Hacker News Reader

Comment by itbeho | Hacker News Reader

"You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." - Joe Biden

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/joe-biden/...

Read your link. Solidified my view that people pushing this are relying on deliberately-uncharitable or outright bad readings to support their position. Is this the best there is?

Please reread. Politifact editorialized and downplayed what was said.

Politifact: >President Joe Biden exaggerated when he spoke about the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine during a CNN town hall. "You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations," Biden said.

President Transcript: >But again, one last thing. I — we don’t talk enough to you about this, I don’t think. One last thing that’s really important is: We’re not in a position where we think that any virus — including the Delta virus, which is much more transmissible and more deadly in terms of non — unvaccinated people — the vi- — the various shots that people are getting now cover that. They’re — you’re okay. You’re not going to — you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.

>MR. LEMON: Yeah. I want to stay on the subject. I want to get to Dr. Nicole Baldwin. She’s a pediatrician and a Republican.

>Dr. Baldwin, go ahead.

Where did Politifact get "President Joe Biden exaggerated" from? I see no attempt by the president to walk back or clarify what he said.

Do we want to excuse people when they make bad statements because they are on our side?

The claim's not that a few over-broad statements were made with colloquial application of absolutes during conversations or interviews, which they definitely were, but that this was the official line and that claiming you could contract the virus was suppressed—yet every time I see examples provided, the exaggerated statements are accompanied shortly before or after by prepared, official communication that in fact the vaccines are extremely effective at preventing severe disease and hospitalization, but not perfectly so, and that infection is still possible. If the original claim were true, those statements should either have been different, or should have been censored.

So sure, it'd be nice if politicians were more precise when answering questions (though it's not gonna happen, for one thing because people don't talk like that) but that's not what I've seen claimed in these cases—it's that these few over-broad statements were the official line, and that dissent from it was smacked down. This runs contrary both to my recollection of events, and to evidence I've seen the few times I've seen the topic come up on here, including this link.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com