THREADETTE: If the government wanted to up the rates of COVID vaccination, they would do this: 1) Tell Americans that unfortunately the vaccinations do NOT protect against infection or being able to transmit COVID other than in X% (if that is accurate).
BUT 1/
2/ That people vaccinated are less likely to X, Y, Z, with transparent and accurate numbers. 3) That people with natural immunity are as protected if not more protected BUT not forever and provide best info.
4/ Explain that there are side effects and especially for some groups (women w/ J&J, teens-ish w/ others), and give accurate details of that AND risk they face versus risk of COVID. 5/ Note PCP should help individuals & parents make decision for those in categories at X/Y age.
6/ Explain that message needed to change because of more information and that they failed in transparency. 7/ Add that focus now also includes staying home when sick, washing hands, but COVID is here to stay and now in addition to improving vaccinations,
8/ Gov't/medical focus is on best in care for early detection and treatment, funding & researching all promising options, politics aside.
And finally:
9/ If the feds won't do this, state leaders must say this is what feds should have done. They won't. We will. I'm 100% pro COVID vaccine & it was "easy" for me/my family because of DS's CF. And I think for many it should also be "easy," but not for those w/ young kids.
10/ I also understand folks w/ different assessments and respect honest dialogue. And fully oppose mandates for COVID other than in possibly limited cases (too nuanced to detail here). Time for States to step up more clearly than just sound bites. Make a plan & execute.
11/11 Sorry, THREADETTE matured to a THREAD. That is all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@bradheath And Brad, this is why you're my favorite left-leaning reporter: because you at least try to be unbiased. Well, that and that you are never rude (and followers don't be rude to Brad!) and actually engage on the merits. I'll never convince you, but that's okay. 1/
@bradheath 2/ For instance, this exchange: I'm coming at it from the right and you from the left--you just don't see it.
@bradheath 3/ Or this exchange: (And again, I love that you will engage and if I'm wrong I admit it, such as when you called me on Abbott changing election laws).
THREAD: This thread is on an exchange I had with @bradheath this a.m. Brad & I have always had very respectful exchanges and while we both believe the other bias, we can still be gracious, so don't be an a$$ to him. Anyway, in response to my tweet below, Brad responded as: 1/
2/ This exchange is very significant because it illustrates a significant problem in the media. You either have @Acosta types who just write off perspectives as conspiracy, or you are more serious like Brad who think they know the answer, but don't. So I responded:
3/ Brad responded: But this is wrong. Even what he posted make that clear, so I corrected him.
THREADETTE: Because I am not afraid of the truth and want to ensure I did not make a mistake in my analysis of the data, I read the Post's "fact check" below. Several points. First, the Post completely ignored the MIT engineers amazing report on the analysis of signatures. 1/
2/ Second, as is often the case, the Post frames it as "fraud", and ignores illegal voting. Third, the author is ignorant on election law that doesn't require you to identity that the illegal votes went to Trump v. Biden: question is whether # of illegal votes = margin
3/ in many states. Fourth, the commercial database Post poo-poos is actually more reliable than merely change of address database and contrary to Post's claim, those figures have stood up in GA. thefederalist.com/2021/07/09/new…
@ScottAdamsSays I wrote on two very narrow issues in detail here. But might I suggest you read all of the reports yourself because I couldn't even scratch the surface of the results. 1/thefederalist.com/2021/09/27/ari…