As for the original NYTimes article, unlike Tucker Carlson, I thought it *was* responsible journalism.
I want the press to list all the pros and cons and let me know about rare reactions. What would make me feel concerned would be if I felt like problems were being covered up.
We've discussed that some vaccines will be better for some people. Maybe certain people with certain conditions shouldn't get the first vaccine. Maybe people who have had anaphylactic reactions before in their life should contact their PCP to ask whether they should proceed with this vaccine or wait. Maybe they should proceed, but make sure their epi-pen Rx is up-to-date and that they have it with them. I don't know -- could taking a couple of benadryl prophylactically before being vaccinated be helpful?
This information -- with proper context and without being sensationalist -- should come out and should be highlighted so people can be informed, have those discussions with their physicians, and make plans accordingly.
As for whataboutism, I find it rude if people intentionally redirect from a serious, important topic. If people are coming together, discussing, and mourning a tragedy in America, I think it's rude -- say, in the middle of a moment of silence or taking a knee -- to switch subjects to some other tragedy. It's like talking about someone else who died during a person's funeral, intentionally trying to redirect from the funeral you are attending at that moment.
But as for bringing up Tucker Carlson, if someone is claiming the NYTimes's coverage of an allergic response by a healthcare worker in Alaska to the Covid vaccine was being irresponsible and sensationalistic, I think it's fair game to bring up an actual example of irresponsible and sensationalistic coverage of that same allergic response by the same healthcare worker in Alaska. I think that's very on-topic.
I want the press to list all the pros and cons and let me know about rare reactions. What would make me feel concerned would be if I felt like problems were being covered up.
We've discussed that some vaccines will be better for some people. Maybe certain people with certain conditions shouldn't get the first vaccine. Maybe people who have had anaphylactic reactions before in their life should contact their PCP to ask whether they should proceed with this vaccine or wait. Maybe they should proceed, but make sure their epi-pen Rx is up-to-date and that they have it with them. I don't know -- could taking a couple of benadryl prophylactically before being vaccinated be helpful?
This information -- with proper context and without being sensationalist -- should come out and should be highlighted so people can be informed, have those discussions with their physicians, and make plans accordingly.
As for whataboutism, I find it rude if people intentionally redirect from a serious, important topic. If people are coming together, discussing, and mourning a tragedy in America, I think it's rude -- say, in the middle of a moment of silence or taking a knee -- to switch subjects to some other tragedy. It's like talking about someone else who died during a person's funeral, intentionally trying to redirect from the funeral you are attending at that moment.
But as for bringing up Tucker Carlson, if someone is claiming the NYTimes's coverage of an allergic response by a healthcare worker in Alaska to the Covid vaccine was being irresponsible and sensationalistic, I think it's fair game to bring up an actual example of irresponsible and sensationalistic coverage of that same allergic response by the same healthcare worker in Alaska. I think that's very on-topic.