- Position‹2 of 2
- Joe Biden will be better for the coronavirus pandemic
- Argument‹5 of 5
Joe Biden will effectively implement a vaccine when it is produced
Joe Biden will strengthen the American public’s faith in a vaccine through his own trust in vaccines and scientists as a rule.
The argument
Biden has promised to develop a more detailed plan for vaccine distribution before assuming office, and has already laid out what it would cover. It includes a detailed timeline for when people would get the vaccine, a clear delineation of which populations would be prioritised, the specific means for shipping and storing the vaccines at appropriate temperatures, and which government agencies would be responsible for implementing that plan. Joe Biden will also strengthen the American public’s faith in a vaccine. During his presidential campaign, he has emphasised that while he does not trust Trump himself, he does trust vaccines and scientists as a rule. As President, Biden would empower scientists and make them the face of a vaccine push for America. By implementing a partnership with the World Health Organisation (WHO), Biden would be at the forefront of innovation for the COVAX programme and has committed to supporting vaccine research.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Joe Biden exaggerated when he accused the Trump administration of not having a plan, therefore he may not be the only one who can effectively implement a vaccine for coronavirus when it is developed. Hours before Biden made this claim, the Trump administration announced its most detailed plan to date regarding how it will distribute vaccines. For example, the plan shows that the federal government aims to make the two-dose vaccine free of cost.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] A plan announced during a campaign describes intentions, and the premise gives no basis for judging whether it would be executed. Distribution at that scale depends on manufacturing capacity, state and local public-health infrastructure and cold-chain logistics, most of which lie outside a president's direct control. [Rejecting P2] Trust in a vaccine has many determinants, and the premise does not show that the identity of its public advocate is a leading one. Hesitancy in this period tracked partisanship, prior trust in institutions and specific concerns about the speed of authorisation — and a change of messenger addresses only part of that, since a figure trusted by one side may be discounted by the other. [Rejecting P3] The counter identifies the specific overstatement: a federal distribution plan had already been published, so the claim that there was none was not accurate. The COVAX and WHO commitments also concern international supply rather than domestic implementation, which is what this premise's conclusion is about.