This goes both ways. Public-health institutions also have durable organisations, funding and media allies, and those can sustain positions past the evidence too Understanding the institutions requires understanding the system that now sustains them

How dare they let their industry influence taint our industry influence

That's why I did it myself ☹️ xitter.cf/TimTrippDesign/status/…

Nah what? The exclusion of healthy and lower-utilising groups was an acknowledged design feature of the HSU? Most over 12 were vaccinated? There were a lot more that refused vaccination than the messaging suggested? My takeaway here is you are arguing govt stats are right even when they are wrong. And acknowledging public health does not think, isn’t helping your argument

The limitations of HSU (excluding healthy and marginalised demographics) were acknowledge prior to 2020. This was a methodology flaw that should have been obvious It is correct most over 12 were vaccinated, it is also correct they were wrong no matter how it is described. The data was a reflection of how many people weren’t vaccinated… there were quite a few more refusers than some were lead to believe

I'm not sure what the point here is. Is it... offical government statistics, based on their chosen methodology, is correct, even if it is wrong?

How was it “reinvented”?

This wasn’t an argument about anything… data would not have helped It was entertaining

You’re not good at this - your statement you made was false. Do you see what I just did there? The post is about mandates. Why shouldn’t people get mad about them? The statement wasn’t framed as proven; it accurately showed what Fauci wrote. Evidence already showed robust natural immunity. Public-health messaging at the time influenced university mandates. Putting that private note next to the firings of recovered people is a fair contrast. Which of these do you think is false, and why?

Notice what you are doing - The OP is about mandates. Why shouldn’t people get mad about them - The statement wasn’t framed as proven, it was accurately showing a statement made by Fauci - Evidence shows robust durable natural immunity... are you suggesting there isn’t? - The tone and framing set by public health authorities would have influenced university mandates Putting that private note next to the firings of people who’d already recovered is a fair contrast.

Yep, that's mine. I don't recall what the point was though... the account I was arguing with is suspended

Agreed. Intent to deceive is wrong whoever does it, and callouts should go both ways. But intent is hard to prove. Some studies and officials oversold COVID risks and vaccine benefits: misleading framing, yes, but was that intent to deceive? The same question applies to Høeg’s slide. Was it intent, and did it change her point?

If getting details wrong (or misleading) makes someone unbelievable, plenty of health officials would fail that test too. So credibility can’t be the deciding factor. Each claim has to be checked on it's own Correcting the slide doesn’t change her argument... the US schedule is considerably more aggressive than Denmarks

Is it deception, or did she take each country’s published framing at face value? That comparison should be clarified, however the 10-versus-18 diseases gap holds however you count it. If every framing error counts as lying, we’d have to apply that standard to everyone, and almost no one would pass. Is she correct about the manipulated data? That is the point of the OP

It wasn’t deflection, I disputed your “perhaps”. And the clarification remains unclarified Is not an attack on credibility deflection?

So just to be clarify… You are concerned about a slide (which most people have probably never seen) with a contested number, but not a drug approved on manipulated data?

Campbell selectively emphasised the data pointing in one direction. But the dominant literature selectively emphasised it in the other direction Campbell's video just presented the Yang… What were the lies?

I’d describe it more like contentious arguments over interpretation than “false claims” I think "Vaccine, Amen" is more about the fervour of vaccine advocates rather than vaccines themselves Most decisions are based on biases, not science

Can you be specific about why you though it was incompetence?

Do you have a source that the reaction to mass vaccination was fear, and not resistance to hubris and government over reach? Have considered the outrage might have started with job losses for refusing a novel vaccine with unkown long term effects (not to mention harm caused by lockdowns)? How was it mocked or dismissed?