Vaccines, if Trump won.

[CivilDiscourse]

Well yes, there was concern Trump might rush it in a bid to have them ready in time for the election giving him the chance to use that as a positive note for his reelection. Again, that is not underlying fear of the vaccine but rather concern over the lack of integrity in the Trump admin itself. And it was easily countered by the CDC and all involved resisting urging to artificially accelerate the process on Trump's behalf.

I am curious why you think concern about the lack of integrity in the Trump admin can possibly be compared to the sort of vaccine misinformation we see floating about from the right - e.g. MM's recent comment about the vaccine being one of the most dangerous medications ever to see wide distribution?

Yes, you are right. I am wrong. I'm certain that the democrats who spent 4 years fighting and condemning everything Trump did, would have suddenly supported his vaccine if he had been re-elected.

It's not like politicians and experts said travel bans wouldn't work and were not the best way to handle a pandemic when Trump put them in place:
https://www.cato.org/publications/re...ic-travel-bans
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/23...t-ineffective/
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/12/211766...a-italy-europe

And then said Trump didn't act fast enough to put travel bans in place:
https://www.statesman.com/news/20200...vel-from-china
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9623721.html
https://www.desertsun.com/story/opin...te/5603932002/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/16/polit...rus/index.html


But you are right. Democrats wouldn't play politics with a pandemic in order to attack Trump. What was I thinking.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, you are right. I am wrong. I'm certain that the democrats who spent 4 years fighting and condemning everything Trump did, would have suddenly supported his vaccine if he had been re-elected.

It's not like politicians and experts said travel bans wouldn't work and were not the best way to handle a pandemic when Trump put them in place:
https://www.cato.org/publications/re...ic-travel-bans
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/23...t-ineffective/
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/12/211766...a-italy-europe

And then said Trump didn't act fast enough to put travel bans in place:
https://www.statesman.com/news/20200...vel-from-china
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9623721.html
https://www.desertsun.com/story/opin...te/5603932002/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/16/polit...rus/index.html


But you are right. Democrats wouldn't play politics with a pandemic in order to attack Trump. What was I thinking.

Your comments are based on the delusion that the negative reactions to Trump were on the whole not justified. Once one acknowledges on the whole they were, then it becomes clear a reality based approach to the world can differentiate between a good vaccine and the criminal narcissist that managed to for once do something good for the country and the world and not just himself.

[CivilDiscourse]

Your comments are based on the delusion that the negative reactions to Trump were not justified. Once one acknowledges they were, then it becomes clear a reality based approach to the world can differentiate between a good vaccine and the criminal narcissist that managed to for once do something good for the country and the world and not just himself.

So, how do you rationalize saying "Travel bans don't work" when Trump was putting them in place then complaining a few months later saying "Trump didn't put travel bans in place soon enough" as being valid reality based criticisms?

[oxmixmudd]

So, how do you rationalize saying "Travel bans don't work" when Trump was putting them in place then complaining a few months later saying "Trump didn't put travel bans in place soon enough" as being valid reality based criticisms?

I don't need to 'rationalize' anything. The apparent contradiction is based on overgeneralizing the comments in the articles referenced so as to create said contradiction when in fact it doesn't exist*. They each deal with different aspects of the use of travel bans. They deal with the timing of Travel bans from Europe - the actual source of US infection - and Travel bans from China. They deal with how the Travel bans were implemented and how effective they were in that form. They deal with the general concept of a travel ban in a larger context where multiple nations are moving to implement them, and they deal with the actual results of the attempted travel bans (and which tends to confirm the former).

It's rhetoric based on a desire to put a feather in Trump's cap while at the same time trying to paint Trump's critics as dishonest.

ETA:* that is not to say that some summary statements from the different articles may not be contradictory when taken out of context and set side by side. That sort of out of context juxtaposition is called 'quote mining'.

[rogue06]

I was addressing the quotes you gave and the clear distinction between what is different between Conservative/anti-vax like skepticism and what was in your quote. You waving you hands and saying - well the Dems would have been against it if Trump had won - simply isn't a discussion of those points, nor is it any sort of real argument. You are just assuming what you believe to be true in spite of the logic against that conclusion.

Sounds like you are riding on emotion and your visceral hatred of democrats, not logic or fact.

If Trump would have won, those quotes reveal exactly how the left would have proceeded because that was exactly how they had been proceeding. Instead of talking about how safe the vaccines are we would instead have headlines every time there was any sort of problem.

The permissive if not outright encouraging attitude toward the looting and rioting last year where social distancing was tossed aside in favor of social justice (at the same time they were breaking up funerals and arresting people for jogging alone without a mask) more than adequately demonstrates a calculated willingness to exploit the pandemic for political gain -- and in the worst way. They were encouraging people to engage in a behavior they new would cause huge spikes in the number infected and dying, but that was okay. Why? TDS.

[CivilDiscourse]

I don't need to 'rationalize' anything. The apparent contradiction is based on overgeneralizing the comments in the articles referenced so as to create said contradiction when in fact it doesn't exist*. They each deal with different aspects of the use of travel bans. They deal with the timing of Travel bans from Europe - the actual source of US infection - and Travel bans from China. They deal with how the Travel bans were implemented and how effective they were in that form. They deal with the general concept of a travel ban in a larger context where multiple nations are moving to implement them, and they deal with the actual results of the attempted travel bans (and which tends to confirm the former).

It's rhetoric based on a desire to put a feather in Trump's cap while at the same time trying to paint Trump's critics as dishonest.

ETA:* that is not to say that some summary statements from the different articles may not be contradictory when taken out of context and set side by side. That sort of out of context juxtaposition is called 'quote mining'.

Ox, no offense, but I gave you the links, to multiple sources, and left the reading up to you. There is no quote-mining going on there unless you are doing it yourself.

I'll be blunt. I've been very fair to you in this conversation, but given that you are now going to start throwing around insinuations of quote-mining, I'm done with you.

[Mountain Man]

e.g. MM's recent comment about the vaccine being one of the most dangerous medications ever to see wide distribution?

To be fair, I only said that based on the fact that negative outcomes from the China flu vaccine reported in VAERS exceed all other vaccines combined for the past decade. But you're right, it's probably nothing.

[oxmixmudd]

Ox, no offense, but I gave you the links, to multiple sources, and left the reading up to you. There is no quote-mining going on there unless you are doing it yourself.

I'll be blunt. I've been very fair to you in this conversation, but given that you are now going to start throwing around insinuations of quote-mining, I'm done with you.

You are completely misreading my comment about quote mining. It was not an accusation. Try reading it again when you are less angry.

Regardless, I read them. I see them as discussing different aspects of the travel bans which only fit into the conclusion there was some sort of spiteful change not based on the data if one overgeneralizes the points made. For example - the European travel bans came later than the Chinese travel ban. So wrt the possibility of helping hinder spread in NYC, trumps ban on European travel came far too late to be effective, assuming such a ban could have been effective. The ban on china, OTOH, was poorly implemented and essentially useless, ultimately targetting the wrong source.

The articles discussing travel bans in general are talking about the effectiveness of travel bans in a general context of multiple nations having already begun implementing travel bans. And the simple fact is they tend to fail for multiple reasons, not the least of which is poor targeting or timing. NZ, however, has shown that if sufficiently aggressive, they can, in fact, work, at least for an island nation.

In each case, Trump's failures can be at least partially attributed to being driven by personal interests and /or vengence rather than data and research.

As an aside, I am sorry you took offense at my reference to quote mining which was directed at potential future attempts to grab quotes out of context by whoever might try. However, I dont think it possible for anyone to anticipate what comments might cause offense on that level.