4 ms·

When the talking heads went from "the vaccines are rushed for political reasons" before the election, to "the vaccines are super effective, lets mandate their u

When the talking heads went from "the vaccines are rushed for political reasons" before the election, to "the vaccines are super effective, lets mandate their use" ... that showed pretty clearly that the politics were overriding any science. Changing the definitions of "vaccination" and "vaccine effectiveness" to keep the narrative going wasn't great for anyone's credibility either.

melling 5y ago
I suppose if people could provide actual quotes of people, rather than “let me tell you what people said”, we could have a better discussion. I’ve found that people tend to take comments completely out of context for political reasons.
_23sd 5y ago
As the video points out (7:50), 40% of conservatives were already saying they wouldn't get a hypothetical vaccine as early as May 2020, well before the election and before there was any certainty about effectiveness. Public health authorities have made a lot of bad mistakes in talking about vaccination but it seems to have only given people materials to build justification for their already-entrenched views.
HWR_14 5y ago
> When the talking heads went from "the vaccines are rushed for political reasons" before the election, to "the vaccines are super effective, lets mandate their use" That never happened. There were worries before the vaccine was released that it would be rushed for political reasons. That went away long before the election. > Changing the definitions of "vaccination" and "vaccine effectiveness" That never happened. Some right-wing "news" people said that they did. But they were paraphrasing and (mis)interpreting what people were saying specifically to pretend they were shifting definitions. (I used never, when I mean "no significant instances". I'm sure some random talking head in a third-tier market or maybe even an isolated case of someone with a national microphone said something dumb.)
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  There is a video of Kamala Harris declining to get a vaccine if it is developed under Trump administration. I’ll try to find it in a bit. Good morning folks! Edit: Actually she said she would take it if doctors say so, but not if Trump tells her to get one: https://youtu.be/-dAjCeMuXR0 https://youtu.be/-dAjCeMuXR0
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Thanks for adding your edit. Yes, she (and others) said they didn't trust Trump's word alone on a vaccine. The CDC and independent agencies (including from other countries) came out with a positive review of the vaccine before the election.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    It's not partisan to think that the brazen conman in the White House might undermine our traditional public health institutions to try and make himself look good, as was in line with the rest of his behavior. We can "both sides" all day long, and as a libertarian I in fact often do. But there are many topics where Trump irrefutably harmed our society to stroke his own ego, in a way that a status quo politician would not have.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      Definitely, but she did literally politicize it. She could have left it at "I'll take it up on doctor's recommendation", but she didn't.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        From my perspective, Harris was echoing what was already widespread common sense. Trump had four years of undermining longstanding American institutions (the "deep state"), which had just culminated in his fully committing to nonsensical covid denial [0]. Having an irrational autocrat at the helm destroys public trust, because in addition to the everpresent worry of nonpartisan political motives (eg approve this vaccine so some company can make money), we have to worry about more direct partisan political motives (eg approve this vaccine to make me look good). [0] Still trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, I personally thought Trump was going to come around to reality by June 2020. Doing so would have made him a shoe-in for a second term.

melling 5y ago

I suppose if people could provide actual quotes of people, rather than “let me tell you what people said”, we could have a better discussion. I’ve found that people tend to take comments completely out of context for political reasons.

_23sd 5y ago

As the video points out (7:50), 40% of conservatives were already saying they wouldn't get a hypothetical vaccine as early as May 2020, well before the election and before there was any certainty about effectiveness. Public health authorities have made a lot of bad mistakes in talking about vaccination but it seems to have only given people materials to build justification for their already-entrenched views.

HWR_14 5y ago

> When the talking heads went from "the vaccines are rushed for political reasons" before the election, to "the vaccines are super effective, lets mandate their use" That never happened. There were worries before the vaccine was released that it would be rushed for political reasons. That went away long before the election. > Changing the definitions of "vaccination" and "vaccine effectiveness" That never happened. Some right-wing "news" people said that they did. But they were paraphrasing and (mis)interpreting what people were saying specifically to pretend they were shifting definitions. (I used never, when I mean "no significant instances". I'm sure some random talking head in a third-tier market or maybe even an isolated case of someone with a national microphone said something dumb.)

systemvoltage 5y ago
There is a video of Kamala Harris declining to get a vaccine if it is developed under Trump administration. I’ll try to find it in a bit. Good morning folks! Edit: Actually she said she would take it if doctors say so, but not if Trump tells her to get one: https://youtu.be/-dAjCeMuXR0 https://youtu.be/-dAjCeMuXR0
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Thanks for adding your edit. Yes, she (and others) said they didn't trust Trump's word alone on a vaccine. The CDC and independent agencies (including from other countries) came out with a positive review of the vaccine before the election.
- mindslight 5y ago
  It's not partisan to think that the brazen conman in the White House might undermine our traditional public health institutions to try and make himself look good, as was in line with the rest of his behavior. We can "both sides" all day long, and as a libertarian I in fact often do. But there are many topics where Trump irrefutably harmed our society to stroke his own ego, in a way that a status quo politician would not have.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Definitely, but she did literally politicize it. She could have left it at "I'll take it up on doctor's recommendation", but she didn't.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      From my perspective, Harris was echoing what was already widespread common sense. Trump had four years of undermining longstanding American institutions (the "deep state"), which had just culminated in his fully committing to nonsensical covid denial [0]. Having an irrational autocrat at the helm destroys public trust, because in addition to the everpresent worry of nonpartisan political motives (eg approve this vaccine so some company can make money), we have to worry about more direct partisan political motives (eg approve this vaccine to make me look good). [0] Still trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, I personally thought Trump was going to come around to reality by June 2020. Doing so would have made him a shoe-in for a second term.