Vaccines, if Trump won.

[Backup]

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.

If you are still unvaccinated, you are still in he middle of the pandemic. Hardly anyone who has been vaccinated is getting it.


The unvaccinated are better off than before because fewer people are likely to have it because they did the right thing.

[CivilDiscourse]

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.

They didn't lie about school openings either. That didn't stop liberals, media, and politicians stalling or fighting, on re-opening.

[rogue06]

Obviously Trump can’t be trusted, but if the CDC and WHO said the vaccines were safe, most liberals would get them.

You do bring up an interesting point, though. I wonder if right-wingers would get the vaccine if Trump told them to.

No need to wonder. He did. Especially after he got one.

But the fact is that the left is just as guilty of planting seeds of doubt about the vaccines (see the examples in the OP) as anyone else has been accused of being.

It just goes to show the truth of the old adage that if you want to know what the left is doing just look at what they're accusing others of doing.

[oxmixmudd]

They didn't lie about school openings either. That didn't stop liberals, media, and politicians stalling or fighting, on re-opening.

What causes you to characterize delays in reopening as 'stalling or fighting'

Assuming they were in fact stalling or fighting reopening, what do you believe is the explanation for why they did it?

[oxmixmudd]

...

But the fact is that the left is just as guilty of planting seeds of doubt about the vaccines (see the examples in the OP) as anyone else has been accused of being.

...

That is such a strange and perverse characterization of the quotes from the op. Take the first quote from Biden:

Biden said Americans should trust a coronavirus vaccine developed under the Trump administration only if the president gives “honest answers” to questions about its safety, effectiveness and equitable distribution. “I trust vaccines. I trust scientists. But I don’t trust Donald Trump,” Biden said. “And at this point, the American people can’t, either.”

Is that a quote casting doubt on the vaccines or on Donald Trump's ability to be truthful about them? I see the latter, not the former.

The same is true of the other quotes you are characterizing as casting doubt on the vaccine. Mostly, they are casting doubt on information given by the Trump administration. They are cautions which demand corroborating remarks from trustworthy organizations, recognizing the Trump administration's capacity to lie about them if it is in their best interests to do so.

This is nothing like the sorts of comments we see from the right about the vaccines, which go after the vaccines themselves, their relative safety and effectiveness.

[CivilDiscourse]

That is such a strange and perverse characterization of the quotes from the op. Take the first quote from Biden:



Is that a quote casting doubt on the vaccines or on Donald Trump's ability to be truthful about them? I see the latter, not the former.

The same is true of the other quotes you are characterizing as casting doubt on the vaccine. Mostly, they are casting doubt on information given by the Trump administration. They are cautions which demand corroborating remarks from trustworthy organizations, recognizing the Trump administration's capacity to lie about them if it is in their best interests to do so.

This is nothing like the sorts of comments we see from the right about the vaccines, which go after the vaccines themselves, their relative safety and effectiveness.

A distinction without a difference if the result ends up people being vaccine hesitant.

To be specific, democrats laid alot of ground work to not trust the results of Operation Warpspeed. It was too fast, it didn't have the same safety, etc. That would lead people to mistrust the vaccine itself. Then, all it would take is some compiant media to shine the spotlight on the rare side effects to scare up the fear.

After all, they did manage to get nearly 1/4 of democrats to think that they had a 50/50 chance of ending up in the hospital from Covid.

[oxmixmudd]

A distinction without a difference if the result ends up people being vaccine hesitant.

And that is a dismissal in form only. In the quotes the qualification was if the Trump admin being truthful, something that can be resolved by the testimony of trustworthy, uncompromising sources.

The issue with the direct attacks from the right is they are substanceless attacks that have no real means of being disproven. They come in the form of hidden potential dangers years hence or casting shade on the process and the actual scientists doing the research and developing the vaccines.

To be specific, democrats laid alot of ground work to not trust the results of Operation Warpspeed. It was too fast, it didn't have the same safety, etc. That would lead people to mistrust the vaccine itself. Then, all it would take is some compiant media to shine the spotlight on the rare side effects to scare up the fear. ...

Not true. They raised legitimate questions which could be and were addressed and dealt with. By the time the vaccines came out they were fully on board with them and trying to get the admin to get on board with a distribution engine that had a chance of being successful. Of course, by then the Trump admin had begun to sabotage what was perhaps their best contribution to this nation and even the world.

[CivilDiscourse]

And that is a dismissal in form only. In the quotes the qualification was if the Trump admin being truthful, something that can be resolved by the testimony of trustworthy, uncompromising sources.

The issue with the direct attacks from the right is they are substanceless attacks that have no real means of being disproven. They come in the form of hidden potential dangers years hence or casting shade on the process and the actual scientists doing the research and developing the vaccines.




Not true. They raised legitimate questions which could be and were addressed and dealt with. By the time the vaccines came out they were fully on board with them and trying to get the admin to get on board with a distribution engine that had a chance of being successful. Of course, by then the Trump admin had begun to sabotage what was perhaps their best contribution to this nation and even the world.

Yes, its amazing what they agree to do one Trump lost.

[rogue06]

That is such a strange and perverse characterization of the quotes from the op. Take the first quote from Biden:



Is that a quote casting doubt on the vaccines or on Donald Trump's ability to be truthful about them? I see the latter, not the former.

The same is true of the other quotes you are characterizing as casting doubt on the vaccine. Mostly, they are casting doubt on information given by the Trump administration. They are cautions which demand corroborating remarks from trustworthy organizations, recognizing the Trump administration's capacity to lie about them if it is in their best interests to do so.

This is nothing like the sorts of comments we see from the right about the vaccines, which go after the vaccines themselves, their relative safety and effectiveness.

If Trump had won that sentiment would still be expressed and in spades. They wouldn't focus on what the scientists were saying. They would keep calling it "Trump's vaccine" and dismissing it as unsafe.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, its amazing what they agree to do one Trump lost.

Sarcasm noted. The question is why? I gave you clear distinctions. And the Democrats were well on board with the vaccines long before the Election was decided.

[oxmixmudd]

If Trump had won that sentiment would still be expressed and in spades. They wouldn't focus on what the scientists were saying. They would keep calling it "Trump's vaccine" and dismissing it as unsafe.

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.

[Gondwanaland]

Interesting, It appears the WHO is now saying children under 18 should not be vaccinated at this time. I'm guessing it has at least somewhat to do with the inflamed heart issues that are now popping up in younger people who get the vaccine.

https://www.precisionvaccinations.co...id-19-vaccines

The World Health Organization (WHO) published revised advice on June 21, 2021, clarifying which populations should receive COVID-19 vaccines. The WHO's website now states, 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.'

Furthermore, the WHO says 'There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults.'

'However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.'

Additionally, the WHO confirmed 'COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older, including those with pre-existing conditions of any kind, including auto-immune disorders. These conditions include hypertension, diabetes, asthma, pulmonary, liver, and kidney disease, as well as chronic infections that are stable and controlled.'

'While a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent serious illness and death, we still don’t know the extent to which it keeps you from being infected and passing the virus on to others. The more we allow the virus to spread, the more opportunity the virus has to change.'

This WHO advice conflicts with the U.S. FDA's authorization on May 10, 2021, to include people 12 years old in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination program.

[CivilDiscourse]

Sarcasm noted. The question is why? I gave you clear distinctions. And the Democrats were well on board with the vaccines long before the Election was decided.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321839/...ast-month.aspx


Notice how prior to the election, democrats willingness started falling, compared to republicans growing. Which isn't surprising given the articles in the OP, and how that sort of news likely impacted the following data:

https://www.kff.org/report-section/k...us-in-the-u-s/

[seanD]

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.

Scientist Says Some Colleagues Were Hesitant to Legitimize Lab-Leak Theory Out of Fear They Would Be ‘Associated with Trump’

A scientist who recently endorsed the possibility that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab has revealed that some of her colleagues were hesitant to legitimize the hypothesis while President Trump was in office for fear they would be “associated” with him.

Alina Chan and 18 fellow scientists published a letter in the journal Science last month demanding a thorough inquiry into the virus’s origin, including the possibility that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The document was one of the catalysts that helped reinvigorate debate around the lab-leak theory, which was dismissed for more than a year as a conspiracy theory by much of the mainstream press and censored as disinformation by social media giants.

Unlike her more unconvinced peers, Chan was one of the lone wolves pioneering real consideration of the lab-leak possibility in the early days of the pandemic. She authored a May 2020 paper, with the collaboration of a colleague who conducted computational genetic analysis, challenging the scientific consensus that COVID was zoonotic, meaning it had originated in animals.

Imagine the importance of investigating the true origins of a pandemic, and what the consequences that might have on mankind, all negated because of TDS.

[oxmixmudd]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321839/...ast-month.aspx


Notice how prior to the election, democrats willingness started falling, compared to republicans growing. Which isn't surprising given the articles in the OP, and how that sort of news likely impacted the following data:

https://www.kff.org/report-section/k...us-in-the-u-s/

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?