The first article that I read was: “UK Gov ending COVID-19 vaccine boosters for healthy People under 50.” This article shocked me as the US has vast differences in policy. Here, in the United States, boosters are required at most institutions regardless of age. Furthermore, the idea of being vaccinated and boosted is frequently reinforced as the best way to prevent COVID-19 and as the responsible thing to do. In the UK, people under 50 without conditions that put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 will soon be unable to get a COVID-19 booster. This decision is based on a variety of data suggesting that being vaccinated may not be necessary/ the best course of action. For example, uptake in the under-50 population has been very low since early 2022, and some studies indicate that the vaccinated are more likely to get infected over time. Furthermore, vaccines have been documented to cause side effects. Officials in the UK have decided that since the younger population faces seemingly little threats in regard to COVID-19, it may be safer if they receive no further vaccinations. Based on the evidence provided in this article, I, too, agree that these vaccinations may be unnecessary. However, I have seen a lot of conflicting information, especially since the government here promotes the opposite perspective. I do not think that vaccines should be made impossible to receive, but I do believe that they may be unnecessary at this time in younger generations.
The second source I read was: “CDC Officials who spread Misinformation Apologized to Source Of False Data But Not to Public: Emails.” The most shocking aspect of this article was how the CDC was the organization that offered false data. The study that contained the misinformation and was cited by the CDC was published by a group of British authors. Once the CDC and Drs. Fleming-Dutra and Sara Oliver were alerted of this mistake; they neglected to inform the public. Personally, I can understand a mistake being made; however, when you are part of such a respected institution that many people used to receive accurate data during the pandemic, making mistakes of this nature is not acceptable. Furthermore, not apologizing/ alerting the general public is suspicious. What struck me the most was that this data was offered in 2022 when U.S. officials were deciding whether or not to grant emergency authorization to COVID-19 vaccines for children, and the false data published was the number of deaths in those 19 and under from covid. The death toll cited was over 31% higher than the correct data, which is not within a small margin of difference. A mistake like this could very well have changed the U.S. officials’ decisions. Another point that struck me was that the CDC relied on this source in the first place instead of its own database. All of the information in this article makes me wary of the actions of the CDC. Even if this mistake was a careless oversight, it should never have happened, and when it did, it should have been addressed.
The last article I read was: “California’s COVID-19 Gag Law Is ‘First Effort to Suppress’ Doctors: Lawyer.” Californias’s misinformation law bars doctors from providing misinformation or disinformation related to covid-19 essentially, blocking doctors from sharing their opinions on COVID-19 topics (ie: vaccines and the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine). This article reminds me of last week’s reading (Intro and Ch.1 of The Real Anthony Fauci) where specific examples were cited concerning the censorship of doctors during the pandemic. It shocked me that this censorship was brought to a federal level in California. A point that really stuck out was that if the government gets away with this the implementation of COVID-19 censorship, further similar laws will follow. Looking into the future, I fear it will be impossible to draw the line between what the government can and cannot censor, causing many people’s voices to remain unheard. Throughout history, those that spoke out against what we considered to be the truth often spearheaded scientific innovations and discoveries. If we censor everyone that does not agree with what powerful organizations and the government says is “right,” how will we progress as a society?