BruceVC Posted December 9, 2020 Posted December 9, 2020 3 hours ago, Gorth said: 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 The notion that they need to cover their research costs is a bit outdated it seems.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." I wasnt expecting such a damaging link that is an indictment generally of the pharmaceutical industry....at least in the USA In Africa countries get certain drugs at reduced prices or they subsidized by other countries like the USA, for example HIV drugs in SA https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa-hiv-aids-drugs-treatment-deal-under-threat-us-budget-cuts-a7960391.html Gorthfuscious I think you will agree going forward we should be focusing on the greed and unethical behavior of the drug companies and leave the banks alone ....its time to identify a new enemy to hold accountable for global inequality I want to get a shirt made that says " at least I dont work in a pharmaceutical company " 2 "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Raithe Posted December 9, 2020 Posted December 9, 2020 Okay, to update with better referenced statistics... 1 "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Gorth Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 The UK may have a bad case of Russophobia, but that doesn't seem to stop the scientists... Behold, the Frankensteins Monster! https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-55270942 "As we mentioned earlier, UK and Russian scientists are teaming up to trial a combination of the Oxford-AstraZeneca and Sputnik V vaccines to see if protection against Covid-19 can be improved. Mixing two similar vaccines could lead to a better immune response in people." “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
213374U Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 Of course. Just throw the Oxford-Astra (90% effective), Sputnik (91%) and Pfizer (95%) vaccines in a bucket, stir a bit, and shoot up the result for a whopping 276% effectiveness!!1 - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Malcador Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 1 hour ago, 213374U said: Of course. Just throw the Oxford-Astra (90% effective), Sputnik (91%) and Pfizer (95%) vaccines in a bucket, stir a bit, and shoot up the result for a whopping 276% effectiveness!!1 You've got Project Manager written all over you! 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Zoraptor Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 (edited) The Oxford vaccine is iirc now officially 70% effective after they redid their statistics. Which is enough, but they would like to get it higher hence the sudden bout of scientific camaraderie with the Russians after Brit media has spent the last six months either ignoring it or implying Sputnik was unscientific and fudging the numbers. Which they probably are to be frank, but then as it turned out... so was Astra-Zenica/ Oxford. Theoretically combining two 70% vaccines would get them to 90% combined effectiveness, though that's a 'perfect' case. Given that the Oxford and Sputnik vaccines are both very cheap to make even a combined jab would be ~10% the cost of the Pfizer one, and if it removed the need for a booster it would cost the same* as a two jab series from a single vaccine. If that extra 20% reduces deaths or hospital stays by 20% over a single vector vaccine then it's more than worth it both economically and medically. *[edit] actually quite a lot less if you take other factors apart from the base vaccine cost into account. No need for a second shot should massively reduce storage/ admin/ needle etc costs, no worries about people not turning up for a second shot and having to chase them up, and more. Edited December 11, 2020 by Zoraptor 1
BruceVC Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 16 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: The Oxford vaccine is iirc now officially 70% effective after they redid their statistics. Which is enough, but they would like to get it higher hence the sudden bout of scientific camaraderie with the Russians after Brit media has spent the last six months either ignoring it or implying Sputnik was unscientific and fudging the numbers. Which they probably are to be frank, but then as it turned out... so was Astra-Zenica/ Oxford. Theoretically combining two 70% vaccines would get them to 90% combined effectiveness, though that's a 'perfect' case. Given that the Oxford and Sputnik vaccines are both very cheap to make even a combined jab would be ~10% the cost of the Pfizer one, and if it removed the need for a booster it would cost the same as a two jab series from a single vaccine. If that extra 20% reduces deaths or hospital stays by 20% over a single vector vaccine then it's more than worth it both economically and medically. I am not sure what you guys are concerned about, maybe I am misunderstanding this debate We have real unnecessary comments from citizens in many countries that now people are questing the legitimacy of these vaccines, people are raising concerns that have been explained many times around how these vaccines " cannot be released so early as vaccines take 3-5 years " ....yes this is the normal time period but you can change this by simply reducing the number of live humans in the trials This is not compromising on the vaccine, its just making the sample numbers less but the most important thing is basically each vaccine has been tested on 100 K people which for me is good enough for me to take the vaccine Anyway I dont think anyone is going to deny the science behind taking the vaccine but we have to also accept there will be a small number of people who will have a bad reaction or no reaction but that is a not a reason to doubt the positive outcome "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Gorth Posted December 12, 2020 Posted December 12, 2020 8 hours ago, BruceVC said: Anyway I dont think anyone is going to deny the science behind taking the vaccine but we have to also accept there will be a small number of people who will have a bad reaction or no reaction but that is a not a reason to doubt the positive outcome It was so long ago that I've responded with a "no known allergies" when a doctor asked me, but because it was so long ago, I've almost forgotten that my smallpox vaccination almost killed me as a kid. My body reacting very violently to it. I better remember that if asked again. Sort of related to a previous post of mine, but I noticed an interesting little detail that had escaped my notice so far (AZD1222 is the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/11/astrazeneca-to-trial-combination-with-russian-covid-19-vaccine "While the Sputnik V jab uses human adenovirus vectors, AZD1222 relies on adenovirus from chimpanzees. Both are administered in two doses." I see all kinds of potentials “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
213374U Posted December 12, 2020 Posted December 12, 2020 8 hours ago, Gorth said: I see all kinds of potentials 1 - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Recommended Posts