Difference between revisions of "Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination"
From Testiwiki
(→Darm exercise 4) |
m (→Darm exercise 4) |
||
| 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. | + | * 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
| Statements: Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high.
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, 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) ←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) |
Discussion groups:
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group A
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group B
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group C
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group D (Finnish material)
- Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group E (Finnish material)
Additional material:
