The COVID Vaccination Thread

[Thylacine 2000]

Considering IBCs are local and not overarching unlike what this article is claiming, I'm going to discount it as needless hysteria over made up nonsense.

There's no shortage of that.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1581738006436012032

 

[MrBlud]

Gotta love

“Gain of function research is thought to be the origin of COVID-19.”

followed a few sentences later by

“Many believe it was engineered by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, though the theory remains unproven.”

So no, it’s not “thought to be” any more than the Earth is “thought to be” flat.

Trash article.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

Fearmongering clickbait.

 

[Pale Rider]

Good to know. I saw it making the rounds and didn't know what to think. That's why I posted it here.

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

Doesn't the Daily Beast usually feature better articles of have I confused it with a similar-sounding website?

 

[Pocket]

All media outlets are clickbait garbage at least some of the time at this point. Sometimes the more consistently clickbait-y ones like the Daily Beast or Buzzfeed manage to let actual journalism squeak through that puts even the mainstream newspapers to shame, and the under-30s jump on it being all "See? This is the future of journalism!" and then they go back to making clickbait.

 

[Rust]

There's a reason I've switched to just getting my news exclusively from the Associated Press aka "The News' News".

 

[Pale Rider]

FB friend:

It's tempting to think that America's Covid-19 response would have been a lot better if Hillary had been president, but let's be realistic: the government's response would have been better, but the people would have fallen even harder for the "freedom" anti-mask/anti-vax movement.

There would have been mass protests from the start, with the GOP accusing the entire Clinton administration of being in league with a Chinese conspiracy to shut down the US economy. The GOP would have egged the protesters on with their usual brand of violent macho rhetoric and lurid conspiracy theories, supercharged by the resentment of having lost the 2016 election. By the time of the 2020 election, the loonies would have been bombing doctors' offices and shooting people for wearing masks.

The 2021 vaccine drive would have gone even worse than it did. With Trump unable to falsely take credit for the vaccine, he would have been openly against it, and Republican governors would have followed his lead in order to appease his fan base. Trump would have been almost as visible from 2016 to 2020 as he was in office, because the media loves him: he's ratings gold. He would have started his 2020 campaign weeks after losing the 2016 election, and he would have been holding his insane rallies this whole time.

 

[Thylacine 2000]

Counterpoint: Trump would have gotten COVID while not being President, would not have been airlifted to Walter Reed to get one of the world's first doses of remdesivir and who knows what else they bespoke pumped into him, and likely would have died. So, better response.

 

[Pale Rider]

Trump may have even beaten Herman Cain to the punch, so the Herman Cain Award would instead be called the Donald Trump Award.

 

[Nevermore]

And then he would have died a martyr, and his crazy cult would have voted for whoever would have been on the GOP ticket of only out of spite.

 

[Rust]

Also: Under Hilary, the Pandemic response team established by Obama would not have been disbanded by Trump. So it's actually not entirely impossible we might have gotten a far better handle on things far, far earlier.

 

[wonko the sane?]

There's literally no impossible there. Trump did nothing, biden was responsible for stepping in and implementing the few half measures that got through. Between that and the states responses, it's a ******* miracle you ONLY lost a million people.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

Trump did nothing,

Not entirely true. He denied it, suppressed the experts, threw out crackpot "cure" ideas, spread the words of whichever quacks he felt like listening to at a given time, and threw in some racism against China on top of it all. He didn't do nothing, he actively made the problem worse.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

And then he would have died a martyr, and his crazy cult would have voted for whoever would have been on the GOP ticket of only out of spite.

This is not how martyrs are made. In this scenario, Trump would have died and been forgotten.

 

[Pale Rider]

And there's no scenario where his crazy followers wouldn't vote for the Republican candidate anyway. If DeSantis wins the nomination in 2024, I don't see them sitting out just because he's not their orange messiah.

 

[Pocket]

Virtually any Republican who could conceivably emerge as 2024's front-runner has a better chance of winning than Trump himself does, unless he also runs as a spoiler. Even if the field includes Trump clones like MTG, they'll just lose the primary when everyone who likes them just votes for the man himself instead.

 

[NovaSaber]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1590323788830605313

 

[Pocket]

Sure is a good thing we're not the ones who have to pay for them, then!

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1590323788830605313

1/ Full story below.

Pfizer expects to hike U.S. COVID vaccine price to $110-$130 per dose

NEW YORK, Oct 20 (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc expects to roughly quadruple the price of its COVID-19 vaccine to about $110 to $130 per dose after the United States government's current purchase program expires, Pfizer executive Angela Lukin said on Thursday.

Lukin said she expects the vaccine - currently provided for free to all by the government - will be made available at no cost to people who have private insurance or government paid insurance.

Reuters earlier on Thursday reported that Wall Street was expecting such price hikes due to weak demand for COVID vaccines, which meant vaccine makers would need to hike prices to meet revenue forecasts for 2023 and beyond.

The U.S. government currently pays around $30 per dose to Pfizer and German partner BioNTech SE (22UAy.DE). In 2023, the market is expected to move to private insurance after the U.S. public health emergency expires.

"We are confident that the U.S. price point of the COVID-19 vaccine reflects its overall cost effectiveness and ensures the price will not be a barrier for access for patients," Lukin said.

It is not yet clear what kind of access people without health insurance will have to the vaccine.

Pfizer said it expects the COVID-19 market to be about the size of the flu shot market on an annual basis for adults, but that the pediatric market would take longer to build based on shots given so far.

So far the U.S. rollout of updated COVID-19 booster shots which target both the original coronavirus strain and the Omicron strain has lagged last year's rate despite more people being eligible for the shots.

Around 14.8 million people in the U.S. received a booster shot over the first six weeks of the rollout of the new shots. In the first six weeks of the 2021 revaccination campaign, over 22 million people received their third shot even though only older and immunocompromised people were eligible at that point.

Lukin said she does not expect purchasing of the vaccines to transfer to the private sector until the first quarter of 2023 "at the earliest." The move is dependent on the government contracted supply being depleted.

(Source: - https://www.reuters.com/business/he...ce-covid-vaccine-110-130-per-dose-2022-10-20/ )

2/ Here's an opinion piece on it:

- https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...ure-of-us-healthcare-pricing/?sh=fbe578258098

3/ The "slap in the face" article seems to have originated from "The Daily Mail" tabloid newspaper in the UK:

- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...-pandemic-multi-billion-dollar-franchise.html

Please be aware that "The Daily Mail" has been analysed and found to lack credibility by some sources (see below):

-

Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.

Questionable Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

...The Daily Mail is a known supporter of the Conservatives. They are also one of the pro-Brexit tabloids. According to a Reuters article, the Daily Mail published a controversial headline in response to a Brexit Court ruling criticizing the judges by branding them as ‘enemies of the people.’ According to CNBC, the Daily Mail has also been criticized by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales for publishing fake news articles and “hyped up” headlines and “mastered the art of running stories that aren’t true.” Further, CNBC reported that DMG media responded by saying, “DailyMail.com is the very antithesis of click-bait and hype headlines. We just tell stories better than anyone else.”

The Daily Mail tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wordings such as “Woman, 63, ‘becomes PREGNANT in the mouth’ with baby squid after eating calamari”, which is a misleading headline. In 2017, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as an ‘unreliable’ source. When it comes to sourcing information, they use minimal hyperlinked sourcing and sourcing to themselves. Further, a Reuters institute survey found that 26% of respondents trust their news coverage and 47% do not, ranking them #11 in trust of the major UK news providers. In general, most stories favor the right; however, the Daily Mail will report either side of the story is sensational enough...

(Source: - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ )

- https://www.politifact.com/personalities/daily-mail/

- https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-daily-mail-reliable/

Hope this helps.