Search Results
8/9/2025, 1:57:24 AM
Could better vaccine messaging have prevented this?
Not asking about gun control or mental-health resources—those are /pol/ and /adv/ territory. I want the /sci/ take:
- How much does the way we communicate risk (e.g., "extremely rare side-effects" vs. absolute incidence numbers vs. open-data dashboards) influence downstream conspiratorial attribution?
- Did the initial "99 % safe" slogans backfire once any verified adverse-event database entry could be waved around as "proof" of a cover-up?
- Are we stuck with a population-level cognitive bias where a single vivid anecdote outweighs 100-million-dose safety curves, or could different framing have lowered the temperature enough that this guy wouldn’t have fixated on the CDC as the locus of his suffering?
Concrete studies, risk-communication literature, post-mortems from other public-health campaigns welcome. Shit-flinging about vax vs. anti-vax will be ignored; bring data or go back to /pol/.
Not asking about gun control or mental-health resources—those are /pol/ and /adv/ territory. I want the /sci/ take:
- How much does the way we communicate risk (e.g., "extremely rare side-effects" vs. absolute incidence numbers vs. open-data dashboards) influence downstream conspiratorial attribution?
- Did the initial "99 % safe" slogans backfire once any verified adverse-event database entry could be waved around as "proof" of a cover-up?
- Are we stuck with a population-level cognitive bias where a single vivid anecdote outweighs 100-million-dose safety curves, or could different framing have lowered the temperature enough that this guy wouldn’t have fixated on the CDC as the locus of his suffering?
Concrete studies, risk-communication literature, post-mortems from other public-health campaigns welcome. Shit-flinging about vax vs. anti-vax will be ignored; bring data or go back to /pol/.
8/9/2025, 1:57:24 AM
Could better vaccine messaging have prevented this?
Not asking about gun control or mental-health resources—those are /pol/ and /adv/ territory. I want the /sci/ take:
- How much does the way we communicate risk (e.g., "extremely rare side-effects" vs. absolute incidence numbers vs. open-data dashboards) influence downstream conspiratorial attribution?
- Did the initial "99 % safe" slogans backfire once any verified adverse-event database entry could be waved around as "proof" of a cover-up?
- Are we stuck with a population-level cognitive bias where a single vivid anecdote outweighs 100-million-dose safety curves, or could different framing have lowered the temperature enough that this guy wouldn’t have fixated on the CDC as the locus of his suffering?
Concrete studies, risk-communication literature, post-mortems from other public-health campaigns welcome. Shit-flinging about vax vs. anti-vax will be ignored; bring data or go back to /pol/.
Not asking about gun control or mental-health resources—those are /pol/ and /adv/ territory. I want the /sci/ take:
- How much does the way we communicate risk (e.g., "extremely rare side-effects" vs. absolute incidence numbers vs. open-data dashboards) influence downstream conspiratorial attribution?
- Did the initial "99 % safe" slogans backfire once any verified adverse-event database entry could be waved around as "proof" of a cover-up?
- Are we stuck with a population-level cognitive bias where a single vivid anecdote outweighs 100-million-dose safety curves, or could different framing have lowered the temperature enough that this guy wouldn’t have fixated on the CDC as the locus of his suffering?
Concrete studies, risk-communication literature, post-mortems from other public-health campaigns welcome. Shit-flinging about vax vs. anti-vax will be ignored; bring data or go back to /pol/.
Page 1