3 ms·

Not really. Trump downplayed the virus, said it would go away by summer, went on a joy ride around the block while sick just to wave at supporters, he politiciz

by syspec 5y ago

Not really. Trump downplayed the virus, said it would go away by summer, went on a joy ride around the block while sick just to wave at supporters, he politicized the virus using it to throw democratic governors under the bus even though all states eventually where hit in similar ways He created part of the perception that is causing the virus to continue to infect a higher number of people in the US, than other similar countries (places with vaccines highly availabe) Trump for his part has been advocating for the vaccine now, but he did a lot of damage already

yucky 5y ago
Counter argument, we knew far less about the virus then and didn't have a vaccine. Biden inherited a vaccine and a year of knowledge about the virus and we still had more deaths under him than under Trump. Now, I don't blame Biden. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in the media with how they decide to dole out blame. It's so biased that they have lost credibility. That's a problem.
- jfengel 5y ago
  Biden also inherited a year of misinformation by Trump telling people that the virus was unimportant. People who have taken the vaccine are largely protected -- not perfectly, but nobody ever promised you perfect. But it's very, very good, and the people dying are largely those who are unvaccinated, or infected by those who were. (Despite BS to the contrary, breakthrough cases go away much faster than cases in the unvaccinated, and so they have less time to spread it.) There's no hypocrisy, just accurately reporting the facts. They could blame Biden for failing to convince people who still buy into Trump's anti-vaccine rhetoric -- despite weak protestations to the contrary, he has spent two years downplaying the vaccine and playing up the choice not to get it. I wouldn't object to them calling that out, but it's not hypocrisy for them to not do it. "Couldn't force people to do it" just isn't in the bounds of his office -- nobody could do it.
  - yucky 5y ago
    I think this is a very biased take on it. The vaccine was developed under Trump and he heavily promoted it over the summer of 2020 and into the election. He took credit for it so much that Kamala Harris said she was not interested in "a Trump vaccine"[1] during the lead up to the election. Oddly enough, I don't hear much criticism about that. Instead the focus is on what Trump said 6 months before that, when the virus was brand new. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/harrris-vaccine-i-would-not-trust-donald-trump-n1239422 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/harrris-vacci...
    - jfengel 5y ago
      That's the focus because that's what his followers are still hearing. The FDA did its job, despite interference from the top, and everybody actually interested in science has accepted it. But decades of anti-science rhetoric have eroded that to the point that it's an article of faith -- including many supposedly science-oriented people here on HN -- that any piece of science that they don't like can be dismissed as untrustworthy.
      - yucky 5y ago
        >The FDA did its job They did, and as part of their authorization they gave Pfizer until June 2025 to complete the long term testing on all the cases of myocarditis and pericarditis - https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download So if the FDA says long term testing will not be complete until June of 2025, should we not take them at their word that long term testing is still needed?
        jfengel 5y ago
        We should take at their word that it's stunningly obvious at this point that deaths from covid are vastly greater than deaths from myocarditis. So you do the thing that saves your own life, and incidentally helps everyone else, and then you can split all the hairs you want about the pharmaceutical testing in which you are suddenly an expert. Meantime I've got zero fucks to give for distraction tactics.

by syspec 5y ago

yucky 5y ago

Counter argument, we knew far less about the virus then and didn't have a vaccine. Biden inherited a vaccine and a year of knowledge about the virus and we still had more deaths under him than under Trump. Now, I don't blame Biden. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in the media with how they decide to dole out blame. It's so biased that they have lost credibility. That's a problem.

jfengel 5y ago
Biden also inherited a year of misinformation by Trump telling people that the virus was unimportant. People who have taken the vaccine are largely protected -- not perfectly, but nobody ever promised you perfect. But it's very, very good, and the people dying are largely those who are unvaccinated, or infected by those who were. (Despite BS to the contrary, breakthrough cases go away much faster than cases in the unvaccinated, and so they have less time to spread it.) There's no hypocrisy, just accurately reporting the facts. They could blame Biden for failing to convince people who still buy into Trump's anti-vaccine rhetoric -- despite weak protestations to the contrary, he has spent two years downplaying the vaccine and playing up the choice not to get it. I wouldn't object to them calling that out, but it's not hypocrisy for them to not do it. "Couldn't force people to do it" just isn't in the bounds of his office -- nobody could do it.
- yucky 5y ago
  I think this is a very biased take on it. The vaccine was developed under Trump and he heavily promoted it over the summer of 2020 and into the election. He took credit for it so much that Kamala Harris said she was not interested in "a Trump vaccine"[1] during the lead up to the election. Oddly enough, I don't hear much criticism about that. Instead the focus is on what Trump said 6 months before that, when the virus was brand new. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/harrris-vaccine-i-would-not-trust-donald-trump-n1239422 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/harrris-vacci...
  - jfengel 5y ago
    That's the focus because that's what his followers are still hearing. The FDA did its job, despite interference from the top, and everybody actually interested in science has accepted it. But decades of anti-science rhetoric have eroded that to the point that it's an article of faith -- including many supposedly science-oriented people here on HN -- that any piece of science that they don't like can be dismissed as untrustworthy.
    - yucky 5y ago
      >The FDA did its job They did, and as part of their authorization they gave Pfizer until June 2025 to complete the long term testing on all the cases of myocarditis and pericarditis - https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download So if the FDA says long term testing will not be complete until June of 2025, should we not take them at their word that long term testing is still needed?
      - jfengel 5y ago
        We should take at their word that it's stunningly obvious at this point that deaths from covid are vastly greater than deaths from myocarditis. So you do the thing that saves your own life, and incidentally helps everyone else, and then you can split all the hairs you want about the pharmaceutical testing in which you are suddenly an expert. Meantime I've got zero fucks to give for distraction tactics.