[coolso]

> Is there any reason to believe these same folks would willingly take this?

Yes, from the very beginning those who weren't comfortable with taking the vaccine have had hope for alternative medications from the pharmaceutical industry. See: hydrochloroquine, ivermectin, et. al.

It all needs to be put in the context of the vaccine being the fastest approved vaccine ever; vaccines having issues in the past; CNN, Joe Biden, etc. spreading FUD about the "warp speed" nature of the vaccine as late as October of last year (prior to the election); and, most of all, the propensity for humans to prefer to take inaction that won't necessarily cause them harm.

e.g., if you don't get a vaccine, you may get COVID, you might not, it may be minor, it may be severe. But it's one of those "whatever will be, will be" sort of things. Whereas if one is wary of the vaccine, and they willingly get it, they perceive they may be playing a direct, active role in bringing harm to themselves.

But once you know you have COVID, you have it, therefore there's no other option than to take action.

[ssharp]

If you listen to the anti-vax crowd, a lot of the push-back is because the vaccines are new, only had emergency-use authorization, no long-term studies, etc.

This pill will fit into most of those objections as well. HCQ, ivermectin, and the like have all been around for a long time and even though their was no clinical efficacy on COVID, the anti-vax crowd was onboard with them because they have been around for so long.

[giarc]

So it's likely all in the messaging. If they can get Fox News, Joe Rogen, Trump et al to endorse this pill, it might just convince them.

[zpeti]

> CNN, Joe Biden, etc. spreading FUD about the "warp speed" nature

I love the posts on twitter of people who basically said in early 2020 they would never ever take a vaccine approved by Trump. And by late 2021 they are saying the unvaccinated are the scum of the earth basically.

Consistent ;)

[ModernMech]

That's not what the position was. They didn't want to take a vaccine solely approved by Trump because he has been proven to lie about the pandemic for political gain, and politicized once independent institutions like the CDC. They wanted other apolitical, credentialed, highly trusted authorities to say the vaccine was safe before taking it. I don't see why that's an unreasonable position. The position was never "we are not taking the vaccine ever". It was "we're not taking a vaccine only Trump says is safe".

[coolso]

This is really playing the semantics game and I think it's disingenuous. The fact is, those other highly trusted authorities, both governmental and independent, were going to say the vaccine was safe anyway. It's all part of the "Trump will do whatever he wants, he's a dictator" narrative that largely was never true. You'll recall that he had every opportunity, supposedly, to approve the vaccines before the election. But he didn't.

In reality, the people who said "we're not taking a vaccine only Trump says is safe" were playing a political game, spreading FUD about a very good thing (the vaccine) because this was the only issue on which Trump could ever lose the election. So every single media organization, and Joe Biden himself, made sure to spread FUD about the vaccine (making sure to add "Trump" to their reasoning, so as not to appear anti-science), right up until the election was over, and then suddenly everyone who still had some doubts was an awful anti-vaxxer who desperately wanted to eat horse paste.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too and be all "haha, we were just kidding, why don't you think the vax is safe that's so weird".

To think it was all done so we could pay an extra $1.50 per gallon of gas, though.

[ModernMech]

I think you could have made your point without attacking my character. I think it would have made your post stronger too.

> The fact is, those other highly trusted authorities, both governmental and independent, were going to say the vaccine was safe anyway.

They were going to say the vaccine was safe if it was in fact safe. People feared Trump was going to say it was safe no matter the results, and then he would leverage the executive branch (CDC, FDA, NIH) to make that a reality. This fear of course was not unfounded, as Trump had been doing this very thing since day 1 of his presidency, when he ordered the National Park Service to doctor a photo of his inauguration to match his rhetoric that it was the biggest inauguration of all time.

It is true that Trump used these organizations for political ends, installed political appointees in those places that muzzled actual researchers and made recommendations contrary to public health interests (for example, the CDC position on meat packing plants, which changed suddenly due to political appointees getting involved in something that used to be apolitical). He ordered his administration to slow down testing to make case numbers look better. He touted Hydroxychloroquine as a "miracle cure", whereas today it's hardly even mentioned because it doesn't actually cure Covid. He put his own unqualified family members in charge of securing PPE, which of course was a disaster. He elevated an unqualified radiologist that he saw on Fox News to COVID advisor who was rebuked by his own colleagues for "[promoting] a view of COVID-19 that contradicts medical science." Taken as a whole, after all of that (and more), it's no wonder people were wary of him and his government claiming anything. Joe Biden or the Democrats didn't have to say anything to make people feel that way.

> "When you do testing to that extent, you're going to find more people, you're going to find more cases," Trump said. "So I said to my people, 'Slow the testing down, please.' They test and they test."

I mean, maybe Joe Biden and the Democrats were, but that's not what I've seen from "most people". I don't think most people play political games. Most people hate politics, but most people know when they're being lied to and gaslit constantly. In my reality, what I saw from people in my community was distrust in government for valid reasons. The way the Trump administration handled the pandemic left no confidence by Fall 2020 that they had our best interests in mind. That's not Joe Biden's fault or "the media's" fault.

> So you can't have your cake and eat it too and be all "haha, we were just kidding, why don't you think the vax is safe that's so weird".

There are still valid reasons to distrust the vaccine. I didn't take it until June and July because I wanted to see how things landed. I believe it's okay if people are still waiting because they just need more time to see how things play out. But that's not the reasoning I see from most antivaxxers I know. Their logic doesn't seem to be influenced by the reasoning that can be traced back to Democrats, or really any reasoning at all. Which Democrats were talking about microchips as a reason for distrust of vaccines? What media outlet was pushing that idea? Maybe you can argue Democrats created a general distrust and people filled in the blanks with whatever, but that seems tenuous to me.