Although negative reactions have been relatively rare, the numbers are used by many extremist groups to try to bolster a rash of false and alarmist disinformation in articles and videos
So, how rare is relatively rare? 1/10? 1/100? 1/1000000? Oh, you don't bother saying you just leave it with a vague qualifier and then go on an unhinged, unsourced baseless rant? Way to make people trust you.
"relatively" is one of the most insidious weasel words, because conversationally we use "relatively"... relatively often. But in terms of reports, studies, surveys, focus groups, samples, etc., "relatively" has an important root word: "relate". What are they relating it to?
COVID has a relatively low mortality rate... compared to smallpox. COVID has a relatively high mortality rate... compared to stubbing your toe. COVID has a relatively non-existent mortality rate... compared to being decapitated. The moment someone says "relatively", you should say "relative to what, exactly?" (And spoiler alert, they never say what they're relating it to.)
Other weasel words/tactics in the article:
"in a channel linked to the Proud Boys": Well CNN interviewed a Proud Boy once, so CNN is "linked to" the Proud Boys. The Proud Boys leader was hispanic, so any hispanic person is "linked to" the Proud Boys. A meaningless set of words to pre-poison a well.
They called a protest a riot, because they did not define any terms.
Across right wing-channels online, certain constant memes have emerged attacking the vaccine, like a cartoon suggesting that what started with mask mandates will end with concentration camps run by FEMA for those who refuse vaccinations.
This is presented on its own. The paragraph before is talking about Trump's work, the paragraph after is reported official death counts. This paragraph is literally on its own. There is no rebuttal, no discourse, no logic. It is literally a non-sequitur paragraph.
And of course, when bringing up vaccination concerns, they leave off the most rational ones, and focus in only on the most egregiously exaggerated ones. MOST vax-skepticals are not concerned it has some A-B poison compound that will instantly kill everyone on a scheduled day. They're worried about effects on fetal development and long-term side effects that by design are unable to be studied in a hurried development, since no "long term" yet exists. But the news article is careful to never mention concerns over fetal safety, nor concerns over long-term side-effects.
Archive this stuff! MSN doesn't deserve the clicks. https://archive.is/90l6I
As for the article itself:
So, how rare is relatively rare? 1/10? 1/100? 1/1000000? Oh, you don't bother saying you just leave it with a vague qualifier and then go on an unhinged, unsourced baseless rant? Way to make people trust you.
Actually dying of covid is extremely rare too. But you know, facts don't real.
99.8% chance of surviving it
"relatively" is one of the most insidious weasel words, because conversationally we use "relatively"... relatively often. But in terms of reports, studies, surveys, focus groups, samples, etc., "relatively" has an important root word: "relate". What are they relating it to?
COVID has a relatively low mortality rate... compared to smallpox. COVID has a relatively high mortality rate... compared to stubbing your toe. COVID has a relatively non-existent mortality rate... compared to being decapitated. The moment someone says "relatively", you should say "relative to what, exactly?" (And spoiler alert, they never say what they're relating it to.)
Other weasel words/tactics in the article:
"in a channel linked to the Proud Boys": Well CNN interviewed a Proud Boy once, so CNN is "linked to" the Proud Boys. The Proud Boys leader was hispanic, so any hispanic person is "linked to" the Proud Boys. A meaningless set of words to pre-poison a well.
They called a protest a riot, because they did not define any terms.
This is presented on its own. The paragraph before is talking about Trump's work, the paragraph after is reported official death counts. This paragraph is literally on its own. There is no rebuttal, no discourse, no logic. It is literally a non-sequitur paragraph.
And of course, when bringing up vaccination concerns, they leave off the most rational ones, and focus in only on the most egregiously exaggerated ones. MOST vax-skepticals are not concerned it has some A-B poison compound that will instantly kill everyone on a scheduled day. They're worried about effects on fetal development and long-term side effects that by design are unable to be studied in a hurried development, since no "long term" yet exists. But the news article is careful to never mention concerns over fetal safety, nor concerns over long-term side-effects.