As president, he should be looking for every reason to not alienate his own citizens. It seems like he's doing the opposite. I'm not really sure why. My best guess is politics has become all about polarization lately.
Through the pandemic, there have been ~40,000,000 COVID cases[0] in the US, and ~120,000,000 people are completely unvaccinated[1].
As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID.
Given that huge disparity, it's not surprising that the relevant public health authorities (which are mostly state and local, with support from the Federal government) are pushing vaccinations very hard.
I'd also point out that there are actual studies of the efficacy of COVID vaccines, while the data for "natural" immunity is much spottier.
As such, we know much more about how well vaccinations protect people than we do about how well the immune systems of those who have recovered from COVID will protect from reinfection.
What's more, it's not the President's job to be everyone's friend. It's their job (among other things) to promote the general welfare of the population. Getting as many people as possible vaccinated is definitely within that purview.
Your statement seems to be along the lines of "Biden won't give me a pony! He's alienating me!"
[0] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu
[1] https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
I won't be bullied into getting an unnecessary procedure just because the burden of proof has not been met (re: spotty studies).
> Your statement seems to be along the lines of "Biden won't give me a pony! He's alienating me!"
That seems uncalled for.
Bullied? Where I live (NYC), they will pay you $100[0] to get vaccinated. I wish more folks would "bully" me that way.
I'd add, that at least in the US, no one is forcing anyone to have an unwanted procedure. Every single "vaccine mandate" has come with the caveat that you can avoid being vaccinated by getting tested regularly.
As to whether or not a COVID vaccination is necessary or not is, for some strange reason, a controversial question.
Have you been vaccinated against Polio? If so, why is that different than COVID? Not being snarky here, just genuinely curious as to how you see those as different.
[0] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/coronavirus/vaccines/vaccine-incen...
I did not make the decision to vaccinate against polio, that was made for me. I trust my parents made an educated decision and its beside the point now, I am vaccinated. Does polio vaccine manufacturer have readily available risk/benefit data for people who've already had polio? Covid vaccines don't provide this data so burden of proof is not met. I'd judge polio vaccine the same way under the same circumstances.
"All Persons" is not a valid statistic
>As such, we know much more about how well vaccinations protect people than we do about how well the immune systems of those who have recovered from COVID will protect from reinfection
We actually do not, given that the effects of the vaccine seems to diminish with time, we currently have no idea how much or for how long. We do not have long term data. This is why there is sooooo much confusion on if you need a booster and when, because the efficacy at 6mo, 1 year, 18mo etc is a big unknown right now
A fair point. There were approximately 45,000,000 children under the age of 12 in the US in 2019[0].
I'd guess that's probably still relatively accurate.
Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus.
>We actually do not, given that the effects of the vaccine seems to diminish with time, we currently have no idea how much or for how long. We do not have long term data. This is why there is sooooo much confusion on if you need a booster and when, because the efficacy at 6mo, 1 year, 18mo etc is a big unknown right now
Another good point. I'd point out that while ongoing immunity is a big (and unanswered) question, bringing R0[1] down in high infection areas right now can significantly reduce the impact on our health care systems and economy.
What the situation will look like in 12-18 months is important, but given the high transmissibility and case rates in some areas of the US, increasing the ability of folks to avoid serious health consequences right now is, arguably, even more so.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/457786/number-of-childre...
[1] https://www.mastersindatascience.org/resources/r0-infectious...
Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus.
That of course also doesn't take into account other people who cannot take it, and the number of unconfirmed cases of immunity from having contracted the virus. I don't have any estimates for those numbers so I won't speculate on what they are besides saying that the number of unvaccinated Americans that can and need to be vaccinated is probably a lot less than 35 million.
Note that I did not mention immunity. I mentioned vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
Contracted/recovered from the virus != vaccinated.
As to levels of immunity from previous infection, I made no statement whatsoever.
Edit: clarified my initial statement vis a vis vaccination vs. immunity.
> Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus.
This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40.
Actually, the calculation is 120 (total unvaccinated)-45 (children under 12)=75.
Whether or not someone has contracted the virus or not is irrelevant to whether or not they have (or can) receive a vaccination.
Whether or not those 40 million cases have some level of immunity is also irrelevant to whether or not they are vaccinated.
> As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID.
So this statement you made doesn't apply anymore? It is irrelevant now all of a sudden? We aren't taking the 40 million into account anymore? Why? Only one or the other? Then why even bring any of these numbers up if you're just going to disregard them?
> Removing those children from my calculation...
You're not removing them from a calculation, you're removing them from the 120 number and then ignoring the fact that you've also already removed 40 from that number, which was the calculation you're referring to.
Why even have this conversation if you're just going to arbitrarily decide to not consider a factor you've already considered prior? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion?
>So this statement you made doesn't apply anymore? It is irrelevant now all of a sudden? We aren't taking the 40 million into account anymore? Why? Only one or the other? Then why even bring any of these numbers up if you're just going to disregard them?
Who says it doesn't apply? I said: ...there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID.
The fact that there are ~45 million children who are unvaccinated because those under 12 haven't been approved for the vaccine(s) doesn't invalidate my point at all. In fact, it strengthens it.
The ~75 million folks who could get vaccinated but have not done so is still almost twice the number of recorded cases.
I'm trying really hard to assume good faith, so I'll make the leap and consider that perhaps English isn't your first language.
[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... (the estimates here do not account for infections before February 2020 or after May 2021, which means all early infections as well as the "delta surge" are unaccounted for).
I'm probably one of the more well-to-do people he's trying to target here, and if my first instinct is "Fuck you", this doesn't bode well for getting anyone else on-board.
As an American, I wish we could all just have an honest conversation about this. Yes, the mRNA vaccines are new technology and I don't begrudge anyone who feels hesitant about them; but I also think there's strong evidence for their safety, and I waited hours in line to get my shot as soon as it was available.
But this business of public health officials trying to shape people's behavior instead of giving them plain facts... I don't think we collectively appreciate how much damage this has done. It necessarily breeds mistrust. It works against the actual goal of ending this pandemic.
That just sounds like being against the vaccine with extra steps. Because otherwise you wouldn't let what the government was trying to get you to do to affect your decision.
- If you have a positive antibody test, you're exempt. - If you work from home, you're exempt. etc.
But they don't. I won't make your conclusions for you, but they are obvious.
Unfortunately, national US politics have devolved in some respects to a food fight of attacks on political opponents. Some viewed Trump's tax policies in this light, disfavoring residents of so-called 'Blue' states. It would, unfortunately, be very easy to recharacterize Biden's work-based vaccination requirement as an effort to get his staunchest political opponents fired, nationwide. I personally hope both sides can find a path to a more conciliatory approach to policy.
That is not unification or pluralism. They (including democrats and republicans but today right now mainly democrats) want a political mono-culture and are willing to use force to get it.