Spreading news about Pfizer vaccines’ allergic reactions is dangerous. A change in a communication strategy is urgent.
By Andrea Monti – Originally published in Italian by Infosec.News
After the British patient, other people (two nurses from a hospital in Alaska) suffered an extreme allergic reaction within ten minutes after the administration of the vaccine.
The news, in itself, is not relevant because any vaccine can have side effects and, as written in another article, it is simply wrong to think that the administration of a vaccine, as of any drug, cannot have consequences ranging from annoying to lethal. Concerning the specific case of the Pfizer vaccine, then, not being an expert, it is wise to refrain from any technical consideration, and wait to read some scientific study that explores the topic.
In the wild pro-vaccine frenzy, however, the information system is paradoxically reinforcing the theses of conspiracists and politicians who, for various reasons, oppose vaccine administration. The more the ‘good guys’ uncritically insist that the ‘vaccine is safe’, the more every single (and inevitable) adverse medical reaction produces many more informative ones, reinforcing the belief that the Pfizer vaccine is dangerous.
The point is, as said that the vaccine is dangerous and it is expected to be dangerous. Just go and read what the consequences of the smallpox vaccine were to get an idea. What is still unknown, is how dangerous it is in short, but also in the medium and long term, because of its emergency development,
Only time will answer these questions. So it is wrong (or futile) to try to convince people to vaccinate using the principle of authority, the law of the apocryphal Goebbels, or the second law of propaganda, according to which if you complicate a lie enough, everyone will take it as real.
Governments put pressure on pharmaceutical companies to find the cure and these latter have an interest in getting there before their competitors. As a result, the vaccine went public before a thorough assessment of its effects. To date, if we exclude information coming from clinical trials, further data on vaccine safety can only come from its administration in the field.
It all boils down, then, to hoping to be on the right side of the statistical curve and accepting the fact that, as they say in Rome, a chi tocca, nun se ‘ngrugna (roughly, if your turn comes, do not cry for the outcomes). Of course, this is easier said than done because no one wants to be on the wrong side of the curve mentioned above, but it is inevitable.
A communication strategy more in keeping with reality, then, would be to focus on solidarity and on taking an individual risk for the collective good. Moreover, one way to give practical support to this strategy would be to set up a fund to support ‘vaccine victims’ and the families of people who have lost their lives and health to save the country, instead of giving money for scooters and electronic toys.