CDC Notifies States, Large Cities To Prepare For Vaccine Distribution As Soon As Late October

[sam_gordon]

As with nearly all headlines though how you word something is usually how someone perceives something.

Pretty easy to see they worded it in such a way that makes a person think they died as a result of the vaccine in question. An alternative headline would be "Participant who received placebo in the Oxford vaccine trial dies". That's the actual factual statement.

But it's nothing new.

To say your version is "the actual factual statement" would have someone perceive the headline above is not factual. So you just did what you criticize WaPo for doing. And @BrianL has it exactly right... the viewers/readers have created the problem.

 

[quandrea]

As with nearly all headlines though how you word something is usually how someone perceives something.

Pretty easy to see they worded it in such a way that makes a person think they died as a result of the vaccine in question. An alternative headline would be "Participant who received placebo in the Oxford vaccine trial dies". That's the actual factual statement.

But it's nothing new.

Yes. Unfortunately the news today is more about clicks than about an unbiased report of the facts. Sad really.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

To say your version is "the actual factual statement" would have someone perceive the headline above is not factual. So you just did what you criticize WaPo for doing. And @BrianL has it exactly right... the viewers/readers have created the problem.

I was actually responding to the portion of your comment that said the headline was 100% true. No I wasn't doing what I criticized Washington Post for. I don't even care who the source is, which by the way I never spoke directly about Washington Post, I was speaking about all headlines (which I plainly said).

We know exactly why they worded it the way they did, they could have easily worded it to include placebo, instead they worded it so people would read the vaccine was the issue and I'm not sure how anyone can honestly deny that part. But it's nothing new, meaning wording things so it's not surprising in the least. And no let's not try and blame the reader or the viewers The issue is people tend to not be able to look beyond the headline, of which many take advantage of knowingly. I'm not going to squabble over this really Have a good day!

 

[sam_gordon]

I was actually responding to the portion of your comment that said the headline was 100% true. No I wasn't doing what I criticized Washington Post for. I don't even care who the source is, which by the way I never spoke directly about Washington Post, I was speaking about all headlines (which I plainly said).

We know exactly why they worded it the way they did, they could have easily worded it to include placebo, instead they worded it so people would read the vaccine was the issue and I'm not sure how anyone can honestly deny that part. But it's nothing new, meaning wording things so it's not surprising in the least. And no let's not try and blame the reader or the viewers The issue is people tend to not be able to look beyond the headline, of which many take advantage of knowingly. I'm not going to squabble over this really Have a good day!

But the WaPo headline IS 100% true. A study participant died. The purpose of a headline is to get your attention so you read the story. This is everywhere. Television, radio, newspapers, blogs, heck, even on the Dis (people write a thread topic to interest people in clicking on the thread).

And yes, the audience DOES have a big factor in what has happened to journalism. Yes, journalists want to present the "news". But, SOMEONE has to a) choose what stories qualify as "news" AND b) present it in a way that the audience actually wants to watch (read, whatever). "Doing" news requires money (better talent, better equipment, etc). The more people you have partaking of your news, the more money you bring in. So why wouldn't you try to attract as many viewers (readers, whatever) as you can?

It's like professional sports. People complain about the high cost of tickets, souvenirs, food, etc. But that doesn't (ok, didn't) keep them from packing stadiums. You want prices to drop? Stop giving money to the organization. Same with news. Don't like what (or how) they're saying things? Don't watch. THAT'S why viewers are to blame.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

To say your version is "the actual factual statement" would have someone perceive the headline above is not factual. So you just did what you criticize WaPo for doing. And @BrianL has it exactly right... the viewers/readers have created the problem.

Hmm I see what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree or maybe it's just more about semantics on the factual/true comment but I think I agree more with the other posters on this one. Don't get me wrong I see where you're coming from. Sure we can say the headline reads as true saying "Volunteer in Oxford coronavirus vaccine trial dies" because yes a volunteer did die but at the same time it's written to make people become immediately alarmed.

Maybe it's more like chicken vs the egg. Was it the way entities phrase things that created the problem or was it people's reading habits that created the problem? IDK on that really but I could see how the way something is phrased feeds into how someone reads something. Nearly every place is guilty of it, even my local news though I tend to find they are a bit less sensationalized (they still do it just not as much).

I've been griping about headlines on this Board for a while now though

But the WaPo headline IS 100% true. A study participant died. The purpose of a headline is to get your attention so you read the story. This is everywhere. Television, radio, newspapers, blogs, heck, even on the Dis (people write a thread topic to interest people in clicking on the thread).

And yes, the audience DOES have a big factor in what has happened to journalism. Yes, journalists want to present the "news". But, SOMEONE has to a) choose what stories qualify as "news" AND b) present it in a way that the audience actually wants to watch (read, whatever). "Doing" news requires money (better talent, better equipment, etc). The more people you have partaking of your news, the more money you bring in. So why wouldn't you try to attract as many viewers (readers, whatever) as you can?

It's like professional sports. People complain about the high cost of tickets, souvenirs, food, etc. But that doesn't (ok, didn't) keep them from packing stadiums. You want prices to drop? Stop giving money to the organization. Same with news. Don't like what (or how) they're saying things? Don't watch. THAT'S why viewers are to blame.

I don't want to take up too much of this thread about it but there's moral and ethics involved as well as depending on who you are presenting such things as to be as unbiased as possible. You shouldn't be trying to attract as many viewers if you are trying to present something as unbiased as possible. Attract is more equal to sensationalizing things and really things start to slip and erode after that. If your main goal is attracting versus reporting you're not really high on my book (which is why I spend so much dang time really reading over so many things because it's exhausting trying to get the information, to read what happened, put things into perspective and context, etc).

 

[sam_gordon]

Hmm I see what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree or maybe it's just more about semantics on the factual/true comment but I think I agree more with the other posters on this one. Don't get me wrong I see where you're coming from. Sure we can say the headline reads as true saying "Volunteer in Oxford coronavirus vaccine trial dies" because yes a volunteer did die but at the same time it's written to make people become immediately alarmed.

Oh, it's absolutely written to alarm the reader. My point was solely that the headline is 100% true. IMO, and others disagree which is fine, PP saying another statement (sorry, don't want to look it up) is "the actual factual statement" does imply that the headline is NOT factual.

I don't want to take up too much of this thread about it but there's moral and ethics involved as well as depending on who you are presenting such things as to be as unbiased as possible. You shouldn't be trying to attract as many viewers if you are trying to present something as unbiased as possible. Attract is more equal to sensationalizing things and really things start to slip and erode after that. If your main goal is attracting versus reporting you're not really high on my book (which is why I spend so much dang time really reading over so many things because it's exhausting trying to get the information, to read what happened, put things into perspective and context, etc).

As I said though, you need the viewers to get the money. If you don't have the viewers, it doesn't matter how unbiased you are.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Oh, it's absolutely written to alarm the reader. My point was solely that the headline is 100% true. IMO, and others disagree which is fine, PP saying another statement (sorry, don't want to look it up) is "the actual factual statement" does imply that the headline is NOT factual.

Yeah that's why I think maybe semantics. I can see both of your points though.

As I said though, you need the viewers to get the money. If you don't have the viewers, it doesn't matter how unbiased you are.

That's true but NPR for example tends to be less sensational, my local news is less sensational. There are sources who choose to be less sensationalized, but many more choose to be even more sensationalized than ever. There's a point where a place knows they are not in danger of losing viewers, it's why places get a reputation after all.

I think it just becomes cyclical. People get used to how a place operates and feeds into that but the place decided to operate a certain way to begin with so to stop may cause a slip in readership. *sigh* while I wish there was more just to the point, less play on words, less put this word in this spot so it sounds this way, etc I know it's kinda hard to put the lid on Pandora's Box back ya know?

 

[mefordis]

It seems like many people feel if no one drops dead during the trial in 6 months to a year they are okay with taking it. More likely the vaccine side effects would evolve over time in the form of auto immune disease, cancer (such as the sv40 in polio), fertility issues and other chronic health issues.

Note: not anti vax, just pro long term testing of vaccines and other drugs.

 

[BrianL]

Yeah that's why I think maybe semantics. I can see both of your points though.
That's true but NPR for example tends to be less sensational, my local news is less sensational. There are sources who choose to be less sensationalized, but many more choose to be even more sensationalized than ever. There's a point where a place knows they are not in danger of losing viewers, it's why places get a reputation after all.

I think it just becomes cyclical. People get used to how a place operates and feeds into that but the place decided to operate a certain way to begin with so to stop may cause a slip in readership. *sigh* while I wish there was more just to the point, less play on words, less put this word in this spot so it sounds this way, etc I know it's kinda hard to put the lid on Pandora's Box back ya know?

NPR is definitely less sensational because they don't generally rely on advertising to get their funding and they are a non-profit organization. The AP is also a good source for less sensationalized news as they are non-profit as well. When you monetize it though the ratings become more important, and as it stands now, more people want to watch the "info-tainment" channels over the hard news. It's a tough spot for the true journalists out there, but it's the environment that we have created. You are definitely right in that it is cyclical and very firmly entrenched at this point.

 

[Farro]

It seems like many people feel if no one drops dead during the trial in 6 months to a year they are okay with taking it. More likely the vaccine side effects would evolve over time in the form of auto immune disease, cancer (such as the sv40 in polio), fertility issues and other chronic health issues.

Note: not anti vax, just pro long term testing of vaccines and other drugs.

How long term? Years? There isn't time.

When the vaccine is available, I trust if they (doctors, etc.) say it's okay to get. I'm one of the ones that actually believe those developing the vaccine aren't motivated by politics. I will be getting the vaccine.

Look, everyone should have a choice to get or not get, but when there is a proven effective vaccine available for public, I think it's time to shift from all of us protecting each other with social distancing, masks, staying away from large gatherings to now those who choose not to get the vaccine need to put the responsibility of taking extra precautions on themselves.
Probably not a popular opinion.

 

[Jonfw2]

It seems like many people feel if no one drops dead during the trial in 6 months to a year they are okay with taking it. More likely the vaccine side effects would evolve over time in the form of auto immune disease, cancer (such as the sv40 in polio), fertility issues and other chronic health issues.

Note: not anti vax, just pro long term testing of vaccines and other drugs.

Meanwhile, millions will die.

 

[sam_gordon]

Look, everyone should have a choice to get or not get, but when there is a proven effective vaccine available for public, I think it's time to shift from all of us protecting each other with social distancing, masks, staying away from large gatherings to now those who choose not to get the vaccine need to put the responsibility of taking extra precautions on themselves.

I totally agree with you, stessing PROVEN and EFFECTIVE. If it's only 50% effective (I've heard that's a possibility), should current mitigation factors continue?

ETA: That's one of my concerns... the vaccine is released, it's safe, blah blah. But if it's only 50% effective (or take any number say <70%), does that really mean you can/should stop wearing masks & social distance? Yes, 50% is better than 0%, but don't you still have a pretty good size risk?

 

[godisney14]

I totally agree with you, stessing PROVEN and EFFECTIVE. If it's only 50% effective (I've heard that's a possibility), should current mitigation factors continue?

ETA: That's one of my concerns... the vaccine is released, it's safe, blah blah. But if it's only 50% effective (or take any number say <70%), does that really mean you can/should stop wearing masks & social distance? Yes, 50% is better than 0%, but don't you still have a pretty good size risk?

I hear you.
No one getting a (50% effective) vaccine will know whether they are part of the effective or ineffective 50% unless they get tested for antibody titer or actually become sick with COVID-19. So, this is similar to getting a diagnostic test with a 50% false negative rate. No diagnostic test could ever get approved with that low sensitivity.

That’s a whole lot of people going around thinking they are protected, leading to an increase in cases. We already have enough people relaxing (or not adhering) the preventative measures even without a vaccine.

 

[sam_gordon]

I hear you.
No one getting a (50% effective) vaccine will know whether they are part of the effective or ineffective 50% unless they get tested for antibody titer or actually become sick with COVID-19. So, this is similar to getting a diagnostic test with a 50% false negative rate. No diagnostic test could ever get approved with that low sensitivity.

That’s a whole lot of people going around thinking they are protected, leading to an increase in cases. We already have enough people relaxing (or not adhering) the preventative measures even without a vaccine.

And I think there's a whole lot of people who will get the vaccine and think "that's it, I'm safe!" and throw their masks in a corner, starting hitting bars, cruises, movie theaters, etc. I don't think that's the right response.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

And I think there's a whole lot of people who will get the vaccine and think "that's it, I'm safe!" and throw their masks in a corner, starting hitting bars, cruises, movie theaters, etc. I don't think that's the right response.

Regardless of how effective a vaccine is it will take time before any of us can let our guards down because it needs to work its way through a population. That said if a vaccine is shown to only be 50% effective eventually regardless of that factor a determination will be made (either by the federal government, individual state governments, local governments, medical community, and individual citizens) whether such measures remain practical and give a desired outcome. We should always be looking for if our present methods work or should be reevaluated. Speaking towards if an eventual vaccine route comes and enough of the population has gotten it it should be reviewed if present measures are still practical. Now this response will vary by country. A country like Australia or New Zealand because of their extinction route likely won't have near the same response as other countries who have a tolerance towards cases so long as xyz is also able to occur.

 

[Farro]

I hear you.
No one getting a (50% effective) vaccine will know whether they are part of the effective or ineffective 50% unless they get tested for antibody titer or actually become sick with COVID-19. So, this is similar to getting a diagnostic test with a 50% false negative rate. No diagnostic test could ever get approved with that low sensitivity.

That’s a whole lot of people going around thinking they are protected, leading to an increase in cases. We already have enough people relaxing (or not adhering) the preventative measures even without a vaccine.

And I think there's a whole lot of people who will get the vaccine and think "that's it, I'm safe!" and throw their masks in a corner, starting hitting bars, cruises, movie theaters, etc. I don't think that's the right response.

And we know it's only 50% effective how?

Masks are one thing, keep them required indoors after a vaccine.
Keeping many people's livelihoods still closed or restricted to where they can't make a profit until however many years it takes some people to feel "safe" even with a vaccine is something else.

I can also tell a conversation with you both will leave (at least me) feeling frustrated, so I'll refrain from responding.

 

[sam_gordon]

And we know it's only 50% effective how?

We don't. That is one number that I had heard. That's why I said "pick a number below 70%".

Masks are one thing, keep them required indoors after a vaccine.
Keeping many people's livelihoods still closed or restricted to where they can't make a profit until however many years it takes some people to feel "safe" even with a vaccine is something else.

I can also tell a conversation with you both will leave (at least me) feeling frustrated, so let's move on.

Please show me where I said businesses should stay closed. What do you think should happen... the vaccine is out to the public and everything opens back up 100%?

 

[godisney14]

And we know it's only 50% effective how?

Masks are one thing, keep them required indoors after a vaccine.
Keeping many people's livelihoods still closed or restricted to where they can't make a profit until however many years it takes some people to feel "safe" even with a vaccine is something else.

I can also tell a conversation with you both will leave (at least me) feeling frustrated, so let's move on.

No one said it was 50%. @sam_gordon said, “If it's only 50% effective.” It was an exercise. No one knows at this point what the effectiveness of the various vaccines in development will be. But, what is for sure is that no vaccine is ever 100% effective.

Are there businesses still completely closed against due to regulations? Maybe bars and gyms? Most are open from what I see everyday, and I’m in what an average American would consider to be a very restrictive region (some may even exaggerate by saying “lockdown”).

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

No one said it was 50%. @sam_gordon said, “If it's only 50% effective.” It was an exercise. No one knows at this point what the effectiveness of the various vaccines in development will be. But, what is for sure is that no vaccine is ever 100% effective.

Are there businesses still completely closed against due to regulations? Maybe bars and gyms? Most are open from what I see everyday, and I’m in what an average American would consider to be a very restrictive region (some may even exaggerate by saying “lockdown”).

Please stop saying exaggerate as if people are too dumb to get it. We already had that conversation on a different thread. That was term used by so many. If you have an issue with it take it up with everyone, the politicians, local government officials, the medical community, and the experts we all are listening to because they were the ones to begin using it in the first place and still use it now. And looking at your past postings it would appear you take great issue in people using the word lockdown. We got it, already, you don't think anyone here was actually on lockdown because it wasn't China.

**End Rant moving on **

 

[ronandannette]

And I think there's a whole lot of people who will get the vaccine and think "that's it, I'm safe!" and throw their masks in a corner, starting hitting bars, cruises, movie theaters, etc. I don't think that's the right response.

Sincere question: Then do you expect these activities are simply a thing of the past?