Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Vaccines, if Trump won.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Backup View Post

    We’ll have to disagree on that.

    I’ve known plenty of scientists and none have based their views on science on politics.That’s what conspiracy theorists say when the scientific community doesn’t support their claims.
    The last year exposes your claim as simply false.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Backup View Post

      We’ll have to disagree on that.

      I’ve known plenty of scientists and none have based their views on science on politics.That’s what conspiracy theorists say when the scientific community doesn’t support their claims.
      I'd point you to this thread:
      https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...however-can-be

      In the gist, epidemiologists (the experts) were hesitant to speak out about the BLM protests because of conflicted feelings about the righteousness of the protests/movements themselves.

      In that case, it wasn't the science that was biased, it was the experts. From the times article quoted in that thread:

      Some public health scientists publicly waved off the conflicted feelings of their colleagues, saying the country now confronts a stark moral choice. The letter signed by more than 1,300 epidemiologists and health workers urged Americans to adopt a “consciously anti-racist” stance and framed the difference between the anti-lockdown demonstrators and the protesters in moral, ideological and racial terms.

      Those who protested stay-at-home orders were “rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives,” the letter stated.

      By contrast, it said, those protesting systemic racism “must be supported.”

      “As public health advocates,” they stated, “we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for Covid-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health.”


      I would also point out that politics can often drive what questions actually get looked at and studied, as well as exactly how results get presented:
      Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/


      Suppose, for instance, a study finds that conservatives are less likely to change their opinions on moral issues than liberals are when exposed to counterarguments. “The researchers could explain this as ‘conservatives are cognitively rigid, inflexible, and resistant to new arguments,’ ” said Eric Luis Uhlmann, a psychologist at INSEAD in Singapore and the study’s corresponding author. “However, they could just as easily have interpreted this as ‘liberals are wishy-washy, overly flexible, and don’t stand by their principles.’ ” Uhlmann and his colleagues asked participants to rate whether a study’s findings were equally discussed in relation to liberals and conservatives, or instead were pinned on one group over the other.

      Sure enough, the abstracts more often explained their findings in terms of conservative ideas rather than liberal ones, and conservatives were described more negatively in the eyes of the raters.

      The effect sizes they found were “not huge,” Uhlmann said, but they were present. “For a randomly chosen abstract there’s about a 60 percent chance of it describing liberals more favorably than conservatives, and a 56 percent chance of it explaining conservatives more,” he said. (If there were no difference, you’d expect both numbers to be 50 percent.)

      © Copyright Original Source

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Backup View Post

        You seriously believe Trump supporters don’t follow him more than any Democrats follow Biden?

        I haven’t seen anyone flying a Biden flags, or even any yard signs since the election.


        Evidince of Trump cultism is everywhere.
        You again fail to distinguish between someone who merely supports a political figure, even if enthusiastically, and someone who mindlessly follows whatever their favored politician says as if it were a divine proclamation. History shows that liberals make up the latter.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

          The last year exposes your claim as simply false.
          I doubt you can really support the idea that the thousands of medical experts working to save humanity from a pandemic that has killed millions of people were motivated by nothing more than trying to prove Trump wrong.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Backup View Post

            I doubt you can really support the idea that the thousands of medical experts working to save humanity from a pandemic that has killed millions of people were motivated by nothing more than trying to prove Trump wrong.
            https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...61#post1275361

            Comment


            • #21
              I’m not going to disagree that the dismissal of virus spread through the BLM protests was absurd.

              But since the exact opposite was also happening, we should accept the reality that a few people might have been scared to criticize BLM during the hysteria, there were political operatives actively working to undermine the science to avoid shining a bad light on the Orange Weirdo.

              https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ovid-19-412809

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Backup View Post

                I’m not going to disagree that the dismissal of virus spread through the BLM protests was absurd.
                Then you've surrendered your end of the argument.

                But since the exact opposite was also happening, we should accept the reality that a few people might have been scared to criticize BLM during the hysteria, there were political operatives actively working to undermine the science to avoid shining a bad light on the Orange Weirdo.

                https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ovid-19-412809
                See above. You are acknowledging exactly what I stated in one breath and then trying to deny it in the next.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                  Then you've surrendered your end of the argument.


                  See above. You are acknowledging exactly what I stated in one breath and then trying to deny it in the next.
                  no

                  no honest person has ever claimed, or even entertained, the idea that all scientists and medical experts are 100% unbiased, free of influence, never make mistakes, change their minds, etc.

                  That’s the sort of thing creationists say so they can claim their conspiracy theories and unqualified quacks, that are 99% wrong, are the equivalent of reality-based science, which is ~95% right.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Backup View Post

                    no

                    no honest person has ever claimed, or even entertained, the idea that all scientists and medical experts are 100% unbiased, free of influence, never make mistakes, change their minds, etc.

                    That’s the sort of thing creationists say so they can claim their conspiracy theories and unqualified quacks, that are 99% wrong, are the equivalent of reality-based science, which is ~95% right.
                    Except it wasn't 5% of scientists letting politics and political agenda decide the 'science'. It was the majority of scientists in the field that were doing it, and were crapping on those who didn't follow in lockstep. The scientists, en masse, decided to make political decisions and call it science when it came to lockdown protests vs BLM protests. They, en masse, decided to make political decisions to attack HCQ. They, en masse, decided to make political decisions to attack anyone who suggested anything other than a natural origin from the wet market for covid. They chose to make politics into 'science', for the last year.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                      Except it wasn't 5% of scientists letting politics and political agenda decide the 'science'. It was the majority of scientists in the field that were doing it, and were crapping on those who didn't follow in lockstep. The scientists, en masse, decided to make political decisions and call it science when it came to lockdown protests vs BLM protests. They, en masse, decided to make political decisions to attack HCQ. They, en masse, decided to make political decisions to attack anyone who suggested anything other than a natural origin from the wet market for covid. They chose to make politics into 'science', for the last year.
                      fyi

                      from a year ago:

                      https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ovid-19-spread

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                        Except it wasn't 5% of scientists letting politics and political agenda decide the 'science'. It was the majority of scientists in the field that were doing it, and were crapping on those who didn't follow in lockstep. The scientists, en masse, decided to make political decisions and call it science when it came to lockdown protests vs BLM protests. They, en masse, decided to make political decisions to attack HCQ. They, en masse, decided to make political decisions to attack anyone who suggested anything other than a natural origin from the wet market for covid. They chose to make politics into 'science', for the last year.
                        Here is another one from a year ago:

                        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454741/

                        there is a difference between the real science and popular narrative of the time.

                        I’m not going to deny that people were terrified of criticizing the BLM protests because they would get labeled racist on social media and have their lives destroyed. It was mass hysteria.

                        yet objective science managed to continue

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                          The first vaccine Covid Vaccine came out under a Trump presidency. But, importantly, it came out after Trump had lost the election. But, what would things look like had Trump Won the election?

                          <snip>

                          My suspicion is that had Trump won the election, and the vaccines came out when they did, we'd see a high degree of vaccine hesitency. Like the buzzfeed article, "The science would say" that the vaccines came out too soon, they didn't go through the proper safety checks, etc.

                          Motivated reasoning, and a distrust of Trump would have lead to vaccine positions switching. Liberals and Democrats would be hesitant, and I believe republicans would be lining up to take the shots.
                          I guess we have one more reason to be glad that Trump lost.

                          Personally, I would have been willing to get vaccinated (after the election) even if Trump won, provided that Fauci and others not beholden to Trump were willing to vouch for their safety and efficacy.

                          My only real hesitancy would have been before the election, when there was too much reason for people to lie.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                            I guess we have one more reason to be glad that Trump lost.

                            Personally, I would have been willing to get vaccinated (after the election) even if Trump won, provided that Fauci and others not beholden to Trump were willing to vouch for their safety and efficacy.

                            My only real hesitancy would have been before the election, when there was too much reason for people to lie.
                            Harris said she would be “first in line” to take the vaccine if the scientists said to, but wouldn’t if Trump did.

                            That’s understandable. Trump was a liar, who mishandled the pandemic horribly and obviously cared more about saving face than saving lives. Of course he would lie and say he gave us a safe vaccine even if it wasn’t true and the experts disagreed.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                              I guess we have one more reason to be glad that Trump lost.

                              Personally, I would have been willing to get vaccinated (after the election) even if Trump won, provided that Fauci and others not beholden to Trump were willing to vouch for their safety and efficacy.

                              My only real hesitancy would have been before the election, when there was too much reason for people to lie.
                              Oh, there would have been ample reason to lie after the election also. After all, the Biden administration has already been caught in lies about vaccines in order to downplay Trump's contribution:
                              Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/bidens-misleading-vaccine-boasts/

                              • Biden claimed that the Trump administration had “failed to order enough vaccines.” It had contracts in place for plenty of vaccines for all Americans, provided other vaccines gained authorization; Biden increased the orders from the two companies with authorized vaccines.
                              • The president claimed there was “no real plan to vaccinate most of the country” when he took office. There was indeed a plan to acquire and distribute vaccines. The Biden administration has done more on increasing vaccination sites and vaccinators.
                              • Biden exaggerated when he claimed that vaccinations have “nearly doubled” on his watch. Even measured at its peak, the seven-day rolling average has gone up 67%.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              If Trump had won, democrats would have had plenty of motivation to downplay the vaccines in order to keep Trump from having a win. After all, they'd be eyeing the next mid-term, and Trump ending the pandemic (and the economic recovery that would come afterwards) would not give democrats great chances during the mid-terms. But, if the vaccine wasn't effective, they'd be in a better place for the election.

                              Remember, Pelosi admitted she was willing to move forward with pandemic relief because we had a new president, when prior to, she had not been.

                              Source: https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/12/10210479/nancy-pelosi-stimulus-package-covid-relief-proposal-backlash


                              When asked about her decision to compromise with McConnell on the bill during a press conference on Capitol Hill, Pelosi called Biden’s win and the vaccine a “game-changer.” She added that the smaller relief package is “OK now because we have a new president, a president who recognizes we need to depend on science.” Pelosi further stated that while the current bill isn’t “everything we want,” Democrats could push a more expansive relief package following Biden’s inauguration in January.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              In other words, Pelosi and the Democrats were willing to let Americans suffer in order to win the election. What makes you think that wouldn't hold if Trump won a second term?
                              Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 06-20-2021, 09:52 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                                Oh, there would have been ample reason to lie after the election also. After all, the Biden administration has already been caught in lies about vaccines in order to downplay Trump's contribution:
                                Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/bidens-misleading-vaccine-boasts/

                                • Biden claimed that the Trump administration had “failed to order enough vaccines.” It had contracts in place for plenty of vaccines for all Americans, provided other vaccines gained authorization; Biden increased the orders from the two companies with authorized vaccines.
                                • The president claimed there was “no real plan to vaccinate most of the country” when he took office. There was indeed a plan to acquire and distribute vaccines. The Biden administration has done more on increasing vaccination sites and vaccinators.
                                • Biden exaggerated when he claimed that vaccinations have “nearly doubled” on his watch. Even measured at its peak, the seven-day rolling average has gone up 67%.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                If Trump had won, democrats would have had plenty of motivation to downplay the vaccines in order to keep Trump from having a win. After all, they'd be eyeing the next mid-term, and Trump ending the pandemic (and the economic recovery that would come afterwards) would not give democrats great chances during the mid-terms. But, if the vaccine wasn't effective, they'd be in a better place for the election.

                                Remember, Pelosi admitted she was willing to move forward with pandemic relief because we had a new president, when prior to, she had not been.

                                Source: https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/12/10210479/nancy-pelosi-stimulus-package-covid-relief-proposal-backlash


                                When asked about her decision to compromise with McConnell on the bill during a press conference on Capitol Hill, Pelosi called Biden’s win and the vaccine a “game-changer.” She added that the smaller relief package is “OK now because we have a new president, a president who recognizes we need to depend on science.” Pelosi further stated that while the current bill isn’t “everything we want,” Democrats could push a more expansive relief package following Biden’s inauguration in January.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                In other words, Pelosi and the Democrats were willing to let Americans suffer in order to win the election. What makes you think that wouldn't hold if Trump won a second term?
                                I seriously doubt that Fauci and the CDC would have lied about the phase 3 test results of the vaccines. And having lots of liberals die would not have been in the best interest of the Democrats.

                                But assuming you are correct for the sake of argument, I'll repeat that it's a good thing Trump lost. If one side or the other is going to be against the vaccines, it's better if it's conservatives. The places where the vaccines are needed most are the densely populated cities, which tend to have a lot more liberals.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, Today, 06:48 AM
                                2 responses
                                3 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 05:10 AM
                                8 responses
                                28 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:03 PM
                                3 responses
                                30 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 07:35 PM
                                5 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by seer, 07-31-2021, 06:01 PM
                                22 responses
                                126 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X