[metmom]

For example: the video claims you can still covid, you can still get sick, you can still go to the hospital, and can still spread the virus to others. It was disclosed this last weekend that while you may still catch the virus, it will be asymptomatic (you won’t get sick or have to go to the hospital), and that you won’t be able to spread the virus to others.

It's not misleading because the information in the video was based on what *science* was telling us at the time.

Until they moved the goalposts last weekend.

So when someone bases a video on the current science, it becomes *misleading later when the *science* changes at a later date? That means that the *science* was misleading in the first place.

[DugwayDuke]

metmom wrote: “It’s not misleading because the information in the video was based on what *science* was telling us at the time.”

Then it would be correct to say that the video is based upon outdated, now proven, false and misleading data?

If that’s the case then why do the anti-vaxxers keep posting such videos.