Back

I have finally read the article and can say that the headline is absolutely misleading to the point of being absolutely correct. They ran an op to indeed discredit a "vax", but not the broad idea of vaccination -- rather, a specific vaccine coming from a specific country (well, 2 in total to be precise).

Reuters journalist[s] goes to great lengths in mental gymnastics to connect different narratives [to sensationalize the article] by covering his ass with a scientific research that presumably demonstrates that skepticism towards a single vaccine spills over to broad uncertainty about the whole vax idea.

The stanza "Chinese vaccines ... less effective than the ..." is mind bending on its own as the actual numbers are 60% inactivated vs ~97% mRNA. Why is writer using word "less" instead of "CATASTROPHICALLY LOWER"? Would've fitted article tone very well.

Having said that, you really shouldn't pour shit on other vac producers while holding up [or not able to] supply of your own vac.