Read on Twitter
This is a complete misrepresentation.
On occasions when you don’t have a record of the vaccine used for the first dose they suggest an action. It will be rare.
This is not the the UK abandoning science.
It is the NYT abandoning honest reporting. 1/2 https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1345121388718391296
On occasions when you don’t have a record of the vaccine used for the first dose they suggest an action. It will be rare.
This is not the the UK abandoning science.
It is the NYT abandoning honest reporting. 1/2 https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1345121388718391296
And what will they do in the US if this happens?
Probably the same.
So the UK has scenarios like this to help professionals in tricky cases, and the NYT uses it to spread misinformation about vaccine policy.
In a pandemic. Get the clicks though. 2/2
Probably the same.
So the UK has scenarios like this to help professionals in tricky cases, and the NYT uses it to spread misinformation about vaccine policy.
In a pandemic. Get the clicks though. 2/2
OK, so this is the text highlighted in blue. But look at the context and wording highlighted in Yellow. SHOULD ... SAME VACCINE. EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE.
This is edge cases. Not random vaccine mixing. Otherwise why would they mention lack of evidence or studies underway?
This is edge cases. Not random vaccine mixing. Otherwise why would they mention lack of evidence or studies underway?
