8 ms·

Censorship is not what causes large numbers of US citizens to refuse this vaccine. If the Republicans in leadership positions took this seriously from the star

Censorship is not what causes large numbers of US citizens to refuse this vaccine. If the Republicans in leadership positions took this seriously from the start and did not go around casting doubt on vaccination far more people would get the vaccine. If the previous president had not politicized the response to COVID and had simply told his followers to do what the CDC says we would have many millions more people getting the vaccine (and for the matter, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive). Don't let the Republicans off the hook. This should never have been a political issue, but Republican leaders at every level of government made this political and continue to politicize the pandemic.

kansface 5y ago
I don’t even know how to respond to this. The nicest thing I can say is that your comment is both entirely ahistorical and highly indicative of why Republicans don’t trust the CDC.
complianceowl 5y ago
Your partisan comments are so toxic. Try making your point without spewing that Facebook garbage around here.
- ajvs 5y ago
  Agreed, it's especially ridiculous that they said Trump should have been advocating for the vaccine when he did and still does.
- gravity13 5y ago
  Is it really partisan to point out that Republicans took anti-vaxxing to be practically their identifying feature?
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Most anti-vaxxers I know are far left, and most republicans I know have all the other historic vaccines for school and travel, but are more suspicious of the Covid ones due in part to the lack of discussion about natural immunity in the US context (most of them who already had covid don’t want to get the vaccine since they do t think it is worth their time).
    - jeromegv 5y ago
      Is the problem the lack of discussion or the spread of fake news, disinformation and fear mongering in the US? Most/all western countries have higher vax rate than the US (and survey says that vaccine usage is lower among republicans in the US), why is that? You really think it’s due to lack of discussion on natural immunity?
    - gravity13 5y ago
      Nobody wants to have a discussion about [enter argument of the month here] because it's all BS partisan politics motivated by the right's outright disdain for all things liberal in America. The problem isn't a lack of understanding or research for new vaccines, the problem is anti-intellectualism running rampant.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        “Nobody wants to have a discussion about [enter argument of the month here] because it's all BS partisan politics motivated by the right's outright disdain for all things liberal in America.” That is one view, and I have heard the opposite (switch the words right with liberal in this statement). Unfortunately the truth is lost in the medium of dialog, e.g. see the recent surveys showing how those that watch the media most are also the most misinformed about the risk of covid hospitalizations (>50%??).
- takeda 5y ago
  The previous administration made this political, and the pandora's box already have been opened. People were swearing they won't take vaccine, before it was even available. Look at countries where pandemic is not political.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - themaninthedark 5y ago
    >(25 Feb 2020) U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a walking tour of San Francisco's Chinatown Monday to let the public know the neighborhood is safe and open for business. >Pelosi, a Democrat who represents the heavily Chinese American city, visited the Golden Gate Fortune Cookie Factory, whose owner Kevin Chan, says his business and others are down 70% since the outbreak of the new coronavirus. >"You should come to Chinatown," Pelosi said before stopping to lunch at Dim Sum Corner. >"Precautions have been taken by our city, we know that there's concern about tourism, traveling all throughout the world, but we think it's very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come," she said. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc Not just the previous administration. This is what is tiring about threads like this, you have partisans on both sides all going "Not me and my side, it was all the other guys."
    - takeda 5y ago
      At that point no businesses US were closed because of covid, but Chinese businesses were unproportionally hurt because president called covid a "china virus". You're trying to smear somebody that they are making it political while they are actually trying to unpoliticize it. This was before emrgency was declared. And only 8 people were confirmed in California. Check the timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States_(2020)#February https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pande...
      - themaninthedark 5y ago
        Again, "Not me and my side, it was all the other guys." The Washington Post reported that six other countries had restricted travel from China before January 30, six did so on January 31, and by the time U.S. travel restrictions became effective on February 2, 38 other countries had taken action before or at the same time as the U.S. restrictions. In what universe does telling people to get out and gather in groups make sense when there is a pandemic looming. Looking at the timeline: "The first case of community transmission, because it had no known origin, is confirmed in Solano County, California, on February 26." So the day after the call to gather, you have confirmed community spread.
jimbob45 5y ago
This is exactly what I'm tracking for the 2022 election - is the public able to separate anti-mask/vaxx choice from anti-vaxxing within their minds? Or will the right be tied to anti-vaxxing by proxy? I'm leaning toward the latter. Most people I talk to think the right is actively pushing anti-vaxxing efforts despite top federal Congressional leadership explicitly encouraging vaccine procurement (and their former POTUS "inventing" the vaccine!).
- greenail 5y ago
  I don't think it is possible to make the distinction. It is too late unfortunately. I'm vaccinated and I'm ok with people making (what i view as) bad decisions. The fundamental issue here is a question about the role of government: let people hurt themselves or have a nanny state. I don't think anyone would listen though and I'll get lumped in with the antivaxxers regardless of the nuances of my opinion.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  The right's story has generally been that people should get the vaccine if they want to because "freedom." Trump literally said this in front of crowds of his vaccine-hesitant supporters. Prominent Republicans like Rand Paul are going around casting doubt on the credibility of Dr. Fauci and the CDC/NIH, and Republicans have done nothing to address the tidal wave of conspiracy theories making rounds among their constituents. Get back to me when Trump gets on stage at some rally and says, "Anyone who thinks the vaccine makes them magnetic is a moron." Republicans are free to call it a Trump vaccine if they are saying, "Real Patriots do what their country needs, and getting the Trump Vaccine is what we need Real Patriots to do." If that is what it would take to convince people to get the shot I have no objection. Unfortunately I am not seeing that happen; instead what I see are non-committal statements, shouts of "freedom!" and Republican governors preventing local leaders from imposing mask or vaccine mandates in their states.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    Trump's own recommendations to his supporters to get vaccinated were not well-received: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/22/donald-trump-rally-alabama-covid-vaccine https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/22/donald-trump... ...which makes the politics behind it all the more unusual.
jmeister 5y ago
Kamala Harris is on record(last summer) saying she wouldn’t take the vaccine if Trump told her to take it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0
- gravity13 5y ago
  Yes, there's a difference between a raging narcissist who can't even seem to tell the truth even if there's nothing to gain from lying and listening to a doctor. But yeah, keep going with the whole "democrats are just as bad as republicans" thing. Seems to be working.
  - dgfitz 5y ago
    Really setting the bar high. Group A Being every so slightly better than really shitty Group B thing does not make Group A look very good, just ever so slightly less shitty. "I beat my kids and my spouse" "You're evil, I only beat my kids" Not a great argument.
    - gravity13 5y ago
      It seems like there's a lot of propaganda premised on the idea that "both sides are bad", it's just "two sides of the same coin," and it's always the people who know nothing about politics and just want to appear superior without putting any effort or though that give this insidious ideology it's breath of air.
      - dgfitz 5y ago
        What do you mean propaganda? Trump was a fool and a shit president, and Bidens ratings are rapidly trying to reach Trumps. They both suck. Congress is a fucking joke. I'll gladly accept your insult about not knowing anything about politics, wrong as it is. I choose not to insult you back.
        betterunix2 5y ago
_-david-_ 5y ago
Go back a year and see who was saying the vaccine was not safe. Explicitly saying you don't trust the vaccine because your political opponent was president when it was created is political plain and simple.
- archagon 5y ago
  When your political opponent is an unintelligent charlatan who can’t speak two words without spouting a lie, then perhaps some caution would be warranted where public health is concerned.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    Last I checked Trump had nothing to do with the vaccine other than helping fund it (Operation Warpseed). If you think Trump could impact the safety then I assume you think the FDA is corrupt which means we shouldn't trust them when they say it is safe now?
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Back when that was the debate, Trump was pushing FDA to "accelerate" approval i.e. do it before the studies analysis was done. Now we know how those studies went, but at that point nobody did yet (and they might have revealed e.g. a lack of efficiency), so yes, if FDA did issue an approval back then then they should have been treated as corrupt for breaching their own process in a way that can impact the safety; and that is why the concern was (IMHO reasonably) raised by various Democrat leaders. Heck, Trump was on record asking officials to alter election results, of course he could also try to overrule FDA if he chose to and wasn't loudly opposed.
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        >Back when that was the debate, Trump was pushing FDA to "accelerate" approval i.e. do it before the studies analysis was done There are accelerated approvals as part of the FDA process if there is a need. That is how Pfizer is approved now. Pfizer did not complete all the tests and analysis they typically would have had to go through. >Now we know how those studies went, but at that point nobody did yet (and they might have revealed e.g. a lack of efficiency Except like I said above we actually don't know since they have not completed all the studies yet. >so yes, if FDA did issue an approval back then then they should have been treated as corrupt for breaching their own process in a way that can impact the safety Interesting. >that is why the concern was (IMHO reasonably) raised by various Democrat leaders. I didn't see any Democratic leaders complaining when Pfizer was approved with the expedited process. So faster than normal is fine sometimes. >Heck, Trump was on record asking officials to alter election results, Trump says stupid stuff that has nothing to do with this. Biden says stupid stuff. Who cares? >of course he could also try to overrule FDA if he chose to and wasn't loudly opposed. He didn't though. Biden could do the same with a sugar pill if some company decided it was a cure for covid. Who cares what somebody could do if they don't actually do it.
greenail 5y ago
You are assuming "they" trust the Republican leadership. this Gallup poll says only 12% of Americans trust congress. https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/americans-confidence-major-institutions-dips.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/americans-confidence-maj... Lots of other interesting tidbits about trust in there...
- dragontamer 5y ago
  These people who don't trust masks trust ivermectin. Just... talk with them. Its obvious. There's one political party pushing ivermectin as a solution, and the other one doesn't. They want "their side" to be correct on this issue. They don't trust masks because masks were chosen by "the other side". They don't trust vaccines (despite being pushed by Operation Warp Speed by Mr. Trump) because someone else became president and started pushing vaccines. It was historically liberals who hated vaccines, not conservatives. Conservatives were the ones making lynch mobs to forcibly vaccinate people (still an ugly history there but... seriously. The entire political world has flipped upside down). -------- This isn't about the message. Its 100% about who trusts who, and who trusts what. This is a problem of ethos, not of facts or logos.
  - greenail 5y ago
    My post had nothing to do with any party affiliation. I was simply pointing out the data regarding where trust in our institutions is. Please ratchet the "they"/"other" stuff back a bit. I don't think it is helping us trust each other.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      And my post is about the reality of our politics today. People distrust masks but trust ivermectin. Why? Because certain leaders in certain political thoughts are pushing anti-mask and pro-ivermectin messages. Its that simple. There's no need to mince words. People trust their leaders. If it helps, its the same reason why some liberals are all "Screw the rich", because they trust Bernie Sanders. No one likes __Congress__ as an institution, but everyone likes their particular Senator/House rep. If not, those people would be immediately voted out. Its all the _OTHER_ reps that people don't like in Congress. Just as the institution was designed. That's how its supposed to work: you don't like the reps who push for stuff in their state/interests (but not your state and/or interests)... but you like the guy who represents your state/interests. Perhaps I'm being too brutalistic or simple. But its really how I see things.
8eye 5y ago
no disrespect but i know plenty of liberals who will not get the vaccine. the media turned it into a bi-partisan issue when in all actuality it was a government handling issue in which the rest were used as scapegoats. you remember that they gave themselves raises while the rest of us were told not to go into work. which obviously we are gonna listen if we believe that covid is as dangerous as the scientist were saying, the main issue and the reason why blockchain (primary crypto) technology took last year was because of the censorship issues. people do not want amazon to shut down a website because it disagrees with their narrative, they don’t want facebook, reddit or payment processors shutting things down for those same reasons. so the push towards even more decentralizing is going to happen. but to clear things up, this is decentralized together, not the traditional sense of decentralization. you cannot censor someone you disagree with and expect them to be okay with it. you make them a slave to your narrative, and if they become slaves, they will push to make you a slave as well by whatever means necessary. see texas abortion bans. it’s what Gandhi said, “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” or a more modern version would be “that which we resist, persist”. this is common knowledge, when push comes to shove, the shoved push back. but the problem is, we end up in a loop, where both parties lose more and more of their civil liberties to PWN their perceived enemy. it’s odd that a lot of adults don’t understand this basic concept. down vote all you want, it doesn’t make it any less true
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > no disrespect but i know plenty of liberals who will not get the vaccine. Respectfully, those people have been anti-vax for a while now (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/what-do-lefty-anti-vaxxers-do-now/620092/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/what-do-le...) and were part of the group that were unpersuadable. But leftist anti-vaxers aren't a majority of current COVID-19 anti-vaxers. Those are politically motivated groups.
  - Anthony-G 5y ago
    I’m not sure why you’re being down-voted; elements of the counter-cultural left has been skeptical of science for decades. The profit-motive is at odds with the nobler pursuit of science and companies like Monsanto, Exxon, Dow Jones are on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, distrust of “big pharma” mutates into a suspicion of science in general – and the medical sector in particular. There also isn’t a catchy phrase to describe “big holistic/wellness/organic”. When people (regardless of political persuasion) give up trying to understand the complexities of reality and instead, look for easy answers that appeal to them on an emotional level, they leave themselves vulnerable to all sorts of wacky ideas (many of which can be traced back to good old-fashioned anti-Semitism like George Soros and a shadowy cabal controlling the world). George Monbiot recently published an article about this issue from a European perspective: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/22/leftwingers-far-right-conspiracy-theories-anti-vaxxers-power https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/22/leftwi... Article from last year from an Australian perspective: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/wellness-advocates-used-to-talk-about-bali-trips-and-coconut-oilnow-its-bill-gates-and-5g https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/wellne...
nradov 5y ago
Prominent Democrats also cast doubt on vaccine safety. The governor of California essentially stated that he didn't trust the FDA and insisted on doing another safety review before authorizing vaccines for use in the state. This was inexcusable political behavior on both sides. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/10/27/western-states-join-californias-scientific-safety-review-workgroup-to-ensure-safety-of-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/10/27/western-states-join-califo...
- betterunix2 5y ago
  That was done in response to concerns that Trump was trying to push the FDA to approve the vaccines faster to serve his own political ambitions: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/politics/white-house-fda-coronavirus-vaccine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/politics/white-house-fda-coro... https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-business-mark-meadows-coronavirus-pandemic-0902fbb041b0459e55da86be75b1457a https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-business-mark-meadow... Moreover, Gov. Newsom's statements did not say that the vaccines were unsafe; he simply said that he was establishing an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the same evidence that the FDA evaluated. At no point did he say that people should seek ivermectim or hydroxychloroquin or that people should just rely on natural immunity. Even if Newsom did the wrong thing here, it is a far cry from the Republicans, who have pushed the narrative that people should feel no specific obligation to get vaccinated because of "freedom." Trump has stood before crowds of vaccine-hesitant supporters and said, "Get the shot if you want to." Republican governors have echoed that sentiment. The results speak for themselves: Democrats have higher vaccination rates and Democrat-leaning areas have lower infection and lower hospitalization rates compared to Republicans.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Since the inception of the FDA, when else have state governments independently verified drugs like this? It is clearly a signal that one ought not to trust the FDA. Is it any surprise that large cohorts of the democratic party (namely, their non-white cohorts) do not want to get the drug? I am not surprised. > "Get the shot if you want to." That is exactly what any sane person should say. Trump is pro-vaccine. He has unequivocally said he has had it and thinks it's a good idea. He's just anti-mandate. You can be pro-vaccine (as in you believe others should get it), while being against a mandate. This is insanity. The expectation that one must believe that the government ought to require a vaccine in order to not be anti-vax is quite the shift of goal posts.
iammisc 5y ago
The previous president was and is extremely pro-vaccine. People claim there is a large republican cohort of anti-vax politicians, but there is not. There is a large GOP cohort of anti-vax-mandate politicians, but being against a mandate does not mean being anti vax, unless you're changing the meaning. > If the previous president had not politicized the response to COVID and had simply told his followers to do what the CDC says we would have many millions more people getting the vaccine (and for the matter, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive). You are accusing Trump of politicizing COVID while ignoring Andrew Cuomo, who at the beginning of the pandemic, used COVID, and the fact he was not Trump, for his political advantage, and the media gushed and was happy to give him more airtime than Trump, despite the fact it was obvious from the very beginning that New York State's handling was much worse than Trumps.
- thomaskcr 5y ago
  Trump literally still calls it the "Trump Vaccine". Also I think people forget how much airtime went into "the vaccine isn't the answer" once Trump started talking about warp speed and the second the election was over it was "the vaccine is the only answer". I think you can blame a lot on Trump and repubs with regards to protocols, level of concern, being actively anti-mask, etc but it takes a very selective memory to act like Trump wasn't 1000% on board with the vaccine. Examples: - Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be 'colossally stupid' By Jen Christensen, CNN Updated 11:34 AM EDT, Tue September 01, 2020 - CNN: The timetable for a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months. Experts say that's risky By Robert Kuznia Updated 2:14 PM EDT, Wed April 01, 2020 - Here's where we stand on getting a coronavirus vaccine By Holly Yan, CNN Updated 1:45 PM EDT, Mon June 08, 2020 - With big talk and hurled insults, the gloves come off in the race for the coronavirus vaccine By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent Updated 7:00 AM EDT, Wed May 27, 2020 > (CNN)Ethicists and physicians are concerned that, amid a desire to put an end to the Covid-19 pandemic, developers of drugs and vaccines have become overly enthusiastic about the chances their products will work.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Correct. This is one of the few areas where trump seemingly disagrees with his own base. Sites like patriots.win (remnants of thedonald) criticize trump for his vax support.
spookthesunset 5y ago
Why would anybody get vaccinated if they have to continue wearing masks? How does that make any sense at all? It ain’t republicans pushing that kind of nonsense. And what does “take this serious” actually mean? This is a values thing. A lot of people justifiably get upset that the government wants them to put their entire life on hold indefinitely for a virus they aren’t concerned with. Life isn’t meant to survive. It’s meant to be lived. Life is very short and so far a non trivial amount of it has been spent on this. There is way more to life than a myopic fixation on exactly one single illness.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  For the same reason that some people might wear seat belts and continue following the rest of the rules of the road.
nkssy 5y ago
Unpopular opinion: I'd not let either side off the hook. Politics caused multiple screw ups in the pandemic response. Still is. Partisan politics aren't a good idea when forming public health policies. Nor is fear. Especially the fear being used for political gain. The most enlightening aspect of the whole COVID debacle was just how bad politicians are with science. Democrats criticised vaccines just for political reasons. Republicans did also. As for censorship, that never leads anywhere good. If the public discourse cannot openly mock bad content because it has already been "disappeared" then we are not better off. I'm just hoping this pandemic doesn't cause a meltdown into outright authoritarianism. We've already seen what nazism and communism did and I'd rather not have society try either of them again.
tshaddox 5y ago
Yeah, it’s pretty silly to look at how pretty much every opinion regarding COVID-19 follows party lines so closely and conclude that negative opinions about vaccines are caused by public health experts failing to maintain public trust. This defense reminds me of a similar one we’ve seen recently: “this group is only bigoted because they’ve been called bigots by the media for so long.”

kansface 5y ago

I don’t even know how to respond to this. The nicest thing I can say is that your comment is both entirely ahistorical and highly indicative of why Republicans don’t trust the CDC.

complianceowl 5y ago

Your partisan comments are so toxic. Try making your point without spewing that Facebook garbage around here.

ajvs 5y ago
Agreed, it's especially ridiculous that they said Trump should have been advocating for the vaccine when he did and still does.
gravity13 5y ago
Is it really partisan to point out that Republicans took anti-vaxxing to be practically their identifying feature?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Most anti-vaxxers I know are far left, and most republicans I know have all the other historic vaccines for school and travel, but are more suspicious of the Covid ones due in part to the lack of discussion about natural immunity in the US context (most of them who already had covid don’t want to get the vaccine since they do t think it is worth their time).
  - jeromegv 5y ago
    Is the problem the lack of discussion or the spread of fake news, disinformation and fear mongering in the US? Most/all western countries have higher vax rate than the US (and survey says that vaccine usage is lower among republicans in the US), why is that? You really think it’s due to lack of discussion on natural immunity?
  - gravity13 5y ago
    Nobody wants to have a discussion about [enter argument of the month here] because it's all BS partisan politics motivated by the right's outright disdain for all things liberal in America. The problem isn't a lack of understanding or research for new vaccines, the problem is anti-intellectualism running rampant.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      “Nobody wants to have a discussion about [enter argument of the month here] because it's all BS partisan politics motivated by the right's outright disdain for all things liberal in America.” That is one view, and I have heard the opposite (switch the words right with liberal in this statement). Unfortunately the truth is lost in the medium of dialog, e.g. see the recent surveys showing how those that watch the media most are also the most misinformed about the risk of covid hospitalizations (>50%??).
takeda 5y ago
The previous administration made this political, and the pandora's box already have been opened. People were swearing they won't take vaccine, before it was even available. Look at countries where pandemic is not political.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- themaninthedark 5y ago
  >(25 Feb 2020) U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a walking tour of San Francisco's Chinatown Monday to let the public know the neighborhood is safe and open for business. >Pelosi, a Democrat who represents the heavily Chinese American city, visited the Golden Gate Fortune Cookie Factory, whose owner Kevin Chan, says his business and others are down 70% since the outbreak of the new coronavirus. >"You should come to Chinatown," Pelosi said before stopping to lunch at Dim Sum Corner. >"Precautions have been taken by our city, we know that there's concern about tourism, traveling all throughout the world, but we think it's very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come," she said. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc Not just the previous administration. This is what is tiring about threads like this, you have partisans on both sides all going "Not me and my side, it was all the other guys."
  - takeda 5y ago
    At that point no businesses US were closed because of covid, but Chinese businesses were unproportionally hurt because president called covid a "china virus". You're trying to smear somebody that they are making it political while they are actually trying to unpoliticize it. This was before emrgency was declared. And only 8 people were confirmed in California. Check the timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States_(2020)#February https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pande...
    - themaninthedark 5y ago
      Again, "Not me and my side, it was all the other guys." The Washington Post reported that six other countries had restricted travel from China before January 30, six did so on January 31, and by the time U.S. travel restrictions became effective on February 2, 38 other countries had taken action before or at the same time as the U.S. restrictions. In what universe does telling people to get out and gather in groups make sense when there is a pandemic looming. Looking at the timeline: "The first case of community transmission, because it had no known origin, is confirmed in Solano County, California, on February 26." So the day after the call to gather, you have confirmed community spread.

jimbob45 5y ago

This is exactly what I'm tracking for the 2022 election - is the public able to separate anti-mask/vaxx choice from anti-vaxxing within their minds? Or will the right be tied to anti-vaxxing by proxy? I'm leaning toward the latter. Most people I talk to think the right is actively pushing anti-vaxxing efforts despite top federal Congressional leadership explicitly encouraging vaccine procurement (and their former POTUS "inventing" the vaccine!).

greenail 5y ago
I don't think it is possible to make the distinction. It is too late unfortunately. I'm vaccinated and I'm ok with people making (what i view as) bad decisions. The fundamental issue here is a question about the role of government: let people hurt themselves or have a nanny state. I don't think anyone would listen though and I'll get lumped in with the antivaxxers regardless of the nuances of my opinion.
betterunix2 5y ago
The right's story has generally been that people should get the vaccine if they want to because "freedom." Trump literally said this in front of crowds of his vaccine-hesitant supporters. Prominent Republicans like Rand Paul are going around casting doubt on the credibility of Dr. Fauci and the CDC/NIH, and Republicans have done nothing to address the tidal wave of conspiracy theories making rounds among their constituents. Get back to me when Trump gets on stage at some rally and says, "Anyone who thinks the vaccine makes them magnetic is a moron." Republicans are free to call it a Trump vaccine if they are saying, "Real Patriots do what their country needs, and getting the Trump Vaccine is what we need Real Patriots to do." If that is what it would take to convince people to get the shot I have no objection. Unfortunately I am not seeing that happen; instead what I see are non-committal statements, shouts of "freedom!" and Republican governors preventing local leaders from imposing mask or vaccine mandates in their states.
- userbinator 5y ago
  Trump's own recommendations to his supporters to get vaccinated were not well-received: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/22/donald-trump-rally-alabama-covid-vaccine https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/22/donald-trump... ...which makes the politics behind it all the more unusual.

jmeister 5y ago

Kamala Harris is on record(last summer) saying she wouldn’t take the vaccine if Trump told her to take it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0

gravity13 5y ago
Yes, there's a difference between a raging narcissist who can't even seem to tell the truth even if there's nothing to gain from lying and listening to a doctor. But yeah, keep going with the whole "democrats are just as bad as republicans" thing. Seems to be working.
- dgfitz 5y ago
  Really setting the bar high. Group A Being every so slightly better than really shitty Group B thing does not make Group A look very good, just ever so slightly less shitty. "I beat my kids and my spouse" "You're evil, I only beat my kids" Not a great argument.
  - gravity13 5y ago
    It seems like there's a lot of propaganda premised on the idea that "both sides are bad", it's just "two sides of the same coin," and it's always the people who know nothing about politics and just want to appear superior without putting any effort or though that give this insidious ideology it's breath of air.
    - dgfitz 5y ago
      What do you mean propaganda? Trump was a fool and a shit president, and Bidens ratings are rapidly trying to reach Trumps. They both suck. Congress is a fucking joke. I'll gladly accept your insult about not knowing anything about politics, wrong as it is. I choose not to insult you back.
      - betterunix2 5y ago

_-david-_ 5y ago

Go back a year and see who was saying the vaccine was not safe. Explicitly saying you don't trust the vaccine because your political opponent was president when it was created is political plain and simple.

archagon 5y ago
When your political opponent is an unintelligent charlatan who can’t speak two words without spouting a lie, then perhaps some caution would be warranted where public health is concerned.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Last I checked Trump had nothing to do with the vaccine other than helping fund it (Operation Warpseed). If you think Trump could impact the safety then I assume you think the FDA is corrupt which means we shouldn't trust them when they say it is safe now?
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Back when that was the debate, Trump was pushing FDA to "accelerate" approval i.e. do it before the studies analysis was done. Now we know how those studies went, but at that point nobody did yet (and they might have revealed e.g. a lack of efficiency), so yes, if FDA did issue an approval back then then they should have been treated as corrupt for breaching their own process in a way that can impact the safety; and that is why the concern was (IMHO reasonably) raised by various Democrat leaders. Heck, Trump was on record asking officials to alter election results, of course he could also try to overrule FDA if he chose to and wasn't loudly opposed.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      >Back when that was the debate, Trump was pushing FDA to "accelerate" approval i.e. do it before the studies analysis was done There are accelerated approvals as part of the FDA process if there is a need. That is how Pfizer is approved now. Pfizer did not complete all the tests and analysis they typically would have had to go through. >Now we know how those studies went, but at that point nobody did yet (and they might have revealed e.g. a lack of efficiency Except like I said above we actually don't know since they have not completed all the studies yet. >so yes, if FDA did issue an approval back then then they should have been treated as corrupt for breaching their own process in a way that can impact the safety Interesting. >that is why the concern was (IMHO reasonably) raised by various Democrat leaders. I didn't see any Democratic leaders complaining when Pfizer was approved with the expedited process. So faster than normal is fine sometimes. >Heck, Trump was on record asking officials to alter election results, Trump says stupid stuff that has nothing to do with this. Biden says stupid stuff. Who cares? >of course he could also try to overrule FDA if he chose to and wasn't loudly opposed. He didn't though. Biden could do the same with a sugar pill if some company decided it was a cure for covid. Who cares what somebody could do if they don't actually do it.

greenail 5y ago

You are assuming "they" trust the Republican leadership. this Gallup poll says only 12% of Americans trust congress. https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/americans-confidence-major-institutions-dips.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/americans-confidence-maj... Lots of other interesting tidbits about trust in there...

dragontamer 5y ago
These people who don't trust masks trust ivermectin. Just... talk with them. Its obvious. There's one political party pushing ivermectin as a solution, and the other one doesn't. They want "their side" to be correct on this issue. They don't trust masks because masks were chosen by "the other side". They don't trust vaccines (despite being pushed by Operation Warp Speed by Mr. Trump) because someone else became president and started pushing vaccines. It was historically liberals who hated vaccines, not conservatives. Conservatives were the ones making lynch mobs to forcibly vaccinate people (still an ugly history there but... seriously. The entire political world has flipped upside down). -------- This isn't about the message. Its 100% about who trusts who, and who trusts what. This is a problem of ethos, not of facts or logos.
- greenail 5y ago
  My post had nothing to do with any party affiliation. I was simply pointing out the data regarding where trust in our institutions is. Please ratchet the "they"/"other" stuff back a bit. I don't think it is helping us trust each other.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    And my post is about the reality of our politics today. People distrust masks but trust ivermectin. Why? Because certain leaders in certain political thoughts are pushing anti-mask and pro-ivermectin messages. Its that simple. There's no need to mince words. People trust their leaders. If it helps, its the same reason why some liberals are all "Screw the rich", because they trust Bernie Sanders. No one likes __Congress__ as an institution, but everyone likes their particular Senator/House rep. If not, those people would be immediately voted out. Its all the _OTHER_ reps that people don't like in Congress. Just as the institution was designed. That's how its supposed to work: you don't like the reps who push for stuff in their state/interests (but not your state and/or interests)... but you like the guy who represents your state/interests. Perhaps I'm being too brutalistic or simple. But its really how I see things.

8eye 5y ago

no disrespect but i know plenty of liberals who will not get the vaccine. the media turned it into a bi-partisan issue when in all actuality it was a government handling issue in which the rest were used as scapegoats. you remember that they gave themselves raises while the rest of us were told not to go into work. which obviously we are gonna listen if we believe that covid is as dangerous as the scientist were saying, the main issue and the reason why blockchain (primary crypto) technology took last year was because of the censorship issues. people do not want amazon to shut down a website because it disagrees with their narrative, they don’t want facebook, reddit or payment processors shutting things down for those same reasons. so the push towards even more decentralizing is going to happen. but to clear things up, this is decentralized together, not the traditional sense of decentralization. you cannot censor someone you disagree with and expect them to be okay with it. you make them a slave to your narrative, and if they become slaves, they will push to make you a slave as well by whatever means necessary. see texas abortion bans. it’s what Gandhi said, “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” or a more modern version would be “that which we resist, persist”. this is common knowledge, when push comes to shove, the shoved push back. but the problem is, we end up in a loop, where both parties lose more and more of their civil liberties to PWN their perceived enemy. it’s odd that a lot of adults don’t understand this basic concept. down vote all you want, it doesn’t make it any less true

fortuna86 5y ago
> no disrespect but i know plenty of liberals who will not get the vaccine. Respectfully, those people have been anti-vax for a while now (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/what-do-lefty-anti-vaxxers-do-now/620092/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/what-do-le...) and were part of the group that were unpersuadable. But leftist anti-vaxers aren't a majority of current COVID-19 anti-vaxers. Those are politically motivated groups.
- Anthony-G 5y ago
  I’m not sure why you’re being down-voted; elements of the counter-cultural left has been skeptical of science for decades. The profit-motive is at odds with the nobler pursuit of science and companies like Monsanto, Exxon, Dow Jones are on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, distrust of “big pharma” mutates into a suspicion of science in general – and the medical sector in particular. There also isn’t a catchy phrase to describe “big holistic/wellness/organic”. When people (regardless of political persuasion) give up trying to understand the complexities of reality and instead, look for easy answers that appeal to them on an emotional level, they leave themselves vulnerable to all sorts of wacky ideas (many of which can be traced back to good old-fashioned anti-Semitism like George Soros and a shadowy cabal controlling the world). George Monbiot recently published an article about this issue from a European perspective: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/22/leftwingers-far-right-conspiracy-theories-anti-vaxxers-power https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/22/leftwi... Article from last year from an Australian perspective: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/wellness-advocates-used-to-talk-about-bali-trips-and-coconut-oilnow-its-bill-gates-and-5g https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/wellne...

nradov 5y ago

Prominent Democrats also cast doubt on vaccine safety. The governor of California essentially stated that he didn't trust the FDA and insisted on doing another safety review before authorizing vaccines for use in the state. This was inexcusable political behavior on both sides. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/10/27/western-states-join-californias-scientific-safety-review-workgroup-to-ensure-safety-of-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/10/27/western-states-join-califo...

betterunix2 5y ago
That was done in response to concerns that Trump was trying to push the FDA to approve the vaccines faster to serve his own political ambitions: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/politics/white-house-fda-coronavirus-vaccine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/politics/white-house-fda-coro... https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-business-mark-meadows-coronavirus-pandemic-0902fbb041b0459e55da86be75b1457a https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-business-mark-meadow... Moreover, Gov. Newsom's statements did not say that the vaccines were unsafe; he simply said that he was establishing an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the same evidence that the FDA evaluated. At no point did he say that people should seek ivermectim or hydroxychloroquin or that people should just rely on natural immunity. Even if Newsom did the wrong thing here, it is a far cry from the Republicans, who have pushed the narrative that people should feel no specific obligation to get vaccinated because of "freedom." Trump has stood before crowds of vaccine-hesitant supporters and said, "Get the shot if you want to." Republican governors have echoed that sentiment. The results speak for themselves: Democrats have higher vaccination rates and Democrat-leaning areas have lower infection and lower hospitalization rates compared to Republicans.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Since the inception of the FDA, when else have state governments independently verified drugs like this? It is clearly a signal that one ought not to trust the FDA. Is it any surprise that large cohorts of the democratic party (namely, their non-white cohorts) do not want to get the drug? I am not surprised. > "Get the shot if you want to." That is exactly what any sane person should say. Trump is pro-vaccine. He has unequivocally said he has had it and thinks it's a good idea. He's just anti-mandate. You can be pro-vaccine (as in you believe others should get it), while being against a mandate. This is insanity. The expectation that one must believe that the government ought to require a vaccine in order to not be anti-vax is quite the shift of goal posts.

iammisc 5y ago

The previous president was and is extremely pro-vaccine. People claim there is a large republican cohort of anti-vax politicians, but there is not. There is a large GOP cohort of anti-vax-mandate politicians, but being against a mandate does not mean being anti vax, unless you're changing the meaning. > If the previous president had not politicized the response to COVID and had simply told his followers to do what the CDC says we would have many millions more people getting the vaccine (and for the matter, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive). You are accusing Trump of politicizing COVID while ignoring Andrew Cuomo, who at the beginning of the pandemic, used COVID, and the fact he was not Trump, for his political advantage, and the media gushed and was happy to give him more airtime than Trump, despite the fact it was obvious from the very beginning that New York State's handling was much worse than Trumps.

thomaskcr 5y ago
Trump literally still calls it the "Trump Vaccine". Also I think people forget how much airtime went into "the vaccine isn't the answer" once Trump started talking about warp speed and the second the election was over it was "the vaccine is the only answer". I think you can blame a lot on Trump and repubs with regards to protocols, level of concern, being actively anti-mask, etc but it takes a very selective memory to act like Trump wasn't 1000% on board with the vaccine. Examples: - Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be 'colossally stupid' By Jen Christensen, CNN Updated 11:34 AM EDT, Tue September 01, 2020 - CNN: The timetable for a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months. Experts say that's risky By Robert Kuznia Updated 2:14 PM EDT, Wed April 01, 2020 - Here's where we stand on getting a coronavirus vaccine By Holly Yan, CNN Updated 1:45 PM EDT, Mon June 08, 2020 - With big talk and hurled insults, the gloves come off in the race for the coronavirus vaccine By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent Updated 7:00 AM EDT, Wed May 27, 2020 > (CNN)Ethicists and physicians are concerned that, amid a desire to put an end to the Covid-19 pandemic, developers of drugs and vaccines have become overly enthusiastic about the chances their products will work.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Correct. This is one of the few areas where trump seemingly disagrees with his own base. Sites like patriots.win (remnants of thedonald) criticize trump for his vax support.

spookthesunset 5y ago

Why would anybody get vaccinated if they have to continue wearing masks? How does that make any sense at all? It ain’t republicans pushing that kind of nonsense. And what does “take this serious” actually mean? This is a values thing. A lot of people justifiably get upset that the government wants them to put their entire life on hold indefinitely for a virus they aren’t concerned with. Life isn’t meant to survive. It’s meant to be lived. Life is very short and so far a non trivial amount of it has been spent on this. There is way more to life than a myopic fixation on exactly one single illness.

tshaddox 5y ago
For the same reason that some people might wear seat belts and continue following the rest of the rules of the road.

nkssy 5y ago

Unpopular opinion: I'd not let either side off the hook. Politics caused multiple screw ups in the pandemic response. Still is. Partisan politics aren't a good idea when forming public health policies. Nor is fear. Especially the fear being used for political gain. The most enlightening aspect of the whole COVID debacle was just how bad politicians are with science. Democrats criticised vaccines just for political reasons. Republicans did also. As for censorship, that never leads anywhere good. If the public discourse cannot openly mock bad content because it has already been "disappeared" then we are not better off. I'm just hoping this pandemic doesn't cause a meltdown into outright authoritarianism. We've already seen what nazism and communism did and I'd rather not have society try either of them again.

tshaddox 5y ago

Yeah, it’s pretty silly to look at how pretty much every opinion regarding COVID-19 follows party lines so closely and conclude that negative opinions about vaccines are caused by public health experts failing to maintain public trust. This defense reminds me of a similar one we’ve seen recently: “this group is only bigoted because they’ve been called bigots by the media for so long.”