Because I'm not the one who mentioned that. If you did read the posts, then you'd see that I was replying to his claim that people said that. I still haven't seen either of you prove that people kept saying it was 100% safe.
100% safety is not my argument (and further insistence on discussion of 100% safety is further reliance on the need to straw man this discussion further). I can't speak for Sanity, but I'm not certain he thinks that's been the message either. Maybe he does. One wouldn't be guilty for believing that's generally the TONE of the MSM in regards to vaccines, whether they are explicitly making that claim or not. Just as important is what is NOT being said.
Still, you didn't answer the question. Has the vast majority of the coverage on vaccines been ONLY that vaccines are "safe and effective" (and nothing more) or not?
Because if safety is hammered on and on in a vacuum (in the deafening silence of any possibility otherwise), the reader/listener/viewer wouldn't be blamed for (incorrectly) assuming the vaccines are, you know,
safe - the operative word used over and over in repetition. "Safe" is a relative term, but if the nuance of how safe is often never even addressed then what exactly is being said?
Most discussions of vaccines do not in fact involve discussions of potential side-effects. That's simply the truth of the matter.
And if adverse reactions are not a part of the discussions in the vast majority of references to getting a vaccine, then it is implied that their safety is such that you don't need to be concerned, whether that is a 100% safety rating or not is immaterial. What is the implication? Are the talking heads generally alerting to the potential downsides? (no).
When Sanjay Gupta, MD goes on a children's show and talks about getting vaccines to the Sesame Street aged-children, does he include the caveat that there are known (and possibly under-reported) adverse reactions? Hell no. And it's no different on the other end of the spectrum when the Potato POTUS reads from his prepared script to say everyone should get vaccines, to everything in between in the mass narrative of reporting.
You'd be hard pressed for even a casual reference to adverse reactions, much less a deep-dive. IF you'd even hear about it, it would be in the context of glossing over or downplaying them...
Interestingly, despite you saying "the left have not been ahead of any curve," it's your pundits and politicians whining about how republicans keep getting sick while democrats barely are.
lol @ "barely" (you wish). If democrats/leftists/whathaveyou are magically unaffected by covid ("barely"), what exactly is the problem?
I've also linked to articles that show more people from red/Trump areas have gotten covid as opposed to people from blue areas.
Yes, I've addressed that narrative. You haven't responded.
Are they? Because I see people talking about cloth masks, which they've been saying for months,
The MSM has in fact
not been talking about the absolute failure of the use of masks (I have OTOH) worn by 99.99% of the population (from gators to cloth masks to even include single-use spittle surgical masks). That is a relatively recent pivot.
and that N95 masks were safer, which they've also been saying for months.
There is "safer" and then there is "actually useful at all." You're conflating two very different arguments. The masses were lead to believe, yourself included, that the masks they've been wearing for the better part of 2 years has been useful at any level, when in fact it's done nothing at all.
I don't know why you asked me this again, knowing my answer will remain the same, but masks do make a huge difference.
Because since we last had the mask discussion, merely a few weeks ago, the MSM has started to pivot to saying that widely-used masks are in fact useless (what I was saying) and that you need to upgrade your mask to have any impact at all.
