> People were assured that COVID vaccine mRNA would disappear within days and the spike protein would short-lived
which is still the case, even in the Yale study.
> That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found.
there is an even larger gap between basic epidemiology and what the public understands.
Hard science is difficult to communicate on a good day, on a global pandemic with quacks getting tons of airtime and multiple labs finding conflicting results (due to speed to publish and bad experimental parameters) I would say that was communicated by health experts was surprisingly valid and accurate.
+1 the public health apparatuses' actual statements were impressively correct even if you don't account for the underlying uncertainty at the time.
Where public health officials "failed" was not having a megaphone loud enough to drown out the game of telephone that most people (as these comment threads consistently show) were actually hearing information through.
Simplest example: People will say that public health officials told them "masks don't work." But no! Only one person did, and that was USSG Jerome Adams (who wasn't credible nor a major player to begin with). What public health officials said was "we do not know if masks work," which is a more nuanced but completely accurate statement.
> : People will say that public health officials told them "masks don't work." But no! Only one person did
I think Fauci might have had a statement early.
But tbh every other scientist said the opposite, every doctor said the opposite.
If I am not wrong he later admitted that he said it to gain time for the goverment to adquire enough for basic needs like hospitals.
And that is the kind of error that erodes public trust and it was bad advice shared because the american public cannot be trusted to prioritise medical professionals being stocked and because the american gov was unprepared.
But one bad statement, in march of 2020, done for the wrong reasons due to an unprepared goverment voted in by selfish people who cannot be trusted to help others does not deny that the UK had great advice the entire time, so did China, and Spain and Italy and most of the other initial hotbeds. They said "we dont have enough n95 for everyone, please social distance until they are availeble" instead of "masks are not needed".
Despite that, he was the face of a pandemic plan in a goverment alergic to facts and led by a dude who recommended injecting bleach so in that situation, he did as much as you can and is still paying for it.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Good to know proposing proper safety research, longitudinal studies, and testing of completely novel technologies before they are emcouraged to be administered into the populace of the entire worldwide human population is considered in such a way.
We don't care what the topic is or what your position is; you just have to observe the guidelines. All-caps words/phrases/sentences are specifically banned because they make the comments ragey and hostile, and make your argument seem weaker. A phrase “I don't give a flying fig if you all die from that hideous nasty crap” breaks multiple guidelines and is almost worthy of an instant ban, but I'm hoping you might be persuadable to try harder to use the site as intended. It isn't difficult, and if your points don’t hold up without that kind of aggression, they’re probably not strong points.
Also, please don't try to reframe what is plainly egregiously abusive commenting as reasoned argumentation. That’s obviously game-playing, not honest dialogue. This site is only a place where people like to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than drag them down. Please only comment here if you intend to participate earnestly.
What? The Yale study is where the almost two year figure came from. Are you just making things up? Did you read what I wrote, or anything in the study?
> The Yale study is where the almost two year figure came from
yes, the figure that a small sample of people had long period of protein in them. But most people they looked at had none, which was what they expected.
The average time of it was not contested, the long tail was.
My comment was not even that hard to read, makes me wonder what kind of other information you have misread to come to your conclusions
which is still the case, even in the Yale study.
> That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found.
there is an even larger gap between basic epidemiology and what the public understands.
Hard science is difficult to communicate on a good day, on a global pandemic with quacks getting tons of airtime and multiple labs finding conflicting results (due to speed to publish and bad experimental parameters) I would say that was communicated by health experts was surprisingly valid and accurate.