Messaging is important to be consistent on. You don't get an idea in the populace head from one week. All campaigns are made of individual actions. This is just one tweet among lots of messaging

Americans getting vaccinated is crucial to defeat this virus... I view Congress(and the White House) getting vaccinated, especially in public, as very important. Health care workers will continue to follow the procedure they have the last number of months... but Sinema getting a shot in her arm on camera, and talking about it, could very well influence a number of people. It's more consequential than a healthcare worker taking her place.

I agree Biden is important. Pence was important. Trump is probably the most important, because his supporters are nuts. My guess is he won't do it.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 19 2020 07:26pm

This argument is nonsensical, 99% of America doesn’t know or care about what the above referenced politician does. To apply this principle to hundreds of others in her class doesn’t convince anyone. You’re treating this as some sort of publicity stunt without looking at the data. The majority of high risk and medium risk individuals in this country are actually already pro vaccination. By taking this vaccine away from high risk individuals is a crime. Nobody cares what Sinema does.

Prominent political heads like Biden and Trump to convince the LOW risk demographic is the primary goal, given the low risk demographic is the only demographic requiring convincing. This demographic doesn’t care what Sinema does and by the time they even have the option of getting the vaccination, they will have forgotten if she did or didn’t even receive it

Furthermore you’re opening the can of worms to allow influential people to take the vaccination for this misperceived stance of attaining public trust. why are you stopping millionaires and billionaires from paying for it? Oprah is 10000x more influential than the above politician, if she was caught paying for it ahead of others how would that go down

This post was edited by Bazi on Dec 19 2020 07:35pm

Wouldnt these images be more efficient at some point in spring, when the high-risk groups have been vaccinated, many people who actively sought the vaccination got it, and the focus gradually shifts toward the sceptics?

I get why people like Pelosi, McConnell or the supreme court justices are first in line, but I disagree with this idea that every last backbencher in the Senate and the House has to be vaccinated, even the young and healthy ones who really dont need it. Excusing this allocation of a (for now) very valuable and scarce resource with "it's an important part of a PR campaign for a good cause" is not convincing imho. The optics of unimportant backbenchers skipping the line are horrible, and the timing is far less efficient for PR purposes than if they'd get the shot in spring or early summer.



But I'll admit that I could be wrong, perhaps there really are a lot of people who are paying attention now and will change their opinion when they see these politicians get the vaccine.

any hoaxer is just going to say that the thing that was in the needle the 1%ers got is different than the thing that will be in the needles they ship to the poor communities a few months from now. Fauci getting vacc'd on camera won't have any effect.

We're routing the vaccine to 535 members of Congress, and others who are actually important for government function. It's not that big of a deficit. The idea that this relatively small number of vaccines would be more effective or efficient in the arms of healthcare professionals somewhere seems silly to me. Any senator promoting the vaccine, especially to the extent that Sinema has, would result in more people influenced than a healthcare worker who already wears PPE gear on their shift.

I think you underestimate the extent to which the public is going to reject this vaccine.

I think we have to distinguish between ideologically hardened anti-vaxxers and those who are sceptical for the time being, based on credible arguments. For example, polling shows that willingness to take the vaccine is lower among blacks than among whites, hispanics or asians. Can you blame them, considering the history of the Tuskegee study (and smaller, similar cases) where the country blatantly abused black people as guinea pigs in vaccine trials?

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/11/24/938440381/black-people-are-more-hesitant-about-a-vaccine-a-leading-nurse-wants-to-change-t

Members of Congress are not unimportant backbenchers in a pandemic. They may be that in actuality... but we need them to be able to act for the people they represent.

I can think of 500 individuals in this country that would be far more influential if that is the argument you are attempting to make

They should also receive it then , yes?

And in reality, this ability is not put at a meaningful risk if we let the young and healthy members of Congress go unvaccinated for a couple more months. People like Sinema have what, a 0.5% risk of requiring hospitalization and a 0.02% risk of death conditional on catching the virus? And keep in mind that these people have the resources and workplace autonomy to protect themselves if they really try - a luxury that isnt afforded to the bulk of healthcare workers or nursing home residents across the country.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 19 2020 07:53pm