4 ms·
Huh? 1) No vaccine is 100% effective. 2) Against something that mutates quickly the vaccine will always be behind. Thus the new variants win out. (The sam
by LorenPechtel 5mo ago
Huh?
1) No vaccine is 100% effective.
2) Against something that mutates quickly the vaccine will always be behind. Thus the new variants win out. (The same thing would happen in the absence of vaccines, but it would take longer.)
The idea that it could actually be stamped out was very wishful thinking. But the vaccine does have a big benefit in reducing death.
- stinkbeetle 5mo agoYeah I know it sounds crazy but that was among the misinformation being spread, and many widely believed it without evidence.
- LorenPechtel 5mo agoMuch of what I see is science generally avoids making claims that are not proven--but people want answers. When a reporter gets hold of something like China saying there is no evidence it's airborne they treat it like China saying that it isn't airborne. No--that wasn't incorrect, that was a lack of data. They didn't have a non-human host, it wasn't a disease where it would be reasonable to expose people and see what happens, data collection is going to be limited. But China saw it was probably airborne and reacted as if it were. We had the same data, we could reach the same conclusions, but we didn't want to.
- stinkbeetle 5mo agoNot just reporters, political leaders and bureaucrats and self proclaimed "experts" spread anti-scientific misinformation too, like the one I mentioned. A big reason people believe these falsehoods.