This past Sunday night, Vice President Kamala Harris, who has made it perfectly clear she’s 100 percent in favor of vaccinating Americans to help protect them against the coronavirus, issued a warning stating that in order to bring this pandemic to an end, one of the main goals is to “protect the vaccinated,” a statement that led to her instantly being mocked on social media.
And the mockery is very well deserved, don’t you think? After all, isn’t the vaccine already protecting those who took it? If not, then what, exactly, is the advantage of taking it?
“By vaccinating the unvaccinated, increasing our testing and masking, and protecting the vaccinated, we can end this pandemic. That’s exactly what we are committed to doing,” Harris posted on her Twitter account.
Back in October of last year, which was just one month out form the presidential election, Harris was asked, “If the Trump administration approves the vaccine, before or after the election, should Americans take it and would you take it?”
“If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it,” she replied.
Here’s how individuals on Twitter responded to her “protecting the vaccinated” comment:
“Yet she sowed confusion & doubt about the vaccines early on, giggling and dissembling, only to get ‘the Trump vaccine’ as soon as she could. How many visits to unvaccinated communities has she made? (the southern border & Guatemala don’t count),” said former White House Adviser Kellyanne Conway.
Yet she sowed confusion & doubt about the vaccines early on, giggling and dissembling, only to get "the Trump vaccine" as soon as she could. How many visits to unvaccinated communities has she made? (the southern border & Guatemala don't count) https://t.co/C0dMGnMKT0
— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) September 13, 2021
“If being vaccinated is not protecting the vaccinated, then what the hell is it even for?” asked RedState Editor Joe Cunningham.
If being vaccinated is not protecting the vaccinated, then what the hell is it even for? https://t.co/StRsdLYrRY
— Joe Cunningham (@JoePCunningham) September 13, 2021
Here’s more via Daily Wire:
Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon: “Opposing mandates is not anti-vax. Telling people they need to get vaccinated and wear a mask to protect the already-vaccinated is anti-vax.”
Writer Christopher D. White went on to say, “Again with this claim re ‘protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated.’ What does this mean? Why hasn’t anyone asked officials why they keep saying this? The implication is that there is something about vaxxed and unvaxxed interactions that effect the vaccine’s potency or is this merely a way to pit the vaccinated folks against the unvaccinated folks, a strategy to provide more pressure on folks to get vaccinated. Either way. By God. It’s important for us to know which is the case.”
Do these people really not see how illogical their approach to this whole pandemic is? They must really think the rest of us are totally stupid to not see through this whole charade.
Obviously, if the vaccinated need protecting, then the vaccine doesn’t work. If that is true, why should anyone else take it? That’s absurdity.