Coronavirus: Triple Edition

[Zoraptor]

If thousands of Brits do drop dead from the vaccine at least the poor pharmaceutical company won't be inconvenienced, since they've been granted indemnity against adverse effects. Bit of a conundrum, you want lots of people to take the vaccine as quickly as possible so you need confidence in it, but making sure there will be no repercussions if your rushed product turns out to be botched hardly screams confidence. Better give it first to all the crusties who are going to die anyway.

Kind of ironic that the BBC brings up Sputnik being rushed and Putin not taking Sputnik constantly. Unless they're expecting him to take it on camera there wouldn't be 'proof' he'd taken it if he said he had. And if they'd accept his word then they'd have to accept their own reporting, that Putin's daughter got one of the first doses. Ironically, that was simultaneously a sign of nepotism and killed her, if you believed certain press reports.

[Malcador]

Hannock saying Brexit was responsible for the quick approval (EU is slower, therefore worse), was pretty funny.  Health Canada's going to decide on the Pfizer vaccine in 2 weeks or so, although debatable where we are in line to get it.

[Elerond]

37 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Hannock saying Brexit was responsible for the quick approval (EU is slower, therefore worse), was pretty funny.  Health Canada's going to decide on the Pfizer vaccine in 2 weeks or so, although debatable where we are in line to get it.

Funny thing is that all the EU members are free to give medicines and vaccinations emergency approval instead of waiting EMA's approval, but as far all the members states have decided not to do so and just blame EU that their citizens need to wait vaccination.

So Hannock may be right that UK's quick approval was because of Brexit, not because it made bureaucracy faster but that they weren't able to use EU as excuse for the wait and buckled under pressure to approve the vaccine even if they can't say its safe with 100% certainty.

[Raithe]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/graphic-tracking-coronavirus-infections-us/?

 

[ComradeYellow]

My biggest mistake of 2020 was miscalculating the effect of Covid-19 and how it affected public influence on the election.

If not for Trump's F-ups of the situation, he certainly would have won again.

I predicted his re-election sorely on the basis of American voting habits for he past 30 years w/o even considering this semi-crisis.

....And Biden plans on doing nothing about the situation but taking a bit more staunch stance on mask wearing, which is certainly not enough to amplify his position.

[BruceVC]

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/06/politics/rudy-giuliani-coronavirus-positive/index.html

Rudy Giuliani has tested positive for the virus, not a surprise considering his contempt for the prevention of known virus spread measures 

[BruceVC]

16 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

My biggest mistake of 2020 was miscalculating the effect of Covid-19

Nah, your biggest mistake was saying you support " ideology x " but then you cant explain what you mean and what ideology you actually support  

Edited December 7, 2020 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

12 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

....And Biden plans on doing nothing about the situation but taking a bit more staunch stance on mask wearing, which is certainly not enough to amplify his position.

You never know, he might surprised you. Like actually help funding research of vaccines and their distribution? Something Trump flat out refused (which is why for example the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine was funded by Germany and the EU)

[213374U]

Heh. If he were funding UC Berkeley research, sure. But I figure most people would rather not have more taxpayer money funneled into pharma -- only to insulate them from, er, "unexpected" mishaps down the line. Zoraptor mentioned this above, but I think it bears repeating:

Pfizer given protection from legal action by UK government

Similar deals will be undoubtedly made throughout Europe because the EC signed confidential liability clauses with the usual suspects back in September. Of course, it doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe. But it is, yet again, an example of privatizing profits while socializing (potential) losses. Let's not forget that AstraZeneca's pledge to deliver the vaccine "at cost" is actually time-limited and they reserve the right to rack up the prices in as little as six months. A pandemic's just one big opportunity for profit, ain't it?

[Elerond]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/04/covid-vaccines-offer-chance-for-big-pharma-to-improve-its-image

Big Pharma may hope that vaccines make them more liked but at end of the day they usually just can't help themselves and they probably end in worst position than where they started.

[BruceVC]

33 minutes ago, Elerond said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/04/covid-vaccines-offer-chance-for-big-pharma-to-improve-its-image

Big Pharma may hope that vaccines make them more liked but at end of the day they usually just can't help themselves and they probably end in worst position than where they started.

Elerond dont you like the global pharmaceutical companies ? Why what have they done to you ?

Please share 

[Zoraptor]

7 hours ago, Gorth said:

You never know, he might surprised you. Like actually help funding research of vaccines and their distribution? Something Trump flat out refused (which is why for example the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine was funded by Germany and the EU)

Yeah, much as we may dislike Trump that isn't a charge that can be leveled at him. He put a lot of effort into getting a vaccine as quickly as possible- Operation 'Warp Speed'. Of the vaccines that will be available soon they (part) funded the AstraZeneca/ Oxford and Moderna vaccines. The Pfizer vaccine iirc was in fact privately funded in toto Germany had given funding to BioNTech in general but not specifically for vaccine development. That is one of the other reasons to be suspicious of its rapid approval and deployment, it's extremely expensive and the company stands to lose all its development costs if a cheap alternative got to the finish line first.

[Elerond]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Elerond dont you like the global pharmaceutical companies ? Why what have they done to you ?

Please share 

They have not done nothing to me (except money), my statement was more general, as when you make profit on life saving drugs and vaccinations especially during global pandemic you aren't making people like you even if you are producing thing that saves them, because people feel that you are profiting on their need. And optics don't get better when pharma companies get public money and protection from litigation in case they have screwed with their supposed cure.

I mean it is just business where you make people hate you and bigger the crisis more people will resent you for making profit on people's lives

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, Elerond said:

They have not done nothing to me (except money), my statement was more general, as when you make profit on life saving drugs and vaccinations especially during global pandemic you aren't making people like you even if you are producing thing that saves them, because people feel that you are profiting on their need. And optics don't get better when pharma companies get public money and protection from litigation in case they have screwed with their supposed cure.

I mean it is just business where you make people hate you and bigger the crisis more people will resent you for making profit on people's lives

But if no profit was made surly these companies would go out of business, this is the basic rule of all listed companies as investors only buy shares if they expect a positive return meaning they expect the company to be profitable which means the share price generally increases once these companies make there target?

Also there are much more deadly diseases out there than Corona. If your point around profit is reasonable why should any pharmaceutical company ever make any profit at all on any product they sell? Why stop at Corona if the argument is " these companies are profiting on peoples need ".....why dont we demand that there is no profit ever made on any medicine ?

 

 

[Gorth]

@BruceVC I would expect the profit being limited to what they can justify as a reasonable margin of the manufacturing cost if tax payer money paid the research. Part of what you pay the pharmaceutical industry for is taking risks in their research (all the failures and dead ends). If tax payers take all the risk, profiting off that is not justifiable.

 

Anyway, The UK hot on the heels of the Russians with vaccine distribution:

 

A 90-year-old woman has become the first person to be given a Covid jab as part of the mass vaccination programme being rolled out across the UK.

Margaret Keenan, who turns 91 next week, said it was the "best early birthday present".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55227325

 

[Elerond]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But if no profit was made surly these companies would go out of business, this is the basic rule of all listed companies as investors only buy shares if they expect a positive return meaning they expect the company to be profitable which means the share price generally increases once these companies make there target?

Also there are much more deadly diseases out there than Corona. If your point around profit is reasonable why should any pharmaceutical company ever make any profit at all on any product they sell? Why stop at Corona if the argument is " these companies are profiting on peoples need ".....why dont we demand that there is no profit ever made on any medicine ?

 

 

I mean regardless how reasonable it is to ask money for the medicine it is still always question give us money or die/suffer, which just creates resentment regardless of how well you justify it

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

@BruceVC I would expect the profit being limited to what they can justify as a reasonable margin of the manufacturing cost if tax payer money paid the research. Part of what you pay the pharmaceutical industry for is taking risks in their research (all the failures and dead ends). If tax payers take all the risk, profiting off that is not justifiable.

 

Anyway, The UK hot on the heels of the Russians with vaccine distribution:

 

A 90-year-old woman has become the first person to be given a Covid jab as part of the mass vaccination programme being rolled out across the UK.

Margaret Keenan, who turns 91 next week, said it was the "best early birthday present".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55227325

 

The funding from numerous governments for the vaccine was in the interests of survival of there own citizens  and expediency in the objective for life to return to normal like it was before the pandemic , that has nothing to do with any pharmaceutical companies not now making  profit. I am not sure if you have any links that support your point?

[213374U]

pharma bro did nothing wrong

[ComradeYellow]

Why not just nationalize all medical-related enterprises?

I think it would save everyone the headache.

I understand that rich white people deserve the best treatment because they obviously worked hard and inherited earned it but there's no reason not to at least raise the floor a notch here that guarantees everyone is covered in a pandemic.  I mean you can't keep that wealth if you don't have the slaves workers dying of some pesky pandemic, can you?

Edited December 8, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[ShadySands]

 

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

A 90-year-old woman has become the first person to be given a Covid jab as part of the mass vaccination programme being rolled out across the UK.

I never saw the beginning of 28 Days Later, is this how it starts?

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Why not just nationalize all medical-related enterprises?

I think it would save everyone the headache.

I understand that rich white people deserve the best treatment because they obviously worked hard and inherited earned it but there's no reason not to at least raise the floor a notch here that guarantees everyone is covered in a pandemic.  I mean you can't keep that wealth if you don't have the slaves workers dying of some pesky pandemic, can you?

This is a terrible suggestion and doesn't make business  sense....we dont want to do anything to jeopardize white, male privilege...you know how it goes 

But apart from that you cannot nationalize any listed company...there are myriad of serious issues around this illegal approach,  like the cost to shareholders and the fact it will be unconstitutional ...so very bad idea you naughty socialist you 

 

 

[ComradeYellow]

Everything you don't like is Unconstitutional of course.

Lot's of people considered many things Unconstitutional but they happened anyway, from abolition of slaves, the FBI, the EPA, and many others.

Hell, the Patriot Act may even be considered Unconstitutional if you want to get down to brass tacks, but let's not push it here.

Edited December 8, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, ShadySands said:

 

I never saw the beginning of 28 Days Later, is this how it starts?

No. Spoiler protection, after all the movie is only 18 years old...

Spoiler

Some PETA types release infected monkeys from a lab, shenanigans ensue.

Interesting factoid: the '2nd' person to get the UK vaccine was William Shakespeare.

I'm not sure if his parents hated or loved him giving him that name.

[Raithe]

Going for that splash graphic, numbers and no background...  <whistles innocently>

[Gorth]

9 hours ago, BruceVC said:

The funding from numerous governments for the vaccine was in the interests of survival of there own citizens  and expediency in the objective for life to return to normal like it was before the pandemic , that has nothing to do with any pharmaceutical companies not now making  profit. I am not sure if you have any links that support your point?

You're right. The notion that they need to cover their research costs is a bit outdated it seems. I thought it it used to be the reason, but you made me dig a bit. Turns out drug companies are just abusing a position of power. It's sheer price gouging these days with prices way beyond anything justifiable by the expenditure. If you thought banks were unethical... they got nothing on drug companies.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/drug-prices-high-cost-research-and-development/585253/

 

"The most telling data on a disconnect between drug prices and research costs has received almost no public attention. Peter Bach, a researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and his colleagues compared prices of the top 20 best-selling drugs in the United States to the prices in Europe and Canada. They found that the cumulative revenue from the price difference on just these 20 drugs more than covers all the drug research and development costs conducted by the 15 drug companies that make those drugs—and then some"

 

"To be more precise, after accounting for the costs of all research—about $80 billion a year—drug companies had $40 billion more from the top 20 drugs alone, all of which went straight to profits, not research. More excess profit comes from the next 100 or 200 brand-name drugs."