Oops, they made a mistake and printed a correction and a retraction.
In the article affected, no less.
Wow.............. what's your point?
And since you labelled them "liars" for this - when did you start giving a single fuck about being lied to, exactly?
??
Haha
your so unhinged dude
Maybe they should have fact checked themselves before printing such a massive exaggeration
Yes, they should have.
Still, they caught it, and issued a correction. As they should have. You understand that articles are written by people - often under deadline pressure - and that people aren't 100% perfect at all times, and that human error is a thing?
Now - when's the last time you gave a single fuck about being lied to, when the lies were coming from the right?
Care to point at one single example where you took issue with any piece of misinformation coming from any right wing media source or right wing politician? Even once, even just in passing?
Oops....... you can't.
What a surprise, right? I know I'm shocked.
??
What a dumbass hypocrite you really are. I don't give a shit about the NYT, mate. I got plenty of criticisms to make of them - they're just reality-based criticisms, and not spoon-fed to me by Facebook algorithms. ?
??
Booster shot has the same ingredients and they aren't sure if it is safe and effective?
Interdasting.
That headline is not accurate at all. Surprise. I know.
The advisory panel doesn't consider what the FDA considers. The advisory panel is both considering safety of the vaccine and effectiveness at the individual level but also resource utilization. It turns out that the two shot vaccine provide such good coverage and risk reduction for those under 65 that they don't think it's a good use of resources. As for the article quotes that advisory panel squarely lays the blame for continued delta variant and disease spread on the unvaccinated and fuels that the additional shots should be geared towards the unvaccinated instead of boosting those that are already vaccinated.
It is possible that the FDA will still approve boosters above the advisory panel. That is because the FDA does not determine if this is a good resource utilization. They only do the piece about is this safe and does it do what it says it supposed to do.
The advisory panel supports boosters for 65 and up right now as they will benefit. They feel that
@sparkuri Should go get vaccinated instead of me and
@Willthiswork getting our boosters.
Not accurate at all?That headline is not accurate at all. Surprise. I know.
The advisory panel doesn't consider what the FDA considers. The advisory panel is both considering safety of the vaccine and effectiveness at the individual level but also resource utilization. It turns out that the two shot vaccine provide such good coverage and risk reduction for those under 65 that they don't think it's a good use of resources. As for the article quotes that advisory panel squarely lays the blame for continued delta variant and disease spread on the unvaccinated and fuels that the additional shots should be geared towards the unvaccinated instead of boosting those that are already vaccinated.
It is possible that the FDA will still approve boosters above the advisory panel. That is because the FDA does not determine if this is a good resource utilization. They only do the piece about is this safe and does it do what it says it supposed to do.
The advisory panel supports boosters for 65 and up right now as they will benefit. They feel that
It says they voted against the plan to give Americans boosters. That seemed to be Biden’s plan and what they’ve been discussing.
or was that not the plan?
click link and it’s pretty clear
Didn’t. Count characters but guessing the tweet is close to 140.
How about we split the difference and say that the tweet is intentionally misleading by leaving out half of the story and the headline of their actual article would have been much better?
#BREAKING: An advisory panel for the FDA voted to reject a plan to offer booster dose of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine for Americans, saying more data is needed to determine if boosters are safe and effective at this time.
No, that's not accurate.
Fuck Twitter but even that is more accurate because it mildly filters down to "general" population which means that there's a population that it was approved for...
Because that's exactly what the headline of the Fox article said whereas their Twitter headlines just said "for Americans".
Definition would classify Americans as general public when talking about the United States.
