Coronavirus

I think the word "shouldn't" is kinda confusing here. If you mean they shouldn't have to get it, that's a very different statement than saying that not getting it is a good decision. Statistically, if you don't have some existing health condition that gives you a significant chance of having a bad reaction, getting it is clearly the right decision, so they "should" get it.

It's also not cool that the 60% of my state that isn't vaccinated is forcing me to cancel my vacation at the end of the month, or forcing my health-compromised mother to spend the remainder of her life going literally nowhere ever again for the foreseeable future.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

So you think Trump was endorsing a vaccine that wasn’t the ones being developed during his administration?

Even implying this was possible--that Trump would pressure the FDA in an unwarranted approval or something--was reckless and implausible. Trump doesn't have that authority and she could've easily made that distinction. Instead, she muddied the waters on an issue where we need as much clarity as possible, presumably because in a debate context her only instinct was to position herself opposite the other side. It was irresponsible.

FWIW, I know liberals who were furious about this at the time, too.

So we have already moved a long way away from a national mandate, which is what I thought we were talking about.

I would definitely take things on a case by case basis and see where we end up. I have no doubt it will be mandated by the healthcare system I work for at some point. We already have mandated shots.

Legally, the distinction between a national mandate and state mandates is massive, and important.

It's disheartening to hear people (not accusing anyone here, specifically, to be clear) talk about these genuine legal issues as frustrating technicalities, sometimes. This stuff matters. A lot of chaotic and confusing court battles happening now are the direct result of people (activists, politicians, and even judges themselves) being cavalier about precedent.

And yet, Trump tried to do it anyway, which is what Harris was directly referring to. The FDA, NIH and HHS all had to come out and assure the public that Trump couldn't do what he very much was openly saying that he could do, so Harris' suggestion wasn't as reckless as Trump's actions.

No, I'm still very much talking about a national mandate. You asked for a specific example, and I gave an obvious one. But what I'd prefer is something like what has been proposed in France, a 'health pass' which allows everything from entering public buildings to private establishments like restaurants, theaters, etc. (There's been local protests over there as well.)


Will it happen? Not in our current political environment when culture war election issues outweigh national interest. Future generations will be scratching their heads though, I have no doubt.

I don't think I said people shouldn't get the vaccine, other than if they didn't want to. I just said there will be some people who as it turned out, would have been better off without it. Of course I'm just talking about people who get health problems from the vaccine.

Nothing is as wreckless as Trump’s actions. I thought Trump supporters were going to be the most frustrating thing to come out of his presidency. However, for me it’s been the ridiculously low bar the left now sets for it’s politicians. “Not as bad as Trump” should be the new DNC slogan.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You are just wording it that way. Btw, I'm not saying it as to say too bad, or oh well. People will do what they need to do.

I think we're going to be seeing a lot of future candidates running on such a slogan.


But I'm just saying that Harris' comment wasn't pulled out of thin air. Trump actually had tried to intervene and threaten to fire officials if they didn't get the vaccine out before the election.

Regardless of anything Trump said, the vaccine has to be properly approved right? Harris knows that, so she could just say you're damn I'm taking the vaccine.

Doesn’t seem stupid to me. Sounds reasonable in the circumstances.

Interesting you quoted from the old ditty. Which most likely arose from the Great Plague, an outbreak of bubonic and pneumonic plague that affected London in the year 1665.

Agree.

Agree.

Nice little medical metaphor there.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

There's a lot of "tried" without a plausible chance of success. And "not as bad as Trump" is a low bar to clear, and should not generally be used as a defense of anything. Two things can be bad, to varying degrees.

I don't think there's any serious argument to be had re: Harris. Public confidence in the vaccine is massively important, as many of you are arguing quite persuasively in this very thread, and it's clearly dissonant to feel that way while downplaying her debate response, which clearly prioritized political attack over public health clarity.

This is indeed the level headed, non partisan, proper response. Was never going to happen.

My job mandated masks for a little over a year before relaxing them only if you got the shot, with proof.

In June, they removed it completely, but with the new variants, it’s looking likely we’ll have to return to it.

I got the shot, but didn’t want to. Not that I was opposed to it, mind you. I just hate needles and I’m a big fat chicken when ever I see needles. I physically cringe in terror when I see one on screen and have to look away or cover my eyes. When I got my first shot they told me “You won’t feel this.” I felt it. 😭
Also, I moved away the first time when they went to inject me and had to apologize and ask for a moment to myself. I was horrible. Literally went “Ok, ready….wait! Wait! Give me a moment!”

The question was phrased in a way that I think required the answer she gave. The question was: "If the Trump administration approves a vaccine, before or after the election, should Americans take it? Would you take it?"

Considering that one of Trump's favorite things to do was talk about how he'd find ways around regulations if they got in his way, I think that clarifying that she'd want a doctor-approved vaccine is a legit answer, even if a simple "I would definitely take an FDA_approved vaccine" would have been a much better one.

I dislike the ambiguity of "the Trump administration" in the question, because it seems deliberately unclear whether it mainly means Trump himself giving something the thumbs up (as he did with hydroxychloroquine) or the actual agencies.

I don't love the question or the answer. I agree that it muddies the waters, but I also think that the question itself positions it that way. She's also debating a person who refused to mask when he visited a hospital, which was a violation of that hospital's policy, just to make a political point.

This is partly why I mostly tuned out of the news cycle--almost everything and everyone was annoying and keeping one eye on their own self-interest.

Reps for days. This seems a good place for me to dip.

Kinda depends on whether they have a good reason not to want to, doesn't it?

Right. But if those problems are not foreseeable, and very rare, and much less likely to be problems than the problems that result from getting COVID...then isn't this statement just philosophical? Not something that actually works as advice for someone thinking about getting the vaccine or not.

You can say someone who gets hit by a car shouldn't have gone on that walk, but that obviously doesn't mean going for walks is a bad idea.