|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 19 2021 19:29 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2021 18:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 19 2021 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 19 2021 07:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 20:37 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 18 2021 19:52 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 12:56 Salazarz wrote:
It's honestly tedious talking to you at this point, BlackJack. Just the other day you were arguing how governments are not to be trusted and how state officials routinely lie and mislead the public to achieve their goals -- but when a state officials quits in support of a position you are arguing for, suddenly that's an argument in favor of your position? How much of a hypocrite can you be?
I'm not sure this logic follows. If someone says you can't trust the NSA/CIA are they are a hypocrite if they talk about Edward Snowden because he worked for the CIA? The funny thing is you think I'm here to "own the libs" (whatever that means, I never heard this term before people starting using it here a few weeks ago). Here's a fun fact for you, team liquid used to have a sister site for poker that's still online with only a handful of active users still posting. There's a COVID vaccine thread on that site too that I also post in. For whatever reason, the majority opinion of people there is that COVID is a scamdemic, the vaccines are harmful, etc. Almost all my posts in that thread are explaining how bad COVID is, why they should get vaccinated, why the vaccines are safe, why even young/healthy people can die of COVID etc. Here's some typical posts I've made in that thread On October 07 2021 22:09 BlackJack wrote:
Nothing is 100% safe but it's way better than getting COVID. As Daut said it's not a difficult problem. Just compare the people that are sick in hospitals that are a) unvaccinated with COVID, b) vaccinated with COVID, and c) sick with vaccine reactions. It's a) 95%, b) 5%, c) 0%. No matter how you crunch the numbers it's very easy to conclude the correct answer On October 09 2021 12:08 BlackJack wrote:
Mate, 4+ million have died from COVID. How many do u think have died from the vaccine? Billions of vaccines have been give now, I think you would have heard something by now. I got my shot in December 2020 and I only had the people in the clinical trials as my evidence the vaccines are safe. You have a billion more guinea pigs than I did as evidence the vaccine is safe. Do you know why I never make those kinds of posts here? Because there's literally nobody here to direct those posts to barring the occasional troll account with 1 post that pops up and gets --Nuked-- immediately. I'm the most ""anti-vaxx"" (lol) guy here and I'm confident that I've personally persuaded more people to get vaccinated than anyone else on this site. I'm not here to "own the libs" any more than I am over there to "own the conservs" or whatever. If anything I'm trying to own the echo chambers that people that put themselves in. Over there people are in echo chambers that tell them COVID is a conspiracy and the vaccine is harmful. Over here it's an opposite echo chamber of all things COVID hysteria. It's unhealthy. It leads to people thinking we should ship the unvaccinated off to an island. It leads to people thinking we should rip children from their parents arms to vaccinate them from a disease that's killed less of them than the flu. It leads to people thinking the government should coerce us into getting boosters every 6 months. It leads to people thinking the government should start censoring the internet so people are only exposed to the truth. I'd very much not like to live in a society where any of those things are a reality so I'm going to try to pop the bubbles that people are putting themselves in. Obviously my arguments are not going to make any difference and I ultimately have little control over what happens, but it makes me feel a little better regardless. If you were the federal government right now and could dictate policy and could spend a smallish budget of say $100M to $1B, what would you do to increase vaccine uptake? Perhaps some kind of outreach targeted at the black/hispanic communities. A couple months ago I made an observation that black/brown people were overly represented in the people that were getting critically ill or dying of COVID that weren't severely fraily/elderly. Among the severely frail/elderly race didn't seem to matter, but as you look at younger and younger people, black and brown people seem to be more and more overrepresented. So naturally I wanted to know if my observation was true so I went to the CDC website to see if they have statistics not just on race but particularly on race + age and I found this graph: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PnTjplf.png) As you can see, at 85+ years of age it's pretty even in terms of deaths among races but the younger you get the more blacks/hispanics are overrepresented and whites becomes much more underrepresented. I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons this gap exists, socioeconomic, access to healthcare, comorbidities, etc., but increased vaccinations should help close that gap. I also think that on average a black/brown person is more likely to just be afraid/skeptical of the vaccines due to past injustices and would be more receptive to education and less likely to dig their heels in and resist. So I think bigger gains could be made there. P My answer would have been to target senior citizens but CDC data says 95.8% of people aged >65 have received at least one dose so I think they are doing well enough. What kind of outreach? Information campaigns have already been implemented and everyone that was going to be swayed by seeing the information on an ad has already gotten vaccinated. Remember that this is a group of people with very little trust in authority. How do you increase vaccination rates among people that don't want to get vaccinated? LegalLord, feel free to chime in -- you both were arguing pretty hard against vaccine mandates. If I was entrusted with $100 million to $1 billion dollars of taxpayer money to spend on vaccine outreach I would make a task force of people with expertise in marketing and logistics to determine the best way to spend the money. I wouldn't just throw the money at the first idea that popped into my head after giving it 15 minutes thought. Is there a point to this hypothetical? Was there an idea you had that you wanted to share? Yes, sure. But i think having some ideas to start with is also important. My starting point would be that everybody has someone or a group of people that they trust enough to listen to. These are the people you need to reach, and these are the people you need to actively win over. Now, i don't know who these people are. National celebrities might be among them, but i think more often than not we are talking about local leadership figures, be it preachers, community leaders or whatever. If you convince these people, and more importantly convince them that getting vaccinated is good for their community (which it is!), and help them spread the message, you can reach a lot of people. My approach would thus be to identify these local community leader figures, and actually take them seriously. Have good information available, give them time with actual competent scientists, answer questions, communicate clearly and openly. The goal is to honestly convince them, so that they spread the message in their own community.
Yes, I fully agree. The idea shouldn't be to tell people to get vaccinated, it should be to find a way to get people to tell each other to get vaccinated. I think the type of people you mentioned is exactly right.
Another idea I thought about when I read Ender's question is to do a refer-a-friend where you get $100 for every person you refer for vaccination. That way you get people begging their friends to get vaccinated for the referral money. Being able to help a friend with $100 might give a better feeling to people than just offering to give them $100 if they get vaccinated. Maybe it can activate all the people on facebook that push their MLM schemes onto their friends.
|
A secondary use of that money would be to make it as little effort as possible to get vaccinated. Have vaccination vans standing about in different places where you can get a vaccine when you happen to be passing by. Minimum bureaucracy.
|
On October 19 2021 18:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2021 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 19 2021 07:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 20:37 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 18 2021 19:52 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 12:56 Salazarz wrote:
It's honestly tedious talking to you at this point, BlackJack. Just the other day you were arguing how governments are not to be trusted and how state officials routinely lie and mislead the public to achieve their goals -- but when a state officials quits in support of a position you are arguing for, suddenly that's an argument in favor of your position? How much of a hypocrite can you be?
I'm not sure this logic follows. If someone says you can't trust the NSA/CIA are they are a hypocrite if they talk about Edward Snowden because he worked for the CIA? The funny thing is you think I'm here to "own the libs" (whatever that means, I never heard this term before people starting using it here a few weeks ago). Here's a fun fact for you, team liquid used to have a sister site for poker that's still online with only a handful of active users still posting. There's a COVID vaccine thread on that site too that I also post in. For whatever reason, the majority opinion of people there is that COVID is a scamdemic, the vaccines are harmful, etc. Almost all my posts in that thread are explaining how bad COVID is, why they should get vaccinated, why the vaccines are safe, why even young/healthy people can die of COVID etc. Here's some typical posts I've made in that thread On October 07 2021 22:09 BlackJack wrote:
Nothing is 100% safe but it's way better than getting COVID. As Daut said it's not a difficult problem. Just compare the people that are sick in hospitals that are a) unvaccinated with COVID, b) vaccinated with COVID, and c) sick with vaccine reactions. It's a) 95%, b) 5%, c) 0%. No matter how you crunch the numbers it's very easy to conclude the correct answer On October 09 2021 12:08 BlackJack wrote:
Mate, 4+ million have died from COVID. How many do u think have died from the vaccine? Billions of vaccines have been give now, I think you would have heard something by now. I got my shot in December 2020 and I only had the people in the clinical trials as my evidence the vaccines are safe. You have a billion more guinea pigs than I did as evidence the vaccine is safe. Do you know why I never make those kinds of posts here? Because there's literally nobody here to direct those posts to barring the occasional troll account with 1 post that pops up and gets --Nuked-- immediately. I'm the most ""anti-vaxx"" (lol) guy here and I'm confident that I've personally persuaded more people to get vaccinated than anyone else on this site. I'm not here to "own the libs" any more than I am over there to "own the conservs" or whatever. If anything I'm trying to own the echo chambers that people that put themselves in. Over there people are in echo chambers that tell them COVID is a conspiracy and the vaccine is harmful. Over here it's an opposite echo chamber of all things COVID hysteria. It's unhealthy. It leads to people thinking we should ship the unvaccinated off to an island. It leads to people thinking we should rip children from their parents arms to vaccinate them from a disease that's killed less of them than the flu. It leads to people thinking the government should coerce us into getting boosters every 6 months. It leads to people thinking the government should start censoring the internet so people are only exposed to the truth. I'd very much not like to live in a society where any of those things are a reality so I'm going to try to pop the bubbles that people are putting themselves in. Obviously my arguments are not going to make any difference and I ultimately have little control over what happens, but it makes me feel a little better regardless. If you were the federal government right now and could dictate policy and could spend a smallish budget of say $100M to $1B, what would you do to increase vaccine uptake? Perhaps some kind of outreach targeted at the black/hispanic communities. A couple months ago I made an observation that black/brown people were overly represented in the people that were getting critically ill or dying of COVID that weren't severely fraily/elderly. Among the severely frail/elderly race didn't seem to matter, but as you look at younger and younger people, black and brown people seem to be more and more overrepresented. So naturally I wanted to know if my observation was true so I went to the CDC website to see if they have statistics not just on race but particularly on race + age and I found this graph: As you can see, at 85+ years of age it's pretty even in terms of deaths among races but the younger you get the more blacks/hispanics are overrepresented and whites becomes much more underrepresented. I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons this gap exists, socioeconomic, access to healthcare, comorbidities, etc., but increased vaccinations should help close that gap. I also think that on average a black/brown person is more likely to just be afraid/skeptical of the vaccines due to past injustices and would be more receptive to education and less likely to dig their heels in and resist. So I think bigger gains could be made there. P My answer would have been to target senior citizens but CDC data says 95.8% of people aged >65 have received at least one dose so I think they are doing well enough. What kind of outreach? Information campaigns have already been implemented and everyone that was going to be swayed by seeing the information on an ad has already gotten vaccinated. Remember that this is a group of people with very little trust in authority. How do you increase vaccination rates among people that don't want to get vaccinated? LegalLord, feel free to chime in -- you both were arguing pretty hard against vaccine mandates. If I was entrusted with $100 million to $1 billion dollars of taxpayer money to spend on vaccine outreach I would make a task force of people with expertise in marketing and logistics to determine the best way to spend the money. I wouldn't just throw the money at the first idea that popped into my head after giving it 15 minutes thought. Is there a point to this hypothetical? Was there an idea you had that you wanted to share?
The point of this hypothetical is to engage constructively on this complicated issue. I personally think that outreach is not going to get you much further than the current vaccine uptake numbers because we are already doing it and the numbers are still plateauing. For instance, good information is already available, see for instance linky. A good read about the different outreach programs already in motion and what issues they're addressing is here: linky.
In all honesty, I was hoping for some actual policy proposal that you'd find acceptable rather than an outreach program (which we're already doing) when I posed the question.
|
On October 19 2021 19:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2021 19:29 Simberto wrote:On October 19 2021 18:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 19 2021 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 19 2021 07:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 20:37 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 18 2021 19:52 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 12:56 Salazarz wrote:
It's honestly tedious talking to you at this point, BlackJack. Just the other day you were arguing how governments are not to be trusted and how state officials routinely lie and mislead the public to achieve their goals -- but when a state officials quits in support of a position you are arguing for, suddenly that's an argument in favor of your position? How much of a hypocrite can you be?
I'm not sure this logic follows. If someone says you can't trust the NSA/CIA are they are a hypocrite if they talk about Edward Snowden because he worked for the CIA? The funny thing is you think I'm here to "own the libs" (whatever that means, I never heard this term before people starting using it here a few weeks ago). Here's a fun fact for you, team liquid used to have a sister site for poker that's still online with only a handful of active users still posting. There's a COVID vaccine thread on that site too that I also post in. For whatever reason, the majority opinion of people there is that COVID is a scamdemic, the vaccines are harmful, etc. Almost all my posts in that thread are explaining how bad COVID is, why they should get vaccinated, why the vaccines are safe, why even young/healthy people can die of COVID etc. Here's some typical posts I've made in that thread On October 07 2021 22:09 BlackJack wrote:
Nothing is 100% safe but it's way better than getting COVID. As Daut said it's not a difficult problem. Just compare the people that are sick in hospitals that are a) unvaccinated with COVID, b) vaccinated with COVID, and c) sick with vaccine reactions. It's a) 95%, b) 5%, c) 0%. No matter how you crunch the numbers it's very easy to conclude the correct answer On October 09 2021 12:08 BlackJack wrote:
Mate, 4+ million have died from COVID. How many do u think have died from the vaccine? Billions of vaccines have been give now, I think you would have heard something by now. I got my shot in December 2020 and I only had the people in the clinical trials as my evidence the vaccines are safe. You have a billion more guinea pigs than I did as evidence the vaccine is safe. Do you know why I never make those kinds of posts here? Because there's literally nobody here to direct those posts to barring the occasional troll account with 1 post that pops up and gets --Nuked-- immediately. I'm the most ""anti-vaxx"" (lol) guy here and I'm confident that I've personally persuaded more people to get vaccinated than anyone else on this site. I'm not here to "own the libs" any more than I am over there to "own the conservs" or whatever. If anything I'm trying to own the echo chambers that people that put themselves in. Over there people are in echo chambers that tell them COVID is a conspiracy and the vaccine is harmful. Over here it's an opposite echo chamber of all things COVID hysteria. It's unhealthy. It leads to people thinking we should ship the unvaccinated off to an island. It leads to people thinking we should rip children from their parents arms to vaccinate them from a disease that's killed less of them than the flu. It leads to people thinking the government should coerce us into getting boosters every 6 months. It leads to people thinking the government should start censoring the internet so people are only exposed to the truth. I'd very much not like to live in a society where any of those things are a reality so I'm going to try to pop the bubbles that people are putting themselves in. Obviously my arguments are not going to make any difference and I ultimately have little control over what happens, but it makes me feel a little better regardless. If you were the federal government right now and could dictate policy and could spend a smallish budget of say $100M to $1B, what would you do to increase vaccine uptake? Perhaps some kind of outreach targeted at the black/hispanic communities. A couple months ago I made an observation that black/brown people were overly represented in the people that were getting critically ill or dying of COVID that weren't severely fraily/elderly. Among the severely frail/elderly race didn't seem to matter, but as you look at younger and younger people, black and brown people seem to be more and more overrepresented. So naturally I wanted to know if my observation was true so I went to the CDC website to see if they have statistics not just on race but particularly on race + age and I found this graph: As you can see, at 85+ years of age it's pretty even in terms of deaths among races but the younger you get the more blacks/hispanics are overrepresented and whites becomes much more underrepresented. I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons this gap exists, socioeconomic, access to healthcare, comorbidities, etc., but increased vaccinations should help close that gap. I also think that on average a black/brown person is more likely to just be afraid/skeptical of the vaccines due to past injustices and would be more receptive to education and less likely to dig their heels in and resist. So I think bigger gains could be made there. P My answer would have been to target senior citizens but CDC data says 95.8% of people aged >65 have received at least one dose so I think they are doing well enough. What kind of outreach? Information campaigns have already been implemented and everyone that was going to be swayed by seeing the information on an ad has already gotten vaccinated. Remember that this is a group of people with very little trust in authority. How do you increase vaccination rates among people that don't want to get vaccinated? LegalLord, feel free to chime in -- you both were arguing pretty hard against vaccine mandates. If I was entrusted with $100 million to $1 billion dollars of taxpayer money to spend on vaccine outreach I would make a task force of people with expertise in marketing and logistics to determine the best way to spend the money. I wouldn't just throw the money at the first idea that popped into my head after giving it 15 minutes thought. Is there a point to this hypothetical? Was there an idea you had that you wanted to share? Yes, sure. But i think having some ideas to start with is also important. My starting point would be that everybody has someone or a group of people that they trust enough to listen to. These are the people you need to reach, and these are the people you need to actively win over. Now, i don't know who these people are. National celebrities might be among them, but i think more often than not we are talking about local leadership figures, be it preachers, community leaders or whatever. If you convince these people, and more importantly convince them that getting vaccinated is good for their community (which it is!), and help them spread the message, you can reach a lot of people. My approach would thus be to identify these local community leader figures, and actually take them seriously. Have good information available, give them time with actual competent scientists, answer questions, communicate clearly and openly. The goal is to honestly convince them, so that they spread the message in their own community. Yes, I fully agree. The idea shouldn't be to tell people to get vaccinated, it should be to find a way to get people to tell each other to get vaccinated. I think the type of people you mentioned is exactly right. Another idea I thought about when I read Ender's question is to do a refer-a-friend where you get $100 for every person you refer for vaccination. That way you get people begging their friends to get vaccinated for the referral money. Being able to help a friend with $100 might give a better feeling to people than just offering to give them $100 if they get vaccinated. Maybe it can activate all the people on facebook that push their MLM schemes onto their friends.
I actually really like this idea! Probably out of reach in terms of budget and hard to implement as currently proposed, but the thought behind it is interesting.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 19 2021 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2021 07:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 20:37 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 18 2021 19:52 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 12:56 Salazarz wrote:
It's honestly tedious talking to you at this point, BlackJack. Just the other day you were arguing how governments are not to be trusted and how state officials routinely lie and mislead the public to achieve their goals -- but when a state officials quits in support of a position you are arguing for, suddenly that's an argument in favor of your position? How much of a hypocrite can you be?
I'm not sure this logic follows. If someone says you can't trust the NSA/CIA are they are a hypocrite if they talk about Edward Snowden because he worked for the CIA? The funny thing is you think I'm here to "own the libs" (whatever that means, I never heard this term before people starting using it here a few weeks ago). Here's a fun fact for you, team liquid used to have a sister site for poker that's still online with only a handful of active users still posting. There's a COVID vaccine thread on that site too that I also post in. For whatever reason, the majority opinion of people there is that COVID is a scamdemic, the vaccines are harmful, etc. Almost all my posts in that thread are explaining how bad COVID is, why they should get vaccinated, why the vaccines are safe, why even young/healthy people can die of COVID etc. Here's some typical posts I've made in that thread On October 07 2021 22:09 BlackJack wrote:
Nothing is 100% safe but it's way better than getting COVID. As Daut said it's not a difficult problem. Just compare the people that are sick in hospitals that are a) unvaccinated with COVID, b) vaccinated with COVID, and c) sick with vaccine reactions. It's a) 95%, b) 5%, c) 0%. No matter how you crunch the numbers it's very easy to conclude the correct answer On October 09 2021 12:08 BlackJack wrote:
Mate, 4+ million have died from COVID. How many do u think have died from the vaccine? Billions of vaccines have been give now, I think you would have heard something by now. I got my shot in December 2020 and I only had the people in the clinical trials as my evidence the vaccines are safe. You have a billion more guinea pigs than I did as evidence the vaccine is safe. Do you know why I never make those kinds of posts here? Because there's literally nobody here to direct those posts to barring the occasional troll account with 1 post that pops up and gets --Nuked-- immediately. I'm the most ""anti-vaxx"" (lol) guy here and I'm confident that I've personally persuaded more people to get vaccinated than anyone else on this site. I'm not here to "own the libs" any more than I am over there to "own the conservs" or whatever. If anything I'm trying to own the echo chambers that people that put themselves in. Over there people are in echo chambers that tell them COVID is a conspiracy and the vaccine is harmful. Over here it's an opposite echo chamber of all things COVID hysteria. It's unhealthy. It leads to people thinking we should ship the unvaccinated off to an island. It leads to people thinking we should rip children from their parents arms to vaccinate them from a disease that's killed less of them than the flu. It leads to people thinking the government should coerce us into getting boosters every 6 months. It leads to people thinking the government should start censoring the internet so people are only exposed to the truth. I'd very much not like to live in a society where any of those things are a reality so I'm going to try to pop the bubbles that people are putting themselves in. Obviously my arguments are not going to make any difference and I ultimately have little control over what happens, but it makes me feel a little better regardless. If you were the federal government right now and could dictate policy and could spend a smallish budget of say $100M to $1B, what would you do to increase vaccine uptake? Perhaps some kind of outreach targeted at the black/hispanic communities. A couple months ago I made an observation that black/brown people were overly represented in the people that were getting critically ill or dying of COVID that weren't severely fraily/elderly. Among the severely frail/elderly race didn't seem to matter, but as you look at younger and younger people, black and brown people seem to be more and more overrepresented. So naturally I wanted to know if my observation was true so I went to the CDC website to see if they have statistics not just on race but particularly on race + age and I found this graph: As you can see, at 85+ years of age it's pretty even in terms of deaths among races but the younger you get the more blacks/hispanics are overrepresented and whites becomes much more underrepresented. I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons this gap exists, socioeconomic, access to healthcare, comorbidities, etc., but increased vaccinations should help close that gap. I also think that on average a black/brown person is more likely to just be afraid/skeptical of the vaccines due to past injustices and would be more receptive to education and less likely to dig their heels in and resist. So I think bigger gains could be made there. P My answer would have been to target senior citizens but CDC data says 95.8% of people aged >65 have received at least one dose so I think they are doing well enough. What kind of outreach? Information campaigns have already been implemented and everyone that was going to be swayed by seeing the information on an ad has already gotten vaccinated. Remember that this is a group of people with very little trust in authority. How do you increase vaccination rates among people that don't want to get vaccinated? LegalLord, feel free to chime in -- you both were arguing pretty hard against vaccine mandates.
First thing to note is that to some extent it might not be possible - a lot of people simply won't be convinced to take it voluntarily no matter what you do, and you absolutely, definitely can't get more people than telling people that they have to do it and having some threat of force to back it up. All these measures like lotteries and win-a-prize have largely shown to be worthless since they don't really address the primary concern people have - that the vaccine can't be trusted to be better than what it's purported to fight against. While in this particular case it's misguided, I don't think that in general people are wrong to be wary of the government saying "you have to do it because it's good for you, trust us."
That said, several measures that might be worth pushing in lieu of the current mandate:
1. Mitigation. If the population is sufficiently vaccinated (50% or more), maybe just allocate more to plague wards and the like to keep people from dying. Much easier to accommodate when most of the population has either vaccinated or natural immunity at this point. Good medical care could probably cut the deaths in half or more, which is less than the vaccine but still important.
2. More flexibility. Vaccine choice, viable alternatives to getting vaccinated (such as proof of immunity or submission of weekly PCR tests), and so on. Reasonably sure that the majority of the PCR-ers will eventually just bite the bullet and take the vaccine, and natural immunity is good enough to keep people safe.
3. Better mandates. Either more targeted on professions where there's generally consensus that those people should be vaccinated (e.g. medical workers and government employees), or broader so that you actually get your money's worth for forcing it. I'm not entirely against mandates in principle - I definitely suggested it as an option when the general consensus was still that it's an unthinkable prospect to force people to take it. But it has to actually work (i.e. show a meaningful increase in people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't have, not just a flimsy "we would have had even less people getting vaccinated without it") and it has to be kept in mind that framing matters. When the framing looks more like "eat shit, you have to get vaccinated" than "too many people are dying - we have to do this for public safety" then of course you're going to get a lot more resistance to it. The "more flexibility" items matter here too.
The thing is this: public trust is a finite resource, and shouldn't be wasted lightly. Forcing people to get vaccines will erode it - not a whole lot if it's done well, quite a lot of it's done with a blind idiot approach like what we actually got. If people trusted the government, they'd get it at a rate of around 70-80% rather than 50%. This isn't going to be the last crisis that involves hard choices between heavy-handed government measures and people dying, so it's important to handle it well when such things do come up. The approach Biden took - both execution and framing - seem just about the farthest from "handling with care" that you could possibly come up with.
|
|
|
If only people approached universal healthcare with the same zealotry as covid, I might be satisfied with the democratic party.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 20 2021 00:16 mierin wrote:
If only people approached universal healthcare with the same zealotry as covid, I might be satisfied with the democratic party.
It would definitely be nice if we had that instead of a president who promised to veto such a thing on sight.
|
With Biden’s approval rating in the shitter, I am trying to have faith he is waiting to do something drastic about student loans until after the big bills pass. My impression from all of this is that Manchin, unlike Sinema, legitimately hates the idea of “rewarding people for being poor”. I think he actually believes in applying pressure to the poor so that they are either directly punished for being worse, or become better. This is based on everything we are hearing about him basically saying to cut some social stuff and he doesn’t care which ones. It’s not that he’s fundamentally against parent leave, child care, tax credits or any of those things, it’s that the idea of too much makes his skin crawl. He doesn’t want us to actually make it ok to be poor. I think he needs to feel like poor people still suffer some good amount.
So if we assume this is true, it is possible he absolutely loathes the idea of doing a bunch of nice things after forgiving a bunch of student debt. Perhaps Biden doesn’t want to be nice to lenders before convincing Manchin to be kind.
The fact of the matter is that democrats are completely screwed in 2022 if Biden allows for a situation where young people feel strangled by student debt. Lots of people, for better or worse, are totally adapted to not paying student loans. I’m in a great position to pay mine, but I’d rather spend that money in other ways. But for a lot of people the idea of paying 300 or whatever per month will be totally unacceptable. Dems would be toast in 2022.
So either this infrastructure stuff goes amazingly well and polls shoot up for dems, or they use student loans to prop themselves back up. They have no other options.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I wonder if he's going to extend the student loan moratorium past January despite the emails saying that it's the final, final extension. A larger forgiveness / higher education overhaul is in my eyes out of the realm of what we can expect, but if we just never have to pay those student loans that's the same result. With the Delta strain going wild we can't possibly expect people to have to pay student loans too!
|
I think you're reading too much into Machin's morals. The far simpler explanation is that his multi million fortune is based entirely on a coal business that stands to lose value if the bill passes. First Machin was against the bill because it was too much. After it was brought down to his 3.5 trillion figure he has new excuses. The simple answer is the correct one.
|
United States41995 Posts
They should pay Alex Jones et al to shill for the vaccine. There’s a large part of the population that has proven itself to be very susceptible to grifters. From Freedom Phones to herbal testosterone, if one of their favoured grifters is shilling it then they’ll buy it. And the depressing thing is the grifters don’t even make that much money from it. For $10k you can get a prominent conservative figure to tweet their support of basically anything you want.
These people are not very sophisticated and they’re very well trained, you can make about 30% of the population go from never having heard of Critical Race Theory to having extremely strong views on it in about a week, and you don’t even need to tell them what CRT is. Pay the right talking heads and you’ll have them thinking that Biden was behind the antivax movement as a way to make Christians die from his Chinese bioweapon. They’ll be lining up to pay patriotic capitalist pharmaceuticals for their micro-armour injections that fit their proteins with offensive spike capability.
|
United States41995 Posts
On October 19 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2021 23:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 19 2021 17:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 19 2021 07:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 20:37 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 18 2021 19:52 BlackJack wrote:On October 18 2021 12:56 Salazarz wrote:
It's honestly tedious talking to you at this point, BlackJack. Just the other day you were arguing how governments are not to be trusted and how state officials routinely lie and mislead the public to achieve their goals -- but when a state officials quits in support of a position you are arguing for, suddenly that's an argument in favor of your position? How much of a hypocrite can you be?
I'm not sure this logic follows. If someone says you can't trust the NSA/CIA are they are a hypocrite if they talk about Edward Snowden because he worked for the CIA? The funny thing is you think I'm here to "own the libs" (whatever that means, I never heard this term before people starting using it here a few weeks ago). Here's a fun fact for you, team liquid used to have a sister site for poker that's still online with only a handful of active users still posting. There's a COVID vaccine thread on that site too that I also post in. For whatever reason, the majority opinion of people there is that COVID is a scamdemic, the vaccines are harmful, etc. Almost all my posts in that thread are explaining how bad COVID is, why they should get vaccinated, why the vaccines are safe, why even young/healthy people can die of COVID etc. Here's some typical posts I've made in that thread On October 07 2021 22:09 BlackJack wrote:
Nothing is 100% safe but it's way better than getting COVID. As Daut said it's not a difficult problem. Just compare the people that are sick in hospitals that are a) unvaccinated with COVID, b) vaccinated with COVID, and c) sick with vaccine reactions. It's a) 95%, b) 5%, c) 0%. No matter how you crunch the numbers it's very easy to conclude the correct answer On October 09 2021 12:08 BlackJack wrote:
Mate, 4+ million have died from COVID. How many do u think have died from the vaccine? Billions of vaccines have been give now, I think you would have heard something by now. I got my shot in December 2020 and I only had the people in the clinical trials as my evidence the vaccines are safe. You have a billion more guinea pigs than I did as evidence the vaccine is safe. Do you know why I never make those kinds of posts here? Because there's literally nobody here to direct those posts to barring the occasional troll account with 1 post that pops up and gets --Nuked-- immediately. I'm the most ""anti-vaxx"" (lol) guy here and I'm confident that I've personally persuaded more people to get vaccinated than anyone else on this site. I'm not here to "own the libs" any more than I am over there to "own the conservs" or whatever. If anything I'm trying to own the echo chambers that people that put themselves in. Over there people are in echo chambers that tell them COVID is a conspiracy and the vaccine is harmful. Over here it's an opposite echo chamber of all things COVID hysteria. It's unhealthy. It leads to people thinking we should ship the unvaccinated off to an island. It leads to people thinking we should rip children from their parents arms to vaccinate them from a disease that's killed less of them than the flu. It leads to people thinking the government should coerce us into getting boosters every 6 months. It leads to people thinking the government should start censoring the internet so people are only exposed to the truth. I'd very much not like to live in a society where any of those things are a reality so I'm going to try to pop the bubbles that people are putting themselves in. Obviously my arguments are not going to make any difference and I ultimately have little control over what happens, but it makes me feel a little better regardless. If you were the federal government right now and could dictate policy and could spend a smallish budget of say $100M to $1B, what would you do to increase vaccine uptake? Perhaps some kind of outreach targeted at the black/hispanic communities. A couple months ago I made an observation that black/brown people were overly represented in the people that were getting critically ill or dying of COVID that weren't severely fraily/elderly. Among the severely frail/elderly race didn't seem to matter, but as you look at younger and younger people, black and brown people seem to be more and more overrepresented. So naturally I wanted to know if my observation was true so I went to the CDC website to see if they have statistics not just on race but particularly on race + age and I found this graph: As you can see, at 85+ years of age it's pretty even in terms of deaths among races but the younger you get the more blacks/hispanics are overrepresented and whites becomes much more underrepresented. I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons this gap exists, socioeconomic, access to healthcare, comorbidities, etc., but increased vaccinations should help close that gap. I also think that on average a black/brown person is more likely to just be afraid/skeptical of the vaccines due to past injustices and would be more receptive to education and less likely to dig their heels in and resist. So I think bigger gains could be made there. P My answer would have been to target senior citizens but CDC data says 95.8% of people aged >65 have received at least one dose so I think they are doing well enough. What kind of outreach? Information campaigns have already been implemented and everyone that was going to be swayed by seeing the information on an ad has already gotten vaccinated. Remember that this is a group of people with very little trust in authority. How do you increase vaccination rates among people that don't want to get vaccinated? LegalLord, feel free to chime in -- you both were arguing pretty hard against vaccine mandates. First thing to note is that to some extent it might not be possible - a lot of people simply won't be convinced to take it voluntarily no matter what you do, and you absolutely, definitely can't get more people than telling people that they have to do it and having some threat of force to back it up. All these measures like lotteries and win-a-prize have largely shown to be worthless since they don't really address the primary concern people have - that the vaccine can't be trusted to be better than what it's purported to fight against. While in this particular case it's misguided, I don't think that in general people are wrong to be wary of the government saying "you have to do it because it's good for you, trust us." That said, several measures that might be worth pushing in lieu of the current mandate: 1. Mitigation. If the population is sufficiently vaccinated (50% or more), maybe just allocate more to plague wards and the like to keep people from dying. Much easier to accommodate when most of the population has either vaccinated or natural immunity at this point. Good medical care could probably cut the deaths in half or more, which is less than the vaccine but still important. 2. More flexibility. Vaccine choice, viable alternatives to getting vaccinated (such as proof of immunity or submission of weekly PCR tests), and so on. Reasonably sure that the majority of the PCR-ers will eventually just bite the bullet and take the vaccine, and natural immunity is good enough to keep people safe. 3. Better mandates. Either more targeted on professions where there's generally consensus that those people should be vaccinated (e.g. medical workers and government employees), or broader so that you actually get your money's worth for forcing it. I'm not entirely against mandates in principle - I definitely suggested it as an option when the general consensus was still that it's an unthinkable prospect to force people to take it. But it has to actually work (i.e. show a meaningful increase in people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn't have, not just a flimsy "we would have had even less people getting vaccinated without it") and it has to be kept in mind that framing matters. When the framing looks more like "eat shit, you have to get vaccinated" than "too many people are dying - we have to do this for public safety" then of course you're going to get a lot more resistance to it. The "more flexibility" items matter here too. The thing is this: public trust is a finite resource, and shouldn't be wasted lightly. Forcing people to get vaccines will erode it - not a whole lot if it's done well, quite a lot of it's done with a blind idiot approach like what we actually got. If people trusted the government, they'd get it at a rate of around 70-80% rather than 50%. This isn't going to be the last crisis that involves hard choices between heavy-handed government measures and people dying, so it's important to handle it well when such things do come up. The approach Biden took - both execution and framing - seem just about the farthest from "handling with care" that you could possibly come up with. What are you talking about? 1: Thats not how herd immunity or any vaccine works, Measles for example needs 95%. 2. The federal mandate that is coming in does not force anyone, allows vaccination choice, and allows weekly negative tests. 3. They have been wildly effective, especially the ones that force. United Airlines and the various health regions that have gone for the full have had only .5% of the work force quit and the rest comply. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/business/united-airlines-coronavirus-vaccine-mandate.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2021/09/28/business/united-employee-vaccine-mandate/index.htmlhttps://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/Vaccine-mandate-drama-fades-at-Houston-area-16514191.phphttps://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/13/world/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-maskHere is a bit of a list of private companies doing Vaccine mandates, most harsher than Bidens. All are working, so far none have caused the mass exodus doomsayers speak of. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/here-are-companies-mandating-vaccines-all-or-some-employees-n1275808And here is the very long and very American history on Vaccine Mandates, Fun fact George Washington was the first person to require people in his military to vaccinate and credits that with winning independence. It was a wildly dangerous "vaccination" as they just gave a little scrape and a little virus, and lots got sick and died, but he did it, and he won. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-long-history-of-vaccine-mandates-in-america-11631890699Biden's mandate is most definably handling with care, its the lightest of all the mandates I've seen. The version of it you have slippery sloped into a horrible anti-democratic fantasy is not, but that is not happening.
Very minor correction and not trying to cause an argument but the source is confusing inoculation with vaccination, Washington used inoculation. If it uses live virus it’s inoculation, vaccination is never live virus. The confusion between those terms is part of anti vax propaganda. Inoculation is dangerous and by confusing the two they pretend they’re both dangerous. Vaccination is pulling a fire alarm as part of fire safety drills. Inoculation is starting a small fire as part of fire safety drills.
|
|
|
On October 20 2021 02:31 KwarK wrote:
They should pay Alex Jones et al to shill for the vaccine. There’s a large part of the population that has proven itself to be very susceptible to grifters. From Freedom Phones to herbal testosterone, if one of their favoured grifters is shilling it then they’ll buy it. And the depressing thing is the grifters don’t even make that much money from it. For $10k you can get a prominent conservative figure to tweet their support of basically anything you want.
These people are not very sophisticated and they’re very well trained, you can make about 30% of the population go from never having heard of Critical Race Theory to having extremely strong views on it in about a week, and you don’t even need to tell them what CRT is. Pay the right talking heads and you’ll have them thinking that Biden was behind the antivax movement as a way to make Christians die from his Chinese bioweapon. They’ll be lining up to pay patriotic capitalist pharmaceuticals for their micro-armour injections that fit their proteins with offensive spike capability.
You’ll always be my grifter of choice 
|
On October 20 2021 01:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
I think you're reading too much into Machin's morals. The far simpler explanation is that his multi million fortune is based entirely on a coal business that stands to lose value if the bill passes. First Machin was against the bill because it was too much. After it was brought down to his 3.5 trillion figure he has new excuses. The simple answer is the correct one.
I think Manchin will vote on something. I don’t think he has decided to tank everything regardless. There is a point where he says yes
|
On October 20 2021 03:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2021 01:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
I think you're reading too much into Machin's morals. The far simpler explanation is that his multi million fortune is based entirely on a coal business that stands to lose value if the bill passes. First Machin was against the bill because it was too much. After it was brought down to his 3.5 trillion figure he has new excuses. The simple answer is the correct one. I think Manchin will vote on something. I don’t think he has decided to tank everything regardless. There is a point where he says yes
If Sinema really has decided to just parlay her senate seat into a lobbyist job or whatever, she can tank it and everyone (other than the proletariat) wins.
|
US politics is depressing.
Why is a random senator from bumfuck nowhere suddenly the most important person in government who can basically veto anything?
Edit: I know the mechanics of why this is the case, the above was a rhetorical question to illustrate my complete dislike of what is going on.
|
On October 20 2021 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2021 03:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2021 01:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
I think you're reading too much into Machin's morals. The far simpler explanation is that his multi million fortune is based entirely on a coal business that stands to lose value if the bill passes. First Machin was against the bill because it was too much. After it was brought down to his 3.5 trillion figure he has new excuses. The simple answer is the correct one. I think Manchin will vote on something. I don’t think he has decided to tank everything regardless. There is a point where he says yes If Sinema really has decided to just parlay her senate seat into a lobbyist job or whatever, she can tank it and everyone (other than the proletariat) wins.
She’s just playing hard ball to get the pharma stuff removed. Once pharma stuff is removed, she will vote yes. The pharma stuff is dead in the water because both Manchin and Sinema hate it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
