Originally posted by Backup
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Vaccines, if Trump won.
Collapse
X
-
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.
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:
- 1 like
Comment
-
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.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
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
The last year exposes your claim as simply false.
- 1 like
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
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
-
Originally posted by Backup View Post
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
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostThen 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 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
-
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.
- 1 like
Comment
-
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.
from a year ago:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ovid-19-spread
Comment
-
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.
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
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View PostThe 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.
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
-
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.
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.
- 1 like
Comment
-
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.
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.
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.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
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:
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.
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?
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 little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
175 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
411 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
383 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment