4 ms·
Where do you live? Because that's been the narrative nowhere I'm aware of. Saying "we have to roll it out to the public to find out if it works" is rather the o
by native_samples 5y ago
Where do you live? Because that's been the narrative nowhere I'm aware of. Saying "we have to roll it out to the public to find out if it works" is rather the opposite of how it was presented, wasn't it? It was all about the trials prove it's safe and effective and there's no reason to doubt the rollout.
Yes that's changed now with the rollouts to children and the boosters. They realized people will take anything if it's called a vaccine even if the trials were a joke, and even if they say we have to try it out on the public to see what happens. But that's very new.
- sho_hn 5y agoI'm in Germany. It was always made pretty clear here that there are a lot of things that we wouldn't know until we know it, in particular if vaccine X or Y or Z would be more effective, and how long the vaccines would stay effective. For example I distinctly remember encountering in mainstream press and in talkshows (with public officials and experts) worries like "if you get vaccinated early, there's a risk the efficacy could wane off until the next winter wave" and "there's a risk the virus mutates faster than we can keep up with on the vaccine development front", and so on. Topic #1 among the general population for a long time was probably "which vaccine should I try to get because they're not all created equal". My bottom line was that I was hoping the vaccines would help, but we would have to see just how much. I was prepared to be disappointed. I still am - but also hopeful we can keep up and progress toward herd immunity with boosters and updated vaccines. It still seems like the best strategy on the table. To be clear, there were also people taking the stance of "don't talk the vaccines down too much or people won't go out and get their shots", but overall German society enjoys being critical and poking holes into things too much for that. It just causes Streisand effect outcomes. When I look at the US, I feel like a lot of the political dialog becomes overly simplified and binary. You're either pro or con something, on both sides you pare down your message to a single sentence, complexities be damned, etc. And the distrust generated as a result is immense.
- native_samples 5y agoI'm interested to know where Germany got that narrative, because nowhere else had it. The conversation in the USA and elsewhere is quite binary because what the "experts" said was binary. In December 2020 Fauci was saying: "We know for sure it's very, very good, 94 percent, 95 percent in protecting you against clinically recognizable disease, and almost a 100 percent in protecting you for severe disease." We know for sure it has 95% protection against disease. As recently as July the world was being told that the vaccines can prevent COVID-19: https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2021-07/Preprint_Post_Hoc_Publication_Statement_VF.pdf https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2021-07/Preprint_Post_Hoc_P... "remains highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19" "has been authorized for emergency use by FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019" Clearly those statements were wrong and they didn't realize it, despite presenting these claims with extremely high levels of confidence. There certainly wasn't any notion of "we have no idea, gotta try to find out lol".