Recommended Links

Republican Derangement Syndrome
Twitter Files Coverage Misses FBI Involvement

Twitter Feed

Blog

Thursday, January 21, 2021

The Resumption of the Unskeptical Press

President Biden has made it a goal of his to vaccinate 100 million people in the first 100 days of his first term. This, obviously, would require an average of 1 million people per day. Given the number of vaccinations that are occurring daily, however, this goal doesn't seem especially ambitious.

In the past week, the average daily doses were 939,973. In fact, more than 1 million doses have been administered five times already. The average so far for this business week (Monday was a national holiday) is 1.3 million.

In light of this, it doesn't seem like it would take much effort to achieve Biden's goal. This can never be proven, but I would bet it would be achieved simply by making no changes to the current personnel or plan, but that won't be done.

This all seems pretty straightforward. Perhaps the above analysis has a tinge of bias to it, but even many on the left wonder how ambitious this goal is, and any responsible journalist would surely point out that Trump left a system that was producing nearly 1 million per day, correct?

Doing a google search on "100 million vaccines" produced the following (in order)

"Biden Inherits a Vaccine Supply Unlikely to Grow Before April" (NY Times)
"Biden vows to move 'heaven and earth to get 100 million vaccinated" (The Independent)
"Biden administration plans for Covid vaccines and pandemic response" (NBC News)
"Amazon is offering to help Biden get 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations to Americans in 100 days"(KTLA)
"For Biden, 100 Million Vaccinations in 100 Days Not Easy" (WebMD)
"Distribute 100 Million Covid-19 Vaccines in 100 Days" (NY Times Opinion)
"Is Biden's bold promise to vaccinate 100 million Americans in 100 days possible?" (The Hill)

All of these headlines at least imply that this is very ambitious. The first article though, to its credit, does explicitly say this isn't very ambitious, and goes even further to say, that that goal would itself waste tens of millions of vaccines. The Independent article makes no mention of the current state of vaccinations. NBC News explicitly calls it ambitious, then doesn't provide the current state of vaccinations, but does talk about the daily and total deaths so far. The KTLA story also mentions daily and total deaths but not vaccinations.

The WebMD story calls it "attainable" yet "extremely challenging." It calls a 1 million/day pace "somewhat of an increase over what we're already doing." Then does mention the total number of shots given and shipped since December 14th, which wouldn't provide the context of how difficult it would be for Biden's administration to build on where we are now.

The NYTimes Opinion piece goes an extra step, and provides the average number of vaccinations per day since mid-December--447,000. This is quite a misleading statement. Of course vaccinations were slower in the beginning days. Omitting the current pace of vaccinations should earn this opinion piece a "Misleading" label from the fact checkers.

Like several of the others, The Hill article includes the total number of Americans who have died, and the total number of doses distributed. It also quotes CNN claiming "Biden is 'inheriting a nonexistent vaccine plan' from the Trump administration." It's a good thing The Hill's readers aren't told that Trump's non-existent plan is producing the same number of vaccinations as Biden's "bold" goal.

The other indirect source of the poor reporting might be Google's search itself. Of the top ten stories returned, only one of them actually provided the context of the current daily vaccination rate, and no link to the information itself. These figures are not hard to find. Simply searching "vaccination progress" produces them. The only explanation for not including them is egregiously bad reporting or the lack of interest in actually informing the public for fear of making Biden look worse than Trump.

Again, kudos to the NY Times first article. They get today's good journalism award: Sharon LaFraniere and Noah Weiland. Joseph Guzman wins the award for bad journalism. Thomas J. Kollyky, Jennifer B. Nuzzo and Prasith Baccam win the "Too Biased to be Informative Opinion" Award

Recent Posts

More Spending is Never Enough
Republicans Should Be Party of Law Enforcement
Let He with Reservations Cast the First Vote
The Great Endumbening
Bidenomics Sleight of Hand
Artificial Intelligence vs. Hayek: Can an AI Best a Market Economy?
Too Much Money Chasing More Than Enough Goods Through a Too Small Pipe
Budget Cuts! - Some Context
Redistributing Income Through Housing Policy
What Star Trek can Teach us About the Dangers of AI

Tags

| media | Trump | Biden | bias | ACA | climate | Social Cost of Carbon | CO2 | mid-term | IRA | Supreme Court | healthcare | Social Security | election | journalism | EPA | politics | AI | IRS | inflation | student loan | environment | policy | nuance | budget | McCarthy | Yglesias | loan forgiveness | Twitter | standing | FTC | Schiff | double standard | regulation | deficit | population | competition | overpopulation | non-compete | Bidenomics | Medicaid | artificial intelligence | market | vote | abortion | Inflation Reduction Act | supply | Hayek | spending | ehrlich | retirement | discretionary | primary | covid | COLA | Omar | central planning | Musk | loans | vaccines | 2022 | Swalwell | governance | sowell | shortage | economy | Republicans | discount | precedent | Congress |

Archive

Site Tools:Add Post | Site Statistics \ Update