be effective is sufficient. The exact rates of reinfection aren’t important and can be confusing.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      In a free media market, editorial decisions are made based on audience engagement. If the readers are more likely to read the article with more numbers (and thus see the ads in it), that's what will be published.
      - pyuser583 5y ago
        In a free market, editorial decisions are made based on advertising revenue. That’s not always a good thing. Simply because something is factually true and increases audience engagement doesn’t mean it’s relevant or responsible to include. For example, COVID had a fatality rate of 2%. That’s a fact. It also will increase engagement amount certain media markets. But that’s also very misleading. 2% of the world is 140 million people. The fact that it’s piece of “true data” that increases audience engagement doesn’t mean it belongs in mainstream articles.
        int_19h 5y ago
        Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I just don't see what you can do about it within a capitalist framework without some kind of centralized censorship - which is even worse in the long run.
effie 5y ago
> At the end of the day, what really matters is vaccinating as many people as soon as possible. This position is absolutist and a mark of a totalitarian thinking and a large portion of population does not share it. For most people, individual people freedoms matter too and in democracy, these freedoms are stronger than the institutional desideratum to vaccinate as many people as technically possible. What is best for the whole country isn't always best for the individual living there.
- manwe150 5y ago
  Curiously, I recently learned that George Washington imposed a mandate on the troops that required them to get the new vaccine, the first ever such idea. This means we owe the existence of our freedoms to mandatory vaccinations. https://www.history.com/.amp/news/smallpox-george-washington-revolutionary-war https://www.history.com/.amp/news/smallpox-george-washington...

by ufo 5y ago

skocznymroczny 5y ago

I disagree. Hiding data from the public in the name of public good has been the basis of every censorship throughout history.

ufo 5y ago
I don't see a problem with the information being available. But in my opinion it shouldn't be in the headline. IMO, it would be better if the headline just said that the vaccine is safe and effective.

kube-system 5y ago

While I share your frustration with the general public's opinion on vaccination, I don't think that the idiots who can't comprehend the details would be convinced with fewer details. Those people aren't paying attention to the details anyway. For instance, when the J&J clot "issue" hit the news cycle, vaccinations across the board went down, even for vaccines other than J&J. These people aren't looking at any kind of details or data and getting confused by them, they're just making a decision based on word-of-mouth sentiment from their social/media circles. They would have never been confused by details in the article, because they never read it.

pyuser583 5y ago

I agree - way too many people think they know what they’re talking about. Data is only helpful if you know how to use it. The data should be publicly available, but that doesn’t mean it belongs in an article for general consumption.

int_19h 5y ago
And how would you achieve that? If data is publicly available, somebody somewhere will decide to write an article based on it. And if it sounds interesting, it will spread.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  In just saying it’s not a good editorial decision to include excess data in an mainstream news article. If a more specialized publication wants to offer a more explanatory story, fine. But I don’t think that’s what people are looking for from a regular newspapers. Knowing a vaccine is considered by experts to be effective is sufficient. The exact rates of reinfection aren’t important and can be confusing.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    In a free media market, editorial decisions are made based on audience engagement. If the readers are more likely to read the article with more numbers (and thus see the ads in it), that's what will be published.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      In a free market, editorial decisions are made based on advertising revenue. That’s not always a good thing. Simply because something is factually true and increases audience engagement doesn’t mean it’s relevant or responsible to include. For example, COVID had a fatality rate of 2%. That’s a fact. It also will increase engagement amount certain media markets. But that’s also very misleading. 2% of the world is 140 million people. The fact that it’s piece of “true data” that increases audience engagement doesn’t mean it belongs in mainstream articles.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I just don't see what you can do about it within a capitalist framework without some kind of centralized censorship - which is even worse in the long run.

effie 5y ago

> At the end of the day, what really matters is vaccinating as many people as soon as possible. This position is absolutist and a mark of a totalitarian thinking and a large portion of population does not share it. For most people, individual people freedoms matter too and in democracy, these freedoms are stronger than the institutional desideratum to vaccinate as many people as technically possible. What is best for the whole country isn't always best for the individual living there.

manwe150 5y ago
Curiously, I recently learned that George Washington imposed a mandate on the troops that required them to get the new vaccine, the first ever such idea. This means we owe the existence of our freedoms to mandatory vaccinations. https://www.history.com/.amp/news/smallpox-george-washington-revolutionary-war https://www.history.com/.amp/news/smallpox-george-washington...