10 ms·

It's very concerning that the president is saying things like "your refusal has cost all of us" and "our patience is wearing this" when talking to people with n

It's very concerning that the president is saying things like "your refusal has cost all of us" and "our patience is wearing this" when talking to people with natural immunity who have not received the vaccine. As president, he should be looking for every reason to not alienate his own citizens. It seems like he's doing the opposite. I'm not really sure why. My best guess is politics has become all about polarization lately.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lithos 5y ago
The president would not be in the news if they acted reasonably and tried to work across party lines. There’s always going to be someone more extreme, louder, and obnoxious that will sell more ad views along with supporting whatever pet narrative the publication wants.
- danaris 5y ago
  "Trying to work across party lines" went out the window when the Republicans decided that "prevent absolutely anything the Democrats want to do, no matter how objectively beneficial it would be or whether it was fully supported by Republicans in the past" was a viable and acceptable method of getting re-elected.
  - AuryGlenz 5y ago
    “If the public-health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it — absolutely," the California senator said during the first and only vice-presidential debate. "But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I'm not taking it." -Kamala Harris Let’s not act like both parties don’t do the exact same thing, eh?
    - syvolt 5y ago
      What does this quote mean to you? It is saying that if immunologists and epidemiologists do not recommend a vaccine but Donald Trump does then she wouldn't take it. As far as I know Donald Trump is not a scientist, that seems reasonable? I'm not politically minded so I'm confused as to how you're interpreting that.
      - AuryGlenz 5y ago
        I take it as nothing more than it was, a political jab...if not a bit of a dangerous one from a public health perspective. It is, however, a perfectly illustrated point of "other side = bad." She didn't say that if the FDA didn't approve it and Trump somehow magically bypassed the process and put it out there for people to take that she wouldn't take it. She implied that if the FDA approved it and Trump said people should take it that she wouldn't. Debates are debates and people say stupid things, but that was far from the only moment of vaccine hesitancy to happen on the left just because Trump was president. Now, of course, it's flipped - and both show just how tribal America has become.
    - mthoms 5y ago
      Given that Donald Trump has shilled unproven cures (Hydroxychloroquine), I think it's perfectly reasonable to only trust the medical professionals.
    - BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
      The moderator's question was "If the Trump administration approves a vaccine, before or after the election, should Americans take it and would you take it?" Harris's answer was the right one, and the same one I would have given. An unqualified "yes" would be saying you'd take a vaccine approved by the administration even if the medical community wasn't confident in it, and the phrasing of the question was designed to elicit that clarification. And let's not pretend it's surprising that her qualification was even needed; We're talking about the same president who used the presidential soap box to urge people to try curing and preventing COVID using Hydroxychloroquine despite no such recommendation from health officials or the medical community at large.
unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
At times of national ... tragedy ... we sometimes hear about rallying behind the flag. The government's rhetoric seems like a ham-fisted effort at that. Unfortunately, national US politics have devolved in some respects to a food fight of attacks on political opponents. Some viewed Trump's tax policies in this light, disfavoring residents of so-called 'Blue' states. It would, unfortunately, be very easy to recharacterize Biden's work-based vaccination requirement as an effort to get his staunchest political opponents fired, nationwide. I personally hope both sides can find a path to a more conciliatory approach to policy.
nobody9999 5y ago
>As president, he should be looking for every reason to not alienate his own citizens. Through the pandemic, there have been ~40,000,000 COVID cases[0] in the US, and ~120,000,000 people are completely unvaccinated[1]. As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID. Given that huge disparity, it's not surprising that the relevant public health authorities (which are mostly state and local, with support from the Federal government) are pushing vaccinations very hard. I'd also point out that there are actual studies of the efficacy of COVID vaccines, while the data for "natural" immunity is much spottier. As such, we know much more about how well vaccinations protect people than we do about how well the immune systems of those who have recovered from COVID will protect from reinfection. What's more, it's not the President's job to be everyone's friend. It's their job (among other things) to promote the general welfare of the population. Getting as many people as possible vaccinated is definitely within that purview. Your statement seems to be along the lines of "Biden won't give me a pony! He's alienating me!" [0] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu https://coronavirus.jhu.edu [1] https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/ https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
- peteradio 5y ago
  Those are COVID cases not population level estimates. Try 40 million x (pick a number between 2 and 5). I won't be bullied into getting an unnecessary procedure just because the burden of proof has not been met (re: spotty studies). > Your statement seems to be along the lines of "Biden won't give me a pony! He's alienating me!" That seems uncalled for.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I won't be bullied into getting an unnecessary procedure just because the burden of proof has not been met (re: spotty studies). Bullied? Where I live (NYC), they will pay you $100[0] to get vaccinated. I wish more folks would "bully" me that way. I'd add, that at least in the US, no one is forcing anyone to have an unwanted procedure. Every single "vaccine mandate" has come with the caveat that you can avoid being vaccinated by getting tested regularly. As to whether or not a COVID vaccination is necessary or not is, for some strange reason, a controversial question. Have you been vaccinated against Polio? If so, why is that different than COVID? Not being snarky here, just genuinely curious as to how you see those as different. [0] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/coronavirus/vaccines/vaccine-incentives.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/coronavirus/vaccines/vaccine-incen...
syshum 5y ago
Unification in the eyes of many is "Do what we say, we gave you a choice, you choose wrong so now we have have to use force" That is not unification or pluralism. They (including democrats and republicans but today right now mainly democrats) want a political mono-culture and are willing to use force to get it.
bigodbiel 5y ago
The article clearly states that one of the reasons for shrugging natural immunity is politics, there are prominent GOP figures supporting natural immunity in lieu of vaccines. So being against natural immunity becomes not only a public health policy but a political attack on one’s opponents and applauded by the base. This is what Biden is doing.
MarkLowenstein 5y ago
You are correct. This is the largest overreach I have ever seen: if you work for any company we can control by sniffing around government agencies to find a regulation we can leverage, we will make sure you can't even have a job unless you take a particular vaccine. When you overreach in this way, you would at least want to carve out every reasonable exception you could, to not unnecessarily hurt lives, right? For instance - If you have a positive antibody test, you're exempt. - If you work from home, you're exempt. etc. But they don't. I won't make your conclusions for you, but they are obvious.
rpmisms 5y ago
I'm not against the vaccine, but I already had Covid, have been exposed and tested negative since having it, and haven't gotten the shot. I'm also a little bit of an adversarial person, and this move by Biden has made me seriously lean away from ever getting the jab. I'm probably one of the more well-to-do people he's trying to target here, and if my first instinct is "Fuck you", this doesn't bode well for getting anyone else on-board.
- mike00632 5y ago
  You sound like you're against the vaccine. What's wrong with just getting the vaccine (even if you had COVID)?
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    I will not be compelled into treatment by the Government. Simple as that. I control my body, and I don't give a damn whose patience is wearing thin.
    - RandallBrown 5y ago
      If the only reason you aren't getting the vaccine is because the government wants you to it doesn't sound like you're actually exhibiting any control over your body. You're just putting a NOT gate in front of the government's choice.
      - rpmisms 5y ago
        I'd be back where I started if the government told me not to get it. Curious, debating it, but also completely unsure if it's any better than what I already have—natural immunity.
    - mshroyer 5y ago
      I honestly think this is a reasonable stance because, while I'm not an expert—to my current understanding, the immunity you acquired from having the virus is probably comparable to the immunity I got from my Pfizer shots, if not better in some respects. As an American, I wish we could all just have an honest conversation about this. Yes, the mRNA vaccines are new technology and I don't begrudge anyone who feels hesitant about them; but I also think there's strong evidence for their safety, and I waited hours in line to get my shot as soon as it was available. But this business of public health officials trying to shape people's behavior instead of giving them plain facts... I don't think we collectively appreciate how much damage this has done. It necessarily breeds mistrust. It works against the actual goal of ending this pandemic.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lithos 5y ago

The president would not be in the news if they acted reasonably and tried to work across party lines. There’s always going to be someone more extreme, louder, and obnoxious that will sell more ad views along with supporting whatever pet narrative the publication wants.

danaris 5y ago
"Trying to work across party lines" went out the window when the Republicans decided that "prevent absolutely anything the Democrats want to do, no matter how objectively beneficial it would be or whether it was fully supported by Republicans in the past" was a viable and acceptable method of getting re-elected.
- AuryGlenz 5y ago
  “If the public-health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it — absolutely," the California senator said during the first and only vice-presidential debate. "But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I'm not taking it." -Kamala Harris Let’s not act like both parties don’t do the exact same thing, eh?
  - syvolt 5y ago
    What does this quote mean to you? It is saying that if immunologists and epidemiologists do not recommend a vaccine but Donald Trump does then she wouldn't take it. As far as I know Donald Trump is not a scientist, that seems reasonable? I'm not politically minded so I'm confused as to how you're interpreting that.
    - AuryGlenz 5y ago
      I take it as nothing more than it was, a political jab...if not a bit of a dangerous one from a public health perspective. It is, however, a perfectly illustrated point of "other side = bad." She didn't say that if the FDA didn't approve it and Trump somehow magically bypassed the process and put it out there for people to take that she wouldn't take it. She implied that if the FDA approved it and Trump said people should take it that she wouldn't. Debates are debates and people say stupid things, but that was far from the only moment of vaccine hesitancy to happen on the left just because Trump was president. Now, of course, it's flipped - and both show just how tribal America has become.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Given that Donald Trump has shilled unproven cures (Hydroxychloroquine), I think it's perfectly reasonable to only trust the medical professionals.
  - BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
    The moderator's question was "If the Trump administration approves a vaccine, before or after the election, should Americans take it and would you take it?" Harris's answer was the right one, and the same one I would have given. An unqualified "yes" would be saying you'd take a vaccine approved by the administration even if the medical community wasn't confident in it, and the phrasing of the question was designed to elicit that clarification. And let's not pretend it's surprising that her qualification was even needed; We're talking about the same president who used the presidential soap box to urge people to try curing and preventing COVID using Hydroxychloroquine despite no such recommendation from health officials or the medical community at large.

unyttigfjelltol 5y ago

At times of national ... tragedy ... we sometimes hear about rallying behind the flag. The government's rhetoric seems like a ham-fisted effort at that. Unfortunately, national US politics have devolved in some respects to a food fight of attacks on political opponents. Some viewed Trump's tax policies in this light, disfavoring residents of so-called 'Blue' states. It would, unfortunately, be very easy to recharacterize Biden's work-based vaccination requirement as an effort to get his staunchest political opponents fired, nationwide. I personally hope both sides can find a path to a more conciliatory approach to policy.

nobody9999 5y ago

>As president, he should be looking for every reason to not alienate his own citizens. Through the pandemic, there have been ~40,000,000 COVID cases[0] in the US, and ~120,000,000 people are completely unvaccinated[1]. As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID. Given that huge disparity, it's not surprising that the relevant public health authorities (which are mostly state and local, with support from the Federal government) are pushing vaccinations very hard. I'd also point out that there are actual studies of the efficacy of COVID vaccines, while the data for "natural" immunity is much spottier. As such, we know much more about how well vaccinations protect people than we do about how well the immune systems of those who have recovered from COVID will protect from reinfection. What's more, it's not the President's job to be everyone's friend. It's their job (among other things) to promote the general welfare of the population. Getting as many people as possible vaccinated is definitely within that purview. Your statement seems to be along the lines of "Biden won't give me a pony! He's alienating me!" [0] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu https://coronavirus.jhu.edu [1] https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/ https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...

peteradio 5y ago
Those are COVID cases not population level estimates. Try 40 million x (pick a number between 2 and 5). I won't be bullied into getting an unnecessary procedure just because the burden of proof has not been met (re: spotty studies). > Your statement seems to be along the lines of "Biden won't give me a pony! He's alienating me!" That seems uncalled for.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I won't be bullied into getting an unnecessary procedure just because the burden of proof has not been met (re: spotty studies). Bullied? Where I live (NYC), they will pay you $100[0] to get vaccinated. I wish more folks would "bully" me that way. I'd add, that at least in the US, no one is forcing anyone to have an unwanted procedure. Every single "vaccine mandate" has come with the caveat that you can avoid being vaccinated by getting tested regularly. As to whether or not a COVID vaccination is necessary or not is, for some strange reason, a controversial question. Have you been vaccinated against Polio? If so, why is that different than COVID? Not being snarky here, just genuinely curious as to how you see those as different. [0] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/coronavirus/vaccines/vaccine-incentives.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/coronavirus/vaccines/vaccine-incen...

syshum 5y ago

Unification in the eyes of many is "Do what we say, we gave you a choice, you choose wrong so now we have have to use force" That is not unification or pluralism. They (including democrats and republicans but today right now mainly democrats) want a political mono-culture and are willing to use force to get it.

bigodbiel 5y ago

The article clearly states that one of the reasons for shrugging natural immunity is politics, there are prominent GOP figures supporting natural immunity in lieu of vaccines. So being against natural immunity becomes not only a public health policy but a political attack on one’s opponents and applauded by the base. This is what Biden is doing.

MarkLowenstein 5y ago

You are correct. This is the largest overreach I have ever seen: if you work for any company we can control by sniffing around government agencies to find a regulation we can leverage, we will make sure you can't even have a job unless you take a particular vaccine. When you overreach in this way, you would at least want to carve out every reasonable exception you could, to not unnecessarily hurt lives, right? For instance - If you have a positive antibody test, you're exempt. - If you work from home, you're exempt. etc. But they don't. I won't make your conclusions for you, but they are obvious.

rpmisms 5y ago

I'm not against the vaccine, but I already had Covid, have been exposed and tested negative since having it, and haven't gotten the shot. I'm also a little bit of an adversarial person, and this move by Biden has made me seriously lean away from ever getting the jab. I'm probably one of the more well-to-do people he's trying to target here, and if my first instinct is "Fuck you", this doesn't bode well for getting anyone else on-board.

mike00632 5y ago
You sound like you're against the vaccine. What's wrong with just getting the vaccine (even if you had COVID)?
- rpmisms 5y ago
  I will not be compelled into treatment by the Government. Simple as that. I control my body, and I don't give a damn whose patience is wearing thin.
  - RandallBrown 5y ago
    If the only reason you aren't getting the vaccine is because the government wants you to it doesn't sound like you're actually exhibiting any control over your body. You're just putting a NOT gate in front of the government's choice.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      I'd be back where I started if the government told me not to get it. Curious, debating it, but also completely unsure if it's any better than what I already have—natural immunity.
  - mshroyer 5y ago
    I honestly think this is a reasonable stance because, while I'm not an expert—to my current understanding, the immunity you acquired from having the virus is probably comparable to the immunity I got from my Pfizer shots, if not better in some respects. As an American, I wish we could all just have an honest conversation about this. Yes, the mRNA vaccines are new technology and I don't begrudge anyone who feels hesitant about them; but I also think there's strong evidence for their safety, and I waited hours in line to get my shot as soon as it was available. But this business of public health officials trying to shape people's behavior instead of giving them plain facts... I don't think we collectively appreciate how much damage this has done. It necessarily breeds mistrust. It works against the actual goal of ending this pandemic.