[capevace]

The thing is, these tweets are misinformation, presenting cherry-picked studies (which even have editors notes about validity attached) out of context and ignoring ones that don’t fit the narrative.

To me, labelling them as misleading is exactly the right call and in my experience this has also happened to Tweets where pro-vaccine data was cherry picked.

I feel like people from both sides simply do not follow each other, and so they only see flagging of “their own” people and assume that they are targeted.

[TurkishPoptart]

Sorry, but no. If a Harvard epidemiologist comes to another conclusion that the White House finds inconvenient for its mass-vaxxing campaign, that is not "misinformation". That is called research.

[archontes]

No again. That Harvard epidemiologist speaking in an offhand way made it seem as though the only people who needed to take the vaccine were the elderly and their caretakers, which is emphatically untrue.

What he likely meant, though didn't communicate, was that only people with prior natural infection need not take it.

But even that is misinformation, though it might be his professional opinion. If it is his professional opinion, it verges on malpractice, because it was indeterminate at the time to what degree a natural infection destroyed immune memory cells. We have later found evidence that severe covid-19 cases do in fact disrupt immune memory [1]. This is a thing he should know to be wary of, as measles famously erases huge swathes of immune memory.

This in addition to the systemic effects of huge spikes leading to moderate to severe cases going without proper care as a result of a squeeze on resources...

It was a bad take, and everyone reading it should have been told it was a bad take.

[1] https://news.uthscsa.edu/immune-memory-less-durable-after-se...