Biden Administration: Two Tough Calls

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been put on pause because of blood clotting issues in women. Late Show writer @ElianaKwartler is here to speak on behalf of women in the 18 to 48 demographic. #LSSC pic.twitter.com/45DIUoWPtq

— A Late Show (@colbertlateshow) April 15, 2021

This is an amusing (and well performed) bit in response to a pause of the usage of the J&J vaccine (the one shot, which I used) after six women in this demo were found to have rare blood clots after using the vaccine. As noted, a range of commonly used drugs have much higher risk factors.  

Which doesn't mean the pause was wrong, especially given all the criteria, including the presence of two other vaccines and concerns about public reactions (likely not as rational about the realities of risk factors) overall.  I'm glad that isn't my call.  See also, making a range of decisions involving terrorist threats and any number of things.  This is a mixture of trusting experts and the Biden Administration as rational and sound actors generally.

They will make questionable calls, sometimes even bad ones, but as a whole, I think we have grounds to rely on them.

====

Another concern in recent days was the border, which involves various things, though again, people (including the press) will mix things together. There are unaccompanied minors, general numbers and refugee admissions, to name three. There has been some negative reactions from some members of the press (as well as John Oliver on his show) about Biden delaying raising the refugee admission cap, which he said he intended to do.  

After repeated questions if the border was a "crisis," the latest was constant asks of Jen Psaki about it, which she repeatedly put off. This bothered some, with one Washington Post article suggesting Biden "might" be worse than Trump on the overall subject.  It's April 2021, not 2024 people.  My reaction was "that's bullshit," but yeah, what's the problem with the decision?  

Well, one was made today, a sort of suspicious Friday deal, after an earlier than usual press briefing in the morning (Jen Psaki looked  a bit fancy, maybe even with makeup; I wonder if she was going to some event*).  It took off a barrier to refugees from certain places, but did not raise the cap.  It DID leave that open if the current cap was filled.  Either way, this really pissed some people off.  I was not ready to be, though ready to be upset, since didn't think Biden was going to fail to disappoint (plus you know he has a lot on his plate and so far did a lot of good too). 

A later announcement "clarified" things and said it is likely some increase (suggestion: not as high as the original plan) will be announced by May 15th.  And, which was cited before now, "the decimated refugee admissions program we inherited, and burdens on the Office of Refugee Resettlement" is why the original plan didn't work out.  Some basically now are assuming the criticism pushed Biden to spin or pull back or something.  But, I'm again not really sure what really changed.   

I'm doing an ongoing project involving U.S. and world history, which suggests the range of material out there even in an area for which I'm much more familiar than many people.  And, there is much there I do not know, though it helps that there the job is to provide short summaries and outlines. So, what I'm going to do here is to not feel bad for knowing only so much of what is going on here.  From what I can tell, the reporting itself at times leaves something to be desired. After a not that long determination that leaves open a raise in the cap, e.g., it is somehow a big flip that one is now supposed (again, pending a final determination).

Plus, one more time -- it's April.  It's just too soon, including with all that is going on, to speak in the dark tones of some.  Be it the courts, this or any number of issues.   

---

* Doing a bit of research, it turns out she has two sisters, at least one who looks very like her.