The key insight of the article was that errors are reliably ignored or excused when they fit the desired narrative.
It's not hard to see how that would be effective anti-persuasion for persons inclined to have doubts about receiving an emergency authorized intervention. Rigorous honesty[1] would assuredly persuade at least some of those people and thus would raise the population vaccination rate, which I'm sure we all agree is a desirable outcome.
[1] For example, rather than chanting the mantra "safe and effective!" being honest about the tradeoffs and showing that proven risk management strategy indicates vaccination is the mathematically optimal choice.
It's a given that you do not want to contract COVID-19. Vaccination and wearing a mask will help.
> You also do not want to give COVID-19 to others. Again, vaccination and wearing a mask will help.
How does that explain delta spread being biggest in highly vaccinated countries?
Comments
To clarify what you're concluding:
It's a given that you do not want to contract COVID-19. Vaccination and wearing a mask will help.
You also do not want to give COVID-19 to others. Again, vaccination and wearing a mask will help.
So this article is just pedantry over a statistical quirk.
The key insight of the article was that errors are reliably ignored or excused when they fit the desired narrative.
It's not hard to see how that would be effective anti-persuasion for persons inclined to have doubts about receiving an emergency authorized intervention. Rigorous honesty[1] would assuredly persuade at least some of those people and thus would raise the population vaccination rate, which I'm sure we all agree is a desirable outcome.
[1] For example, rather than chanting the mantra "safe and effective!" being honest about the tradeoffs and showing that proven risk management strategy indicates vaccination is the mathematically optimal choice.
I think that is a correct summary.
How does that explain delta spread being biggest in highly vaccinated countries?