Let's consider the possibilities open to the authorities when rare side effects of the vaccine show up.
{thread]

1. Say nothing, continue on.

2. Follow established procedures for dealing with newly observed side effects.
3. Say that in an emergency, we must put the established procedures aside and go with some sort of consensus.

Since public trust and vaccine hesitancy are what people like to scream about, let's consider the effects of each of these paths on those qualities.
1. The effects will eventually be made public by the same media that is panicking over vaccine hesitancy. They will exaggerate and discredit the vaccine, perhaps extend the exaggeration to all vaccines.
2. The news gets out, hopefully with appropriate nuances, and the authorities have a justification for what they are doing.

3. The problem in this alternative is selecting which consensus. The medical/ epidemiological consensus is embodied in the established procedures of #2.
Assembling another consensus will take time. Should it be of the critics of the established procedures who have loud voices in the media? Pharmaceutical companies?

Should political authorities override the opinions of medical/ epidemiological experts?
So I'm on Team #2. The coverage of these decisions is what drives vaccine acceptance. The temptation to puff oneself up or to garner clicks will always push toward undermining expert opinion.
This thread is a longer explanation of how scenario 2 can work. https://twitter.com/JoshRosenau/status/1382042222179209219
You can follow @CherylRofer.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: