5 ms·
I wouldn't consider that misinformation. At the time those statements were made it was thought the vaccine would prevent transmission. Not a medical expert, but
by pgrote 5y ago
I wouldn't consider that misinformation. At the time those statements were made it was thought the vaccine would prevent transmission. Not a medical expert, but I always thought the reason you got a vaccine was to prevent infection. Measles vaccine is somewhere near 97% effective at stopping infection. Heck, even when the vaccines for covid first came out it was big news if there was a breakthrough infection.
Fast forward to today. The general consensus is the vaccine typically prevents serious illness and death in most cases for the common variants. It doesn't do a great job preventing infection.
One of the mistakes those in charge made was never admitting something like the following when new, solid information was understood:
1) We were wrong.
2) This is something we've never seen.
3) We're learning as we go.
4) It doesn't do what we said or thought it would do, but it does this.
No one in real power ever says anything remotely like it. They speak in absolutes and it has gotten so bad they are choosing to misrepresent studies to suggest following a path they think is best versus admitting the studies just suck.
Misinformation flagging for something like covid was never going to be practical to implement as there was so much changing on a such a limited timeframe. Toss in politics and the governing structure of the USA and it was never going to work.
- ratsmack 5y ago>... it was thought ... And therein lies the problem. They presented it as absolute undeniable fact, but there were no definitive studies to back up their claims at the time.
- nomel 5y agoYeah, these statements have uncertainty, but they're not being discussed. It seems that uncertainty is being intentionally omitted, and discussion of it is actively fought. This seems a terrible way to maintain trust!
- remarkEon 5y ago>At the time those statements were made it was thought the vaccine would prevent transmission Okay. How did they come to this conclusion? We'll never know, because we're in this asymmetric war about information, where dunking on your political enemies is more important than just being transparent. Showing us how they came to that conclusion, and then going through your points 1-4 would go a long way to restoring that trust (partially), but alas they won't do it.