When I skim this article, I notice how they can't stop themselves for shilling for the vax.
The problem, they tell us to trust the statistics that the "absolute risk is still low," after they just admitted that they were wrong in the first part of the article about the level of risk the first time. But we can trust them now or something.
To many young men, perfectly healthy, got horribly ill or died of inflamed hearts that it was to much for them to ignore. People know them, or of them, personally. So now it's all narrative management. This is sometimes called "cooling the mark".
When I skim this article, I notice how they can't stop themselves for shilling for the vax.
The problem, they tell us to trust the statistics that the "absolute risk is still low," after they just admitted that they were wrong in the first part of the article about the level of risk the first time. But we can trust them now or something.
To many young men, perfectly healthy, got horribly ill or died of inflamed hearts that it was to much for them to ignore. People know them, or of them, personally. So now it's all narrative management. This is sometimes called "cooling the mark".