Sure, the problem is they were working against it getting EUA. It is as if I agree to lend you my car if you pass your driving test and then bribe the examiner to fail you.
Not that I wanted the vaccine passed with EUA but, it goes to show how it was a political move. Pelosi and others probably also wanted a chance to invest their millions with more insider knowledge.
Thatâs quite a leap of logic. You think Biden is being reasonable with this? It seems to me it was more of the same reflexive anti-Trump politicking we saw for years. Nearly all of which was rooted in fantasy or at least several impressive leaps of logic away from any actual words or deeds done by Trump.
Like Harris justifying her opposition to the vaccine by claiming Trump said to inject bleach, which he didnât.
Besides, thatâs not even what the president does. Thereâs no plausible scenario where a vaccine gets developed, the scientific community says itâs a bad vaccine and Trump somehow âapprovesâ it. Those scenarios only exist in the minds of people who believe that Trump instructed people to inject bleach, that he conspired with Russia to steal the election by tricking people on Facebook, that he nominated a gang rapist to the Supreme Court, and that he tried to overthrow the government by sending secret codes to a mob with no weapons or cohesive plan that were somehow hidden in the words âGo Homeâ.
Democrats were absolutely playing politics with the vaccine. Thatâs all theyâve done for most of recent memory, play politics with serious situations. They certainly havenât been generating any good outcomes through their policies. Thatâs precisely why the core of their current rhetoric centers around fact-free media narratives and fear mongering on COVID.
To this point I have not seen any evidence that either Biden or Harris suggested that the actual vaccines that were developed should not be taken. Iâve seen posts, articles and quotes indicating that prior to any vaccines actual being on the market, there was strong skepticism about POTENTIAL vaccines. But none of the links/quotes shared here, unless I missed something, are related to the actual vaccines that made it to the market. Any disagreement there?
I have an analogy.
I donât trust the idea of self driving cars. I say âi wonât trust that self driving cars are safe, effective means of transportation just because Elon musk tells me they are!â
A year from now, Tesla releases an actual self driving car on the market, with a whole bunch of data indicating theyâre actually doing what theyâre supposed to be doing. I say âwell shit, canât believe they actually did it! I didnât trust olâ Elon, but by God, those engineers at Tesla sure did come through! Iâm gonna get one!â
Thatâs what this is.
It isnât by his quote. âI trust vaccines, I trust scientists. But I donât trust Donald Trumpâ.
I take that to mean that to him Donald Trumpâs approval on the vaccine doesnât mean anything to him. If the scientists approve that is enough by his quote. I donât think Donald agreeing would nullify the scientists.
But Biden didnât say he wouldnât take it because it was approved by Trump. His quote reads that he would need scientists to approve, not just Trump.
I should have said you used the articles in a misleading way, not the articles themselves.
Letâs say a new vaccine came out without the support of scientists and Biden said to take it. Would it be reasonable to not take it in that case?
Good analogy, and I believe that is representative of what Biden was saying.
And republicans arenât playing politics with covid policy?
Itâs extremely unfortunate that a serious, life altering matter such as a wide scale pandemic has become so polarised and politicised
The pandemic has given a sizable demographic the needs to feel superior. With this incessant virtue signalling in Australia I noticed a majority climbed atop of their ivory tower to judge the private lives of others in the basis of âyour activity is conducive towards spreading the Rona⊠youâre part of the problem!â
However this sizable demographic was also able to live out a sheltered, cozy lifestyle working at home, collecting job keeper checks⊠it was pathetic
They didnât take into account not everyone can work at home, some live in small apartments⊠years of prolonged isolation in this scenario is conducive for the development of suicial ideation and drug/alcohol abuse. What of those adolescents who live in broken or abusive homes?
Most adults and young adults in Aus (where I was at least) alike appear to lack emotional intelligence, as a society many became disconnected from reality⊠as an AUTISTIC individual Iâm pointing this out
This is what Iâve taken away from the pandemic. Iâm also in shock and awe as to how many seem to get off on feeling morally superior to others. These people arenât virtuous though⊠theyâre worse than those who try to go about living their lives as they would otherwise because they wont shut the fuck up about how great they are for staying indoors for two years.
Now Aus is fucked, theyve opened up (with the exception of WA/NT) and suddenly Aus has one of the highest infection rates in the world⊠but everyone is scared because for the past two years the narrative of "be afraid, be VERY afraidââ has been shoved down the throat of every Australian.
Now youâve got ques spanning hours for⊠people trying to buy rapid antigen testsâŠ
Sorry Flip, thatâs not a good analogy. Not if youâre using it to explain away Democrat criticism of the vaccine borne out of no data whatsoever, or even any realistic notion of what the presidentâs role in the vaccine development process was.
If Trump donned a lab coat and whipped up a mystery concoction himself, or if perhaps the Trump Hotel business suddenly sprouted a virology department then, I think, your analogy would be suitable. I would share those concerns in that entirely fictional situation. If the scientific community was sounding loud alarm bells at the time, which they werenât, it would be a reasonable statement by Biden or Harris.
Biden and Harrisâ words and the broader situation were not like you characterized. It was, as I described above, reflexive anti-Trump rhetoric completely disconnected from reality. It was, quite obviously, more of the same fantasy Trump narrative and fear-mongering from Democrats, which is the only stuff they have left.
Itâs the same rhetoric that will now get you removed from social media or potentially ran out of your professional field, depending on your profession.
Any policy is, by definition, political.
âPlaying politicsâ is when serious situations are cynically exploited for political advantages, not for any likely improved outcome achieved through sound policy.
That doesnât mean Republicans donât play politics too, but it does not constitute the core of their rhetoric or actions right now. Ron Desantis, perhaps the most prominent Republican of the Biden era, has treated this entire situation seriously from the start, with good results for Florida that can be observed and evaluated.
He doesnât need fact-free media narratives, he can just point to his policies and the outcomes.
What if Trump had mentioned other potential Covid treatments in positive light that were not backed by the scientific or medical community?
Are we talking about fantasy narratives like injecting bleach or are you just talking about his mention of hydroxychloriquine or however you spell it?
If his mention of the latter causes you to doubt the vaccine development process in general or Operation Warp Speed specifically, well, thatâs your opinion.
I wouldnât consider it informed, but youâre free to have an opinion like that. Plenty of people believed all kinds of crazy stuff about Trump that wasnât borne out by any set of facts. A belief that Trump is subverting the vaccine development process somehow wouldnât be at all out of character for someone who believed all of the other fact-free media narratives presented as credible reports by people claiming to be journalists. Sowing distrust of the vaccine by Democrats for principled reasons of âTrumpâ fits right into all of the other fact-free media narratives being presented as fact.
That may be reasonable to you, but it strikes me as more unreason and unhinged rhetoric that has become pervasive among modern Democrats. This is why long explanations are required to arrive at the mental gymnastics needed to describe either Biden or Harrisâ statements on this as âreasonableâ.
If you meant something else, feel free to explain.
I wonât get to into it. I just took issue with Patâs original claim, and then his use of an article, in which Bidenâs actual quote didnât support his claim.
We donât know why Biden said what he did, when he said his âI trust vaccines. I trust scientists. But I donât trust Donald Trumpâ quote. I find that coming to the conclusion that:
Is making too many assumptions about the intent of the statement. It is jumping to conclusions.
Biden and Harrisâ words seemed like straightforwardly cynical statements designed to damage Trump with no regard for how it will shape public perception of the vaccine developed by scientists.
Playing politics, in other words.
And it is not at all unreasonable to point out how deeply incongruent those statements were in light of the current policy and rhetoric of those same democrats. Just one year after telling you to not trust it, the same individuals now in control of the executive branch want you to be fired from your job if you donât take it.
Thatâs worthy of observation and commentary.
Patâs observation was so reasonable that explaining it away requires a set of mental gymnastics rooted in the notion that Trump was somehow subverting the process at Pfizer, et al AND the FDA, all without the expected uproar such subversion would entail.
And that brings us here, to the reasonable statements of Biden and Harris, sounding the dread alarm about Trumpâs minor, nearly inconsequential role in the entire effort, all for the public good of course.
I think this is where we donât agree.
I see it as them saying, because Trump approves it, that isnât enough for me, I want scientific support. To me that isnât anti vaccine. Itâs I donât trust this guy, he isnât credible, I want science to back it up.
I think taking the Biden quote differently requires making assumptions.
âBiden said Americans should trust a coronavirus vaccine developed under the Trump administration only if the president gives âhonest answersâ to questions about its safety, effectiveness and equitable distribution. âI trust vaccines. I trust scientists. But I donât trust Donald Trump,â Biden said. âAnd at this point, the American people canât, either.ââ
I donât actually think @pat was making assumptions at all here.
All of the mental gymnastics found in the Oberlin College social science department canât find a way to cast Harrisâ statements in such a light.
If we accept your rather strange interpretation that Biden was merely advising people to be cautious of a hypothetical situation where we somehow have a vaccine that scientists say is bad but Trump says is goodâŠ
What do you think this statement achieved?
I do see it as a shot at Donald Trump. I donât necessarily see it as a shot at the vaccine.
I didnât comment on that.
I see it as a shot at Trump, TBH. But I donât see the second part of trying to get people to distrust the vaccine. I see the first two parts of the statement as making that clear.
It was the political rhetoric and it happens on both sides of the aisle
So please stop defending the democrats side of the aisleâŠthey spewed anti-vaccine rhetoric because Trump was in officeâŠwhen he lost the election they started being in favor of the vaccineâŠitâs hypocrisy at its best
Well, you said âthemâ, so I assumed you referred to someone else besides Biden. I guess it wasnât Harris.
Of course it was a shot at Trump. Thatâs all it was. That was the justification for every far-flung statement by every Democrat that has no basis in fact whatsoever during the Trump era.
That doesnât change the nature of their statements. If someone is foolish enough to listen to Joe Biden about anything this statement could easily be interpreted as sowing doubt about the vaccine.
I suppose it can also be interpreted as warning people to not take a vaccine if one is somehow developed that scientists object to but Donald Trump âapprovesâ, as if thatâs how any of this works at all.
Luckily the latter didnât happen and Democrats can move ahead with their latest version of a two-tier society brought about through government policy.
Thatâs because science.
Of course it works.
In my analogy, I donât like the idea of self driving cars being developed by Elonâs company without actually consulting data. I like cars in general. But this particular version of car doesnât sound promising. Then I get data, the actual self driving cars are released to the public, and I decide to buy the car.
Regarding Covid: I (the Democrat) donât like the idea of a vaccine being developed under the Trump administration without consulting data. I like vaccines in general. But this particular version of a vaccine doesnât sound promising. Then I get data, the actual vaccines are released to the public, and I decide to get the vaccine.
Also why my analogy works. Elonâs not doing the actual engineering. He just owns the company. Trumpâs not doing the science. Same same.
The tech community isnât sounding alarm bells about self driving cars. Iâm still skeptical.
Youâre right. Forgot to mention I just donât like Elon. Heâs a pompous dick, and I really donât want to invest in anything he makes.
Unless I really like the product and it can potentially save lives. Then Iâll probably buy in.