|
|
|
|
|
by danaris
194 days ago
|
|
> I'd like accurate communication from the beginning. So you want magic. Got it. In situations like the one five years ago, perfect understanding of how a new vaccine will interact with a relatively new virus is not going to be available. Even more, perfect understanding of how good our information is at any given point in time is not always going to be available. There were definitely some failures to communicate well with the public during that time, but demanding that only definite information be communicated, and then never be contradicted, is asking the impossible. It also really doesn't help that there are so many people who were (and are) just so scared of everything during that time that any information coming out that wasn't 100% unquestionably positive about any new measure to try to improve things would cause them to shun it forever as too dangerous to try. |
|
> In situations like the one five years ago, perfect understanding of how a new vaccine will interact with a relatively new virus is not going to be available.
Even five years ago, everyone that has a minimal knowledge about vaccines understood it was an unrealistic claim, because many of the vaccines don't provide that level of immunity. If you have some free time to go down the rabit hole, you can try to count them in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy_of_the_Unit...
So the questions are:
Is that quote real?
Who said that?
---
I was going to hit the "reply" button, but I decided to look in Goggle and found https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/21/politics/walensky-comment... Like 10 worse than what I expected.