I’m getting quite frustrated at the portrayal in the media of “facts” by academics that are only half the story. I guess because we’ve had a series of catastrophes it’s been happening more and more often over the last 16 months.
Academic experts are often called upon to give their knowledge in support of a news article. I totally get it – it makes sense. The thing is, often these academics have their own agenda. They have to fund their research somehow and that can sway their thinking, depending on the source of their funding. Or their politics means they want to push a certain agenda. Or they are only looking at one element of the situation, but it comes across as both sides of the coin.
I guess for me, today was the last straw. Contracting covid worries me and I am looking forward to being able to be vaccinated. There is usually no way of telling if an expert is being unbiased, unless you know something about what is being discussed. I’ve been staying on top of the research and progression of the vaccines, particularly the ones Australia has purchased. As I have allergies and the Pfizer vaccination seems to have had adverse reactions in people with allergies, I’m assuming and hoping I will get the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccination.
In the news today were Aussie experts denegrating the Oxford vaccine. According to the experts, this vaccine only has 60% protection, which won’t give Australia the herd immunity we hope a vaccination will achieve (unlike the 90% of others like Pfizer).
The thing is, the vaccination does give 90%… if you get a half dose for the first shot and a full dose for the second. The 60% is when you give both as full doses – and if that doesn’t work, why would that be protocol? Of course, there was no mention of this in the article.
Why would they speak to the media with only half the story? I’m not sure what their reason is, but I hope it doesn’t stop people from wanting to be vaccinated (Australia has bought enough of the Oxford candidate to vaccinate the whole country).
I’ll get off my soap box now, or else I’ll move into bushfire and climate change territory (and this is where my professional expertise kicks in, and you don’t want a lecture, lol).
Do the half-truths of experts in the media annoy you as well?
January 14, 2021 at 11:22 pm
Hms that is so interesting. I personally don’t know enough about anything and rely on the media for my information for a lot of things. Or my friends (like you) who do have the knowledge or who do the research.
January 18, 2021 at 12:40 pm
I get really frustrated at half the facts so I always research (plus I love researching!)
January 15, 2021 at 3:51 am
I’ve given up on ‘news’. It doesn’t seem to even try anymore. I go to source documents or people who link to source documents.
As soon as you said 60%, I was shaking my finger–“No no no…”
January 18, 2021 at 12:41 pm
You are so right, it doesn’t seem to try anymore. I’ll have to remember to link through to the sources in the future!
January 15, 2021 at 6:57 am
Any misinformation with the vaccines is bound to get the anti-vaxxers all on their thing about not taking it, and that’s not going to help anyone. If only money wasn’t the driver it is for so many things, we’d have more transparency. One more way in which the world is broken.
January 18, 2021 at 12:43 pm
I agree. Money and politics (which are so intrinsically intertwined) cause problems everywhere. I’m just hoping anti-vaxxers don’t leave us in a world that can’t get covid under control.
January 15, 2021 at 12:32 pm
It’s crazy because the more we need straight answers about complicated topics, it seems the more misinformation there is floating around. It takes a lot of time and energy to sort it out.
January 18, 2021 at 12:44 pm
I agree, Jenny. It can be so hard to find the facts.