Permanently Deleted

    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      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.

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          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.