Look at the Pfizer press release, Nov 9, 2020 - the first sentence:
"Vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis"
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Your post would be fine without the first sentence.
Edit: You are also misreading what you're quoting[1].
I didn't say you, nor myself or anyone else, shouldn't question them, just that they haven't been incorrect in this instance as you've suggested. I'm not sure why your snark is needed in your multiple responses here.
They claimed it was 90% effective in the (time limited) study which they performed.
It’s fair that you might have misinterpreted that as meaning it will be 90% effective. Especially if you don’t know how viruses work, but that’s not what was actually claimed.
If you want to build trust, don't oversell the product when you don't really know what you are talking about.
A low rate of people suffer any significant issues from vaccination, and very few vaccinated people become severely ill. They work great.
If the other vaccines were not available, the J&J vaccine would make sense for most people compared to not taking it.
You mean how they typically clarified they didn't know how efficacy would play out in future variants? Because that was definitely a thing.
True, but they sure as hell implied it did. For example, this fact check appeared in the search container of google early on: note the use of the double negative in the VERDICT.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-transmission/fa...
I don't know how much clearer they can get with that next sentence.
If you read my initial message one more time, you may notice that I mentionned a google serach container. I'm not certain it is the appropriate term but basically, you can ask a question to google and it will select an authoritative answer from a trusted source (Reuters, AP, etc).
Back in the early day of the vaccine, if you were to ask google whether the vaccine prevents the transmission of the disease, you'd get this: "here is no conclusive evidence to claim COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent people spreading the disease." at the top of the index. You could click to have more context, but I hope you are now getting the point.
Let's just not be in denial that misinformation exists on both sides.
It's pretty common knowledge within the tech community that those fields are populated automatically, often via scraping (just look at what happened with Google and Genius, re: lyrics). Google is notorious for faulty data being in there, either through questionable sources or misquotes, for an untold number of queries.
I'm not saying this to doubt your claim that that was what was displayed and it appeared misleading; Google needs to fix it because clearly it causes problems. I just think that it's an incredible stretch on your part to suggest it was intentional misinformation placed there by a "side".
Edit: I say this as someone who usually doesn't defend Google whatsoever.
Are you paraphrasing? If so, that’s fine but please don’t use quotation marks in that case.
If the scientists were, at the time, not yet sure how the vaccine affected transmission. The correct 'fact check' should have been:
"There is no conclusive evidence to claim COVID-19 vaccines prevent people from spreading the disease."
instead of
"There is no conclusive evidence to claim COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent people spreading the disease."
>Meanwhile, there is currently no conclusive evidence to claim the COVID-19 vaccine stops people spreading the virus that causes the disease – nor is there for the opposite.
>Scientists do not yet know whether COVID-19 vaccinations will reduce transmission because this was not tested in the trials.
>With the latter, this could mean the virus continues to replicate in the nose and throat, and is still able to spread.
>Scientists are not yet sure of how the vaccine affects transmission – and this is currently undergoing research.
... you are seizing on a single double-negative to claim you've been misled? A double-negative which is equally as accurate as what you would like it corrected to, because in the body of the article it says there's no evidence one way or the other?
This is really the hill you're choosing to die on?