4 ms·

I think a big part of it is that COVID has become an attention point in our lives, it entirely dominated the media cycle for months. There's something everyone

I think a big part of it is that COVID has become an attention point in our lives, it entirely dominated the media cycle for months. There's something everyone wants to hear about and _we just don't know that much about it_, so the media increasingly plays telephone with itself in an attempt to report anything. Various people gave their hopefully somewhat informed opinion at the time to different members of the media, who reported on it with different levels of accuracy, attributing often undue levels of confidence to it. And that quickly mutated into "the media's trusted sources can confirm that the experts definitely know the vaccine will have exactly these effects and will be effective for these specific cases" I think it's worth questioning what influence there was in which narratives did or didn't get pushed, but I also think it's worth keeping in mind that the media is also just... fallible.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
I mean... if the director of CDC says it directy... you cannot blame misreporting, and someone in that position should know the level of confidence to use when saying such stuff. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33736959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33736959 I understand if some random chiropractic from alabama says something, that the data is probably questionable... but the director of CDC does carry some authority. If if _we don't know something_, isn't mandating that something (vaccines in this case) somehow a bad thing? On one side... "take this, and you won't get sick"... who is responsible when that person gets sick? Or infects grandma? Or actually gets a clot?
- otikik 4y ago
  I agree that there has been bad communication and wrong communication. That said, a doctor never says “you won’t get sick”. Medicine is never certain, the human body is too complex to generalize and say “this will cure you 100% sure, no bad reactions possible”. There’s always a chance that something will go wrong. Clinical essays are what makes possibility go down, but it is never 0. If you want absolutes, go to a priest. They will give you an absolute that matches your own pre assumptions and if it turns out wrong later, well God wanted it this way, He works in misterious ways.
  - refurb 4y ago
    "our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data." That's not bad communication it's an outright false statement.
    - otikik 4y ago
      You are going over an already covered point. I said “bad and wrong communication”. My point was specifically about the expectation of fail proof medicine. It doesn’t exist.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Well then we agree there.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    Of course it's not certain and 100%... i'm too lazy to find our local propaganda now, but when i got it, the numbers were in the rage of 96% efficacy (for not getting it and not transmitting it) with minimal chances of side effects. But in my country (slovenia), at the height of pressure to get vaccinated, if you were a young girl/woman (15-24 age bracket), the "96%" from above turned to "you'll probably still get covid, you'll still spread it, if you do, not one girl in your age bracket died yet because of or even with covid, but one girl died due to the vaccine... but, if you don't take the vaccine, you'll have to get tested every 48 hours or you'll be unable to go to work (oh, no testing center in your village, and you're not allowed to take the bus to the closest test location without a test)".
    - otikik 4y ago
      I don’t understand. People who were not vaccinated had worse effects on average, including dying (painfully and slowly azfixiating as your lungs collapsed). This was common at the beginning of the pandemic, and extensively documented. Millions of people died this way. It’s choosing between that and … “a girl who died in Slovenia”. How are those two things equivalent? Even if you can spread COVID, if the effects in your body are lowered, chances are that you will remove the virus it from your body earlier (it can dedicate more resources to winning the battle instead of … breathing), so you will be effectively less contagious.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

I mean... if the director of CDC says it directy... you cannot blame misreporting, and someone in that position should know the level of confidence to use when saying such stuff. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33736959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33736959 I understand if some random chiropractic from alabama says something, that the data is probably questionable... but the director of CDC does carry some authority. If if _we don't know something_, isn't mandating that something (vaccines in this case) somehow a bad thing? On one side... "take this, and you won't get sick"... who is responsible when that person gets sick? Or infects grandma? Or actually gets a clot?

otikik 4y ago
I agree that there has been bad communication and wrong communication. That said, a doctor never says “you won’t get sick”. Medicine is never certain, the human body is too complex to generalize and say “this will cure you 100% sure, no bad reactions possible”. There’s always a chance that something will go wrong. Clinical essays are what makes possibility go down, but it is never 0. If you want absolutes, go to a priest. They will give you an absolute that matches your own pre assumptions and if it turns out wrong later, well God wanted it this way, He works in misterious ways.
- refurb 4y ago
  "our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data." That's not bad communication it's an outright false statement.
  - otikik 4y ago
    You are going over an already covered point. I said “bad and wrong communication”. My point was specifically about the expectation of fail proof medicine. It doesn’t exist.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Well then we agree there.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Of course it's not certain and 100%... i'm too lazy to find our local propaganda now, but when i got it, the numbers were in the rage of 96% efficacy (for not getting it and not transmitting it) with minimal chances of side effects. But in my country (slovenia), at the height of pressure to get vaccinated, if you were a young girl/woman (15-24 age bracket), the "96%" from above turned to "you'll probably still get covid, you'll still spread it, if you do, not one girl in your age bracket died yet because of or even with covid, but one girl died due to the vaccine... but, if you don't take the vaccine, you'll have to get tested every 48 hours or you'll be unable to go to work (oh, no testing center in your village, and you're not allowed to take the bus to the closest test location without a test)".
  - otikik 4y ago
    I don’t understand. People who were not vaccinated had worse effects on average, including dying (painfully and slowly azfixiating as your lungs collapsed). This was common at the beginning of the pandemic, and extensively documented. Millions of people died this way. It’s choosing between that and … “a girl who died in Slovenia”. How are those two things equivalent? Even if you can spread COVID, if the effects in your body are lowered, chances are that you will remove the virus it from your body earlier (it can dedicate more resources to winning the battle instead of … breathing), so you will be effectively less contagious.