The first amendment has judicial precedent for not yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Most vaccines require mass public uptake in order to work.
Mocking politicians and bureaucrats and calling their decisions into question is an absolute, inalienable right
But the good news is that it's not active precedent, since it has been superceded by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which defines the threshold as "imminent lawless action". Thus, anti-vax sentiment is protected by 1A, except for any specific utterances that can be conclusively demonstrated to have influenced people to not only not vaccinate, but to do so in violation of the law.
(FWIW I'm pro-vaccine myself and think that anti-vax is stupid and harmful. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights we all do.)
Was Fauci wrong or are you wrong?
[0]: https://twitter.com/independent/status/1366125427144732672?l...
> The varying ‘effectiveness’ rates miss the most important point: The vaccines were all 100 per cent effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalisations and death.
Only mention of that "100 percent" in it.
Is that wrong? Were there hospitalizations or deaths among the vaccinated in the vaccine trials?
Agreed the headline sucks, but reporting in general is terrible so that's no surprise.
[EDIT] Oh there's also:
> The numbers Americans should be emphasising are that all three vaccines have proven 100 per cent effective at preventing deaths. The risk of hospitalisation also plummets to virtually zero for people who receive the vaccine.
But the article's so chopped-up and shitty that it's hard to tell what the context of this was. Probably similar to the other quote above.
The same journalists who eagerly proclaim any finding from any single study == "The Science", when we all know that in reality, one study does not science make. The "replication crisis" is a feature of science, not a bug.
Maybe those concerned with misinformation and the decline of public trust in institutions should be a lot more interested in the behaviors of journalists.