Great Moments in Media Fact Checking

 

An exercise in “journalism” from a local “news” station:

While vaccinations have provided a much-needed light at the end of the tunnel, health officials across the country warn that just because someone has the shot doesn’t mean they’re 100% in the clear right after vaccination.

KVUE decided to verify: Do I need to wear a mask even though I’m vaccinated?

According to Austin Public Health, there are currently 12 people in Travis County who have contracted COVID-19 after getting vaccinated.

Matt Lara with Austin Public Health said that number includes two types of cases – what’s known as a “breakthrough” or a “reinfection,” depending where that person is in the vaccine process.

A breakthrough is classified as someone who has completed the vaccination series and 14 days after gets diagnosed with COVID-19.

A reinfection is classified as someone who got an initial COVID-19 diagnosis and then within 90 days got another diagnosis.

An immunology professor at Cornell University, Avery August, told reporters this week:

“We know vaccines can protect, but what we haven’t had enough time to understand is, does it protect from spreading?” said August.

According to CDC guidelines vaccinated people can visit other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing.

But in public, vaccinated people are encouraged to keep the mask on with physical distancing. More guidance is expected as more people become vaccinated and health experts learn more.

Bottom line?

If you’re vaccinated, continue with precautions outside your household.

Click here for further guidelines for vaccinated people.

Let’s take this from the top:

just because someone has the shot doesn’t mean they’re 100% in the clear right after vaccination.

That is absolutely correct, because nothing in life is 100% safe.  There is a non-zero chance that you won’t survive getting out of bed in the morning.  If 100% is the standard, then we will never be free of the measures used to fight the pandemic.  Maybe that’s the point.

According to Austin Public Health, there are currently 12 people in Travis County who have contracted COVID-19 after getting vaccinated.

If I was the correspondent* on this story, I would have asked some questions. . .such as:  Why were those people tested?  What type of test was administered?  Was it after the first or second injection?  How long after?  Which vaccine was used?  How serious were the cases?  Were any of those people hospitalized?

We don’t know the answers to any of these questions.  Do you think that maybe those are relevant before you start telling us how to behave?

But I’ll take that little factoid at face value.  As of March 17, there have been 110,177 people who have gotten both pokes in Travis County.**

100-(12/110,117)=99.999891. Math!  In other words, you are 99.9891% safe once you get the vaccine.  That’s just a smidge higher than the 95% effectiveness promised for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

An immunology professor at Cornell University, Avery August, told reporters this week:

“We know vaccines can protect, but what we haven’t had enough time to understand is, does it protect from spreading?” said August.

Professor August, I have wild idea!  Could you, maybe, look up the history of every other vaccine and see “does it protect from spreading?”***

According to CDC guidelines vaccinated people can visit other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing.

How generous!

But in public, vaccinated people are encouraged to keep the mask on with physical distancing. More guidance is expected as more people become vaccinated and health experts learn more.

Bottom line?

If you’re vaccinated, continue with precautions outside your household.

Of course.  Why, without CDC guidelines, we might have lost half a million people to this disease.

I have a new entry in the Lexicon.  Fact Checker:  Stenographer of press releases by government agencies.


*     My dad was a correspondent for the Associated Press for more than thirty years and hated the word “journalist.”  This story is an example of the reason.

**    Of course, since the numbers are from the UT Football News and are not sports statistics, take them with a grain of salt.

***  After finishing that, you may want to do some research on English grammar,

Published in Humor
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 20 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    Our local paper had two “news” articles on today’s front page:

    No disguising it, masks save lives; and

    About face! Once hard to find, masks now plentiful

    It’s like they decided the mask manufacturers aren’t seeing enough demand and the stores selling them have too much inventory. Hard news, indeed.

    • #1
  2. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    There is absolutely no way to test whether masks “save lives” because there are simply too many variables, and it would be unethical to run a double-blind test on humans.  It’s all about Social Control now.  Too bad that most of the population willingly submits to that control.

    • #2
  3. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    I agree with everything in your piece except the math — and with almost all of that.

    100-(12/110,117)=99.999891. In other words, you are 99.999891% safe

    The numbers are correct, right up to the percent sign. The actual percentage would be 100 – (12/110117 * 100) = 99.989% safe.

    So, you know. Better keep those masks on. :/

    • #3
  4. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser
    @Buckpasser

    If we need 100% safety, why aren’t we required by the state to wear helmet at all times?

     

    • #4
  5. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    My dad was a correspondent for the Associated Press for more than thirty years and hated the word “journalist.”  This story is an example of the reason.

    I’m pretty good with “reporter” because it kind of captures what “journalists” should be doing (who, what, when).  And “correspondent” is fine.  But the fact is that there are a lot of people writing stories with an outsized amount of influence who aren’t all that bright, and they should probably be covering the county fair, or the new traffic light at 5th and Main.  Not national news of impact.

    I’m blessed to be part of a profession that the public values as falling somewhere between used car salesmen, telemarketers, and funeral directors.  But I rank “journalists” as first (or last) on the ratio of influence/potential damage caused to IQ points.

    • #5
  6. JosePluma Coolidge
    JosePluma
    @JosePluma

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I agree with everything in your piece except the math — and with almost all of that.

    100-(12/110,117)=99.999891. In other words, you are 99.999891% safe

    The numbers are correct, right up to the percent sign. The actual percentage would be 100 – (12/110117 * 100) = 99.989% safe.

    So, you know. Better keep those masks on. :/

    Urg. Thanks. Looks like I need to do some research on math. 

    • #6
  7. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    JosePluma (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I agree with everything in your piece except the math — and with almost all of that.

    100-(12/110,117)=99.999891. In other words, you are 99.999891% safe

    The numbers are correct, right up to the percent sign. The actual percentage would be 100 – (12/110117 * 100) = 99.989% safe.

    So, you know. Better keep those masks on. :/

    Urg. Thanks. Looks like I need to do some research on math.

    Blame it on COVID. That works for everything.

    • #7
  8. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Buckpasser (View Comment):

    If we need 100% safety, why aren’t we required by the state to wear helmet at all times?

     

    Hazmat suits will probably be the next “advisory” from Dr. Fauci. He needs to keep his name in the “news,” and maybe another cover story in Vogue. Or was that People?

    • #8
  9. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    JosePluma (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I agree with everything in your piece except the math — and with almost all of that.

    100-(12/110,117)=99.999891. In other words, you are 99.999891% safe

    The numbers are correct, right up to the percent sign. The actual percentage would be 100 – (12/110117 * 100) = 99.989% safe.

    So, you know. Better keep those masks on. :/

    Urg. Thanks. Looks like I need to do some research on math.

    Actually I understand with the new math standards you only need to be close to the right answer.  So good job!

    • #9
  10. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    JosePluma (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I agree with everything in your piece except the math — and with almost all of that.

    100-(12/110,117)=99.999891. In other words, you are 99.999891% safe

    The numbers are correct, right up to the percent sign. The actual percentage would be 100 – (12/110117 * 100) = 99.989% safe.

    So, you know. Better keep those masks on. :/

    Urg. Thanks. Looks like I need to do some research on math.

    Actually I understand with the new math standards you only need to be close to the right answer. So good job!

    Correct answers are white supremacy.  What really matters is if you feel the answer is right.

    • #10
  11. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Buckpasser (View Comment):

    If we need 100% safety, why aren’t we required by the state to wear helmet at all times?

    It would make auto accidents more survivable. 

    Please don’t tell anyone. 

    • #11
  12. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    Our local paper had two “news” articles on today’s front page:

    No disguising it, masks save lives; and

    About face! Once hard to find, masks now plentiful

    It’s like they decided the mask manufacturers aren’t seeing enough demand and the stores selling them have too much inventory. Hard news, indeed.

    Two for one at Walgreens. But the paper probably isn’t running this because they got a memo from the Chinese factories. It works like this:

    (conference with editor)

    Editor: So, you got anything?

    Reporter (has nothing, but is thinking hard) I saw masks at Walgreens now 2 for 1. Remember how we were all panicked about the shortage of masks?

    Editor: Yeah! That would be good, a look back and how we’ve adapted and now we’re not worried about shortages of that. Eight inches?

    Reporter: on it

    Trust me on this one. 

    • #12
  13. Pony Convertible Inactive
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    Buckpasser (View Comment):

    If we need 100% safety, why aren’t we required by the state to wear helmet at all times?

     

    Please! Don’t give them any ideas.

    • #13
  14. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    That article is all over the map.  I read it and now I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do, in any given situation.

    So:  Vaccinate.  Double-mask.  Never leave my home – ever.

    Understood, my Dark Overlord.

    See the source image

    • #14
  15. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser
    @Buckpasser

    Pony Convertible (View Comment):

    Buckpasser (View Comment):

    If we need 100% safety, why aren’t we required by the state to wear helmet at all times?

     

    Please! Don’t give them any ideas.

    Herr fauci is contemplating my idea of all-Burkhas, all the time.

    • #15
  16. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Buckpasser (View Comment):

    If we need 100% safety, why aren’t we required by the state to wear helmet at all times?

     

    We’re not?

    • #16
  17. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    The failure of the media to report on mathematical proportions repeatedly drives me nuts. Media present some raw number of a bad outcome, but rarely put that raw number in context, especially the number of total events. “Journalism” today seems to focus on stories, not actual information.

    Nonetheless, I am also baffled that there actually are so many people who believe that 100% “safety” is achievable. I sometimes mess with them by asking what “safety” means because reducing one set of risks often increases a different set of risks. Not engaging in physical activity like skiing or bicycling reduces the risks associated with those activities (injury or death from accidents), but increases other risks due (like heart disease brought on by a sedentary lifestyle). A former coworker drove a very large SUV to be “safe” in the event of an accident. But, because of its size and height, it was more likely to be in an accident (particularly a rollover) than would a smaller more nimble car. 

    • #17
  18. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    Media present some raw number of a bad outcome, but rarely put that raw number in context, especially the number of total events.

    In Virginia, we now have just over 10,000 deaths “attributed” to Covid-19. 10,000!!!

    Leaving aside whether those deaths are actually caused by, or were only “with” the virus (or were just mis-identified), the number of residents who have tested positive (“cases” in Covid-speak) is about 605,000. So if you test positive, you have a 98.33% chance of NOT dying from the virus. If you just happen to reside in the state, you have a 99.88% chance of not dying from it.

    • #18
  19. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Lockdowns and mask mandates have had little or no measurable effect on the spread anywhere.  It is certain, however, that the lockdowns, closings, isolation, and intentional economic damage have caused current and ongoing adverse effects, particularly on minorities and children. (I am so old, I can remember when protecting minorities and children was all that mattered for the political and chattering classes.)

    Vaccines clearly have a significant impact on the spread (as does prior infection) but we must discount that positive effect to continue to hype the risk so as to justify indefinite continuance of policy approaches we know with considerable certainty do not work. #science #journalism

    • #19
  20. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Lockdowns and mask mandates have had little or no measurable effect on the spread anywhere. It is certain, however, that the lockdowns, closings, isolation, and intentional economic damage have caused current and ongoing adverse effects, particularly on minorities and children. (I am so old, I can remember when protecting minorities and children was all that mattered for the political and chattering classes.)

    Vaccines clearly have a significant impact on the spread (as does prior infection) but we must discount that positive effect to continue to hype the risk so as to justify indefinite continuance of policy approaches we know with considerable certainty do not work. #science #journalism

    Death and Lockdowns | City Journal (city-journal.org)

    From this excellent column:

    “Now that the 2020 figures have been properly tallied, there’s still no convincing evidence that strict lockdowns reduced the death toll from Covid-19. But one effect is clear: more deaths from other causes, especially among the young and middle-aged, minorities, and the less affluent.”

    • #20
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.