I don't find this to be a big deal either way. Everything you said is essentially correct, except the benefit of politicians getting the vaccine isn't just to them. The benefit is increasing public confidence in the vaccine in a country where that is lacking, and in a situation where high vaccination rates are crucial.
I think you can come down either way on this and be fine.
I guess the fundamental question is what percentage of people need to take the vaccine to maximize effectiveness. If 50% vaccination rate is as good as 99%, then it doesn't really matter if Trump or any other prominent person takes it. If we really need 90%+ vaccination for it to be maximally effective, then yeah, Trump might be necessary to give us a shot at getting to that point.
But if every bit helps -- if an 80% vaccination rate is proportionally better than 50% -- then it seems like every prominent person to take it helps, because there are so many different angles to skepticism of the vaccine.
They can do their publicity stunts in March when we actually start to have enough for everyone who wants it
That's a fair point, but consider how starting with "you don't need a mask" and then just a few months later switching to "no, really, everyone should wear masks" backfired hard. There's a real value to sending the right message, with no equivocation, right off the bat. If a few hundred doses going to non-critical people today greatly increase the vaccination rate six months from now, that seems like a reasonable call.
I may be wrong. I just don't see this as a big issue either way, because there are decent arguments for and against this, and it's a pretty small amount of vaccine doses we're talking about.
I don't find this to be a big deal either way. Everything you said is essentially correct, except the benefit of politicians getting the vaccine isn't just to them. The benefit is increasing public confidence in the vaccine in a country where that is lacking, and in a situation where high vaccination rates are crucial.
I think you can come down either way on this and be fine.
deleted by creator
I guess the fundamental question is what percentage of people need to take the vaccine to maximize effectiveness. If 50% vaccination rate is as good as 99%, then it doesn't really matter if Trump or any other prominent person takes it. If we really need 90%+ vaccination for it to be maximally effective, then yeah, Trump might be necessary to give us a shot at getting to that point.
But if every bit helps -- if an 80% vaccination rate is proportionally better than 50% -- then it seems like every prominent person to take it helps, because there are so many different angles to skepticism of the vaccine.
deleted by creator
That's a fair point, but consider how starting with "you don't need a mask" and then just a few months later switching to "no, really, everyone should wear masks" backfired hard. There's a real value to sending the right message, with no equivocation, right off the bat. If a few hundred doses going to non-critical people today greatly increase the vaccination rate six months from now, that seems like a reasonable call.
I may be wrong. I just don't see this as a big issue either way, because there are decent arguments for and against this, and it's a pretty small amount of vaccine doses we're talking about.