People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. These are two different things. Ignoring post-COVID immunity studies just makes officials look unscientific and doesn't contribute to the final goal. Being unscientific puts you at the same level as hucksters. Getting rid of health care workers that risked it all and put a huge strain on their families is just plain dumb and ungrateful. The idea they don't know the whole story is baffling.
For you perhaps, but some people have the terminal goal of avoiding vaccination, even if that increases the threat. That is why the government is doing anything and everything, including FUD, to push vaccines down peoples' throats. Their actions will always seem irrational if you ignore that.
The single simplest summation of the concept of evil is "the end justifies the means".
That's a rather strong way to describe someone who refuses to implement a policy you like.
You might be right, a natural immunity exemption might be sound policy. I personally tend to agree. But you can't make the case for it by pretending that opposition to it is based in ignorance or evil, if the opposition is due to the concern that people who would abuse it and the result would be more deaths.
Vaccine mandates are now down the path of forbidding us to choose what we do with our own bodies.
This is a very, very dangerous path.
Punishing nurses that have aquired immunity via natural infection will hopefully be considered criminal in a not too far away future. Fortunately there are very few places in the world that thinks that doing so is a good idea.
You may not like that CNN endorses vaccination, but you'd be hard pressed to catch them in even a simple incorrect statement, much less an intentional lie, let alone at the same order of magnitude. It is hard not to endorse vaccination if you understand the science.
"If Trump tells us to take it [The Vaccine], I won't" - Kamala Harris
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/2020-vp-debate-kamala-harris-o...
She is clearly referring to the potential scenario back last year when Trump could be pushing for a vaccine to be approved and released that did not satisfy scientific medical standards, just to benefit in the election. That stance doesn't fit in a few seconds of sound bite, of course.
That the left was also guilty of politicizing the vaccine & throwing doubting on its safety when it was politically expedient.
Nor did Kamala Harris throw doubt on an existing and proven vaccine. No vaccine had been approved at that point, whereas Trump was blundering through the pandemic response in search of any way to save his political hide. There was a lot of evidence Trump put pressure on public health officials to downplay the pandemic and put people at more risk than necessary.
Trump had already been known to be conman before he was elected. Everything we learned since only put more details on that fact.
They did exist, were 6+ months and several stages into trials & were given temporary authorization only 2 months latter.
She fomented fear & distrust about the safety of vaccines to score talking points in a debate. Not sure why you think she should get a free pass.
Trump admitted in interviews with Bob Woodward that he was lying about the pandemic. What more proof do you need for him to be completely untrustworthy on the topic?
About what?
> The vaccines weren't approved yet, end of story.
They weren't fully approved until about 6 weeks ago. They had gone through several massive trials and government approvals when she implied the vaccines were unsafe a year ago on national television.
(I will concede that, in implying that Trump would push people to get a vaccine before it was ready, she was wildly wrong.)
Exactly, she (the left) also politicized the vaccine. QED
The fear that Trump might push an unproven, unsatisfactory vaccine, was legitimate. Doing so would have damaged the actual vaccination campaign immensely.
I think you're confusing cause and effect here. The politicization of the vaccine is the reason the government is now pushing vaccine mandates and such, not a reaction to it. If Fox News had spent the last year telling its viewers that seat belts make you sterile, the government would be raising fines and ramping up enforcement and generally adopting policies to force people to wear seat belts, right? And some of those policies would inevitably look like overreach, and people would be writing essays like this one complaining about that overreach.