![]() Here, they must walk a fine line when rebutting the narrative of disinformation campaigns, as run, for example, by the anti-vaccine zealots. They will have to explain science-based decisions to the public in a nuanced way that allays fears of government overreach. After reports indicated that some patients who took Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) rebounded and started feeling symptoms again, the CEO told Bloomberg that patients can take another course, “like you do with antibiotics.” The FDA promptly rebuked Bourla’s proposed solution.Īnd so, preparing for the next pandemic implies that all who have a vested interest in public health - from public health agencies to scientists to drug and vaccine manufacturers - will have to fight anti-science head-on with honesty and much better communication skills. On the treatment Paxvlovid, Bourla again committed an unforced error. “At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.” It also flew in the face of what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had said in December, 2020, based on data submitted by Pfizer. That was a mistake, which ultimately bred mistrust. On April 1, 2021, for instance, Bourla tweeted “Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our Covid-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing Covid-19 cases in South Africa. In the winter and spring of 2021, the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, posted messages on social media declaring that the Covid-19 vaccine would stop transmission. Vaccine makers like Pfizer have done a poor job. And not just messaging by public health officials or politicians. ![]() Communicating objective evidence to the public has been problematic. Even if evidence demonstrates this “fact” to be untrue, it’ll make no difference to the true believers.Īlternate facts aren’t the only reason for the public’s skepticism. In the 19th century, the French sociologist Émile Durkheim posited the idea that a “social fact” is not necessarily true, but rather it is what the community – or at least a segment of it - believes to be true. As the astute veteran journalist Marvin Kalb says, without a commonly accepted understanding of basic facts on which we base our government’s decisions, how do we maintain and then sustain a viable, functioning society? We’re living in a post-truth era, meaning objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. And now “diedsuddenly” has become a hashtag, a rallying cry for an increasingly militant faction of vaccine skeptics. Remember the folks who said that the vaccine came equipped with a microchip to keep track of the vaccinated. Then, it was thought to be an instrument of the surveillance state. Urban myths have bled into the mainstream, particularly around Covid-19. There are numerous conspiracy theories out there, fueled by the internet and social media. ![]() that consensus has been crumbling and is in danger of falling apart altogether. There was mostly a general consensus around science and a trust in scientists, employed in both the public and private sectors. But, it invariably remained very much on the periphery. When I lived and worked in Europe for many years, I noticed that there was certainly an anti-science fringe. It’s likely that number has increased in the past nine years. Anti-science can run deep in the U.S., which is ironic given how prolific U.S.-based scientific discoveries and innovations are.Īccording to a 2014 paper in the American Journal of Political Science, roughly 50% of Americans believe in at least one disproven conspiracy theory. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |