Always interesting to see the NYT making excuses when it comes to their favored leadersâ failings. A few highlights below on vaccination rates -
But over the last few weeks, as vaccination has become a top priority, the pattern has changed. Progressive leaders in much of the world are now struggling to distribute coronavirus vaccines quickly and efficiently⌠many Democratic states â like California, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and tiny Rhode Island â are below the national average.
Note the emphasis now that they arenât liberal or Democratic leaders, but progressive ones. And theyâre quick to remind one old centrist that he is too, whether he likes it or not.
The world has one new, and very high-profile, progressive government with a chance to show it can do better: the Biden administration.
So whatâs the problem? Too much hand wringing over âequityâ, not enough actual vaccinations.
The trade-offs between equity and efficiency are real: Rapid vaccination programs will first reach many relatively privileged people.
Although they do eventually admit âThe most effective way to save lives is probably to vaccinate people as quickly as possible.â So howâs that going?
A common problem seems to be a focus on process rather than on getting shots into arms. Some progressive leaders are effectively sacrificing efficiency for what they consider to be equity⌠Some blue states have also created intricate rules about who qualifies for a vaccine and then made a big effort to keep anybody else from getting a shot. These complicated rules have slowed vaccination in both California and New York.
In other words, failing. And of course no NYT article on the virus would be incomplete without lying about some statistics to make Trump look bad.
The Trump administration fell far short of its own goal for vaccination speed, but by its final days it did get the country close to President Bidenâs stated goal of 1 million shots per day.
Actually under the Trump admin, the US did exceed 1M/day several days in mid January, but the chart they used in the article was a 7 day rolling average that managed to make it look like they just fell short before the inauguration due to how the moving average lags the actual rate when the actual rate is rapidly rising.
They also only showed in the chart Bidenâs ânewâ 1.5M/day, overlooking his bold, ambitious, 100M vaccines in 100 days pledge, which would have been literally worse than the run rate he inherited at the time his admin took over. Sure, I know given all the whining they did about transition and lack of planning to give themselves an excuse for failing, but I guess now that they decided to up the goal to 1.5M/day it must not have been that bad after all.