Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
* Look at page [[Discussion]] for theoretical and practical advice. Also page [[:op_fi:Keskustelun jälkijäsentäminen]] may be useful.
* Look at page [[Discussion]] for theoretical and practical advice. Also page [[:op_fi:Keskustelun jälkijäsentäminen]] may be useful.
* Look at the two or three links on your group's page.
* Look at the two or three links on your group's page.
* Read the texts and try to identify arguments about the use of Pandemrix. Not that arguments can be (and most are) indirect arguments.
* Read the texts and try to identify arguments about the use of Pandemrix. Note that arguments can be (and most are) indirect arguments.
* Rewrite the arguments in such a way that they can be understood outside the original context.
* Rewrite the arguments in such a way that they can be understood outside the original context.
* Place the arguments into a hierarchical tree of attacking and defending arguments pointing toward the main statement about Pandemrix use.
* Place the arguments into a hierarchical tree of attacking and defending arguments pointing toward the main statement about Pandemrix use.

Revision as of 06:10, 1 April 2011

Darm exercise 4

Tasks:

  • Make pairs and select one group A-E (D and E have Finnish material).
  • Look at page Discussion for theoretical and practical advice. Also page op_fi:Keskustelun jälkijäsentäminen may be useful.
  • Look at the two or three links on your group's page.
  • Read the texts and try to identify arguments about the use of Pandemrix. Note that arguments can be (and most are) indirect arguments.
  • Rewrite the arguments in such a way that they can be understood outside the original context.
  • Place the arguments into a hierarchical tree of attacking and defending arguments pointing toward the main statement about Pandemrix use.
  • You can also make up your own arguments, or if you have extra time, read additional material (see end of the page).
  • When each group has done their own part, there will be a general discussion about all argumentations by the groups. All argumentations will be merged onto this page based on the discussion.
  • Think: How many readers do you need to make this extra effort of collecting, organising and synthesising information and opinions a worthwhile activity of social learning?

Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high.

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

⇤--1: . Despite risks, Pandemrix is an effective vaccine and has clearly net positive effects in countries where emergency treatment is poorly available for severe swine flu cases. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--2: . The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--3: . In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [1] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Discussion groups:


Additional material:

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Talk:Assessment_of_the_health_impacts_of_H1N1_vaccination&oldid=19782"