This is so stupid. Annual boosters would be no big deal. That said, many other vaccines are a three-dose primary series. Some then have finite number of boosters—one or two, sometimes years later. The pandemic brought many hardships. Oh-noes-a-three-dose-primary-series isn't one.https://twitter.com/day_diff/status/1460979166816395276 …
-
-
Yep. A lot of childhood vaccines are three-dose primary series. Some have a few boosters, but most of them do not need annual ones. We don't yet know where this one will end up, but this seems like the least of our problems.https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1460985569668915200 …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is data for safety & efficacy of boosters publicly available? Do we know anything concrete about the demographics for whom they provide robust benefit in terms of preventing severe disease & death? Elderly/underlying conditions seems like a no-brainer. Unsure bout healthy/young.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I understand the backlash when health officials and pharma execs are speculating about yearly boosters. The side effects of the covid shots are definitely worse than the flu shot.
-
Do you think Moderna et. al. will attempt to better formulate their vaccine to avoid side effects, or do you think they'll just say, "oh well, this is it, we'll never change and we'll never look for a way to make this vaccine more generally tolerable?" I would think the latter
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What you are fundamentally missing is that the “failures of communication” have been accompanied by a level of pressure, coercion and politicized virtue signaling that defies comprehension and makes sarcasm quite warranted.
-
By all means, those at risk should seriously consider boosters and those should be available, and same for developing countries. And that should be it. No more case counting nor moral panic, and even less so a “us vs them” rethoric
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
A. The public's expectation was this wouldn't be the case and they came to that expectation based upon the advise of experts.... B. Now experts are telling them their beliefs are silly .... C. I wonder why people lose trust in the process and the experts.
-
Consider it another way: 1) Experts derive their understanding using the best available evidence 2) New evidence emerges 3) Experts revise their understanding 4) Public flips its shit because they want one answer, only, forever
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Agreed. But that is not how anything was presented. The media and government have both spoken in absolutes at all times until absolutely proven wrong in each step of this process. What we needed (still) was willingness to communicate reality rather than adherence to narrative.
-
It has been easier to find realistic dependable sources and actual data here on Twitter. Almost none of that has made it into mainstream communication so that is not what most people have access to to become informed with.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.