It seems odd to write an impassioned comment about how little one cares about someone else’s opinion. Wouldn’t shrugging and then immediately forgetting what they think and moving on be more consistent with your claimed state of mind?
He’s pointing out that the article has political undertones. If it were purely about the virus, kamala harris, or any politician for that matter, wouldn't have even been mentioned
In the US, public health is politicized. It's absolutely reasonable to discuss the public health doctrine of the current administration and/or a possible future one.
Of course it has political undertones; the only reason these companies felt compelled to issue this statement was to counter the widely-spread fear that the sitting president of the U.S. would attempt to corrupt the standard vaccine process to his political benefit.
> In a recent STAT-Harris survey, 82% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans expressed concern that the Covid-19 vaccine approval process would be driven more by politics than by science. More than 80% of independents, Republicans, and Democrats said they would worry about the safety of a vaccine that was approved quickly.
That's from this article, but it is broadly in line with other recent polls. Most Democrats and most Republicans are concerned about this administration rushing a vaccine.
The president has not helped matters by stating that he thinks a vaccine could be ready before the election, and by publicly attacking the FDA for supposedly trying to prevent that.
No it wouldn't be consistent with that. That would be consistent with not thinking critically. The hypocrisy of quoting a politician in order to reinforce your narrative whilst simultaneous talking about how the narrative your trying to reinforce is being driven by political motivations is... well it's sad really.
Such a bizarre argument. Direct quote from your comment:
> Tell me again why I should care what Kamala Harris opinion on the matter is?
Literally no one else is telling you that you should care what Kamala Harris' opinion on the matter is. You are the only one that seems to care what her opinion on the matter is.
By including the quote from a political candidate the author is saying (without words) that her opinion on the mater matters. Therefore, the AUTHOR is telling me that I should care what Kamala Harris' opinion on the matter is. How can you not see that?
I understand your position, but I don't see why this is cause for getting worked up.
After 9/11, the media famously asked rapper Ja Rule what he thought of the terrorist attacks. Obviously he wasn't an expert in international relations or counterinsurgency tactics. If it offends you that the media ask celebrities and well known individuals what their opinion is, then I scarcely can imagine any mass media channel that won't raise your blood pressure.
I'd just ignore it and move on. Media wants clicks, it is what it is.
Because she's a U.S. Senator who may be the Vice President soon. That's why people care, even if you don't. You know that already so please spare us the personal commentary masked as a question.
"Because she's a U.S. Senator who may be the Vice President soon. That's why people care, even if you don't."
This is exactly my point. You are part of the problem the article was pointing out. I personally, don't care what her opinion is because she's not an expert. Just like I don't care what Trump's opinion is because he's not an expert. The fact that the article says I should shows that it's politically biased, and the hypocrisy of talking about how political motivations are causing problems while simultaneous politically charging your own article is disgusting.
Those are two questions. (a) No one can make you care about anything. You are totally free to live in apathy. (b) Her quote was included because she is a prominent political figure in the US, and her position is explicitly contrasted with that of the current administration. This contrast is relevant because of the upcoming election.
The 1976 swine flu vaccine was similarly rushed and look how it turned out.
I trust scientist to provide something that is safe, but if their decisions are overridden by a politician (doesn't matter whether Republican or Democrat) that is something that seriously dissolves that trust.
Because the article is about is about political involvement tainting public trust in the vaccine development process, and she is a prominent politician who recently made remarks about the matter.
because she's a public leader and vaccines dont work if people don't take them, and if people see people in positions of power avoiding the vaccine, they're going to be inclined to do the same. The science of getting the vaccine to work is only a part of the process of ending this pandemic. The enfire endeavor is useless if people don't take the vaccine because they don't trust it. And the everyday person is not a virologist.
She was asked by CNN, given that she's running on the Biden-Harris ticket. No one particularly cares whether you care or not, but she is clearly a rather important person right now and was asked this question given that public health has marched to political drums rather than safety drums lately.
You seem to be trying to say something but trail off into weak points all the time. Why would you not talk to the opposition about a politically motivated issue made by the President?
Funny.. the article doesn't seem to have any quotes from politicians supporting Trumps view point. Had there been one, I would have called it out as well, but their isn't.. is there?
How is an expedited vaccine political? It’s the author that’s asserting political motivation with assumptive logic at best and borderline anti-vaxer at worst. People are smarter than you think and they can pick up on subtle cues of bias. I know i’ll get downvoted for this because that’s how people on this website are, but the democrats have completely botched the covid/blm crisis as of late and their credibility is tanking. Just talk to people but pretend you’re a trump supporter and I think you might be shocked what you hear
I mean come on. Is anyone buying it’s just a coincidence? If you really do I’d take a critical look at what they want from you. Votes for Trump. I’d also be extremely wary of anecdotal chats as widespread evidence of anything.
Are you buying that it's just a coincidence that the author quoted the opinion of the vice president of the Democratic party in an article that's clearly in opposition of the view point of the leader of the Republican party? What's that you said about taking a critical look again?
