Coronavirus

[Chino]

I think children are near the bottom.  Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, children are both the least impacted and are at or near the bottom in terms of being vectors as well.

They're generally accepted as the most useless contributors to society too.

You mean, besides politicians, right? 

And the guys who install turn signals on BMWs.

[Orbert]

BMWs come with turn signals now?  I've never...

[Adami]

I think children are near the bottom.  Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, children are both the least impacted and are at or near the bottom in terms of being vectors as well.

They're generally accepted as the most useless contributors to society too.

To be fair, that's only cause we haven't realized the beauty of child labor here yet.

[kirksnosehair]

My Mom called me last night saying she really wants me to be in Florida for Christmas.  Said it was worth the risk due to mental health and most of my family is already down there (both sisters drove down already).  So I booked a flight today to go down with my sisters husband (who has already recovered from covid a couple months ago) and then to fly back solo and he will stay there longer and drive back with my sister at some future date.  I just hope this isn't set up to be like one of the stories you'll hear on the news.  I think I'll be getting tested before the flight to be safe as well and of course follow all precautions.

I just came down to Florida to see my brother, st.pete/Tampa area and ill tell that you would think covid doesn't exists here. The amount of people out everywhere with zero masks its astonishing.

I was in northern Georgia all week last week and it was hard to tell that there is even a pandemic going on.  Everywhere you go masks are "suggested" and it seems like maybe 1 in 100 people are masking up in public places. 

[kirksnosehair]

I know people who wore masks everywhere they went but they still got it; I know people who have gone everywhere without masks and not gotten it. I really don't think treating the mask like the new Star of David is logical. That said, Rudy is indeed an idiot

I know people that got knocked up while using a condom and/or other forms of birth control. We should still advocate for their use even if not 100% effective.

did you compare getting pregnant to getting a disease

but, yes, I agree, although we should let the individual make their own choice, if we're really going to compare masks to condoms

I compared the effectiveness of the tools we use vs our desired outcomes. Just because it doesn't always work doesn't mean it's not an effective solution. Seatbelts and airbags don't prevent every death in a car, but they're a good idea. Occasionally a pressure release valve fails on a hot water heater and blows up someone's house, but I'd still prefer all hot water systems have them. Brushing your teeth wont prevent every instance of cavities, but not many people seem to balk at that routine. I'm not claiming that masks are 100% effective. However, they're the bare minimum to keep those around you safe. Pridefully not wearing one in an intimate setting like a courtroom isn't something we should be encouraging or entertaining as okay.

Yes, you are literally not telling me anything I don't already know. I agree with you. Just saying I don't think someone wearing a mask automatically means they're "better" or suddenly not gonna get it. A thin bandana that doesn't offer any medical grade protection from particles should, logically, be worthy of chastising too, but people are more concerned about the appearance rather than the effectiveness, it seems. Nobody says anything when I wear a super thin headband over my mouth, when it offers no protection, but the appearance comforts people, which isn't very logical

>expecting humans to be logical

[Stadler]

BMWs come with turn signals now?  I've never...

You and Chino can both fuck right off.     






(Full disclosure for everyone else:  technically I have four cars, and two of them are BMWs.  I've owned probably six or seven in my life... and my wife yells at me all the time for not using my turn signal.)

[Chino]

 

[Stadler]

My Mom called me last night saying she really wants me to be in Florida for Christmas.  Said it was worth the risk due to mental health and most of my family is already down there (both sisters drove down already).  So I booked a flight today to go down with my sisters husband (who has already recovered from covid a couple months ago) and then to fly back solo and he will stay there longer and drive back with my sister at some future date.  I just hope this isn't set up to be like one of the stories you'll hear on the news.  I think I'll be getting tested before the flight to be safe as well and of course follow all precautions.

I just came down to Florida to see my brother, st.pete/Tampa area and ill tell that you would think covid doesn't exists here. The amount of people out everywhere with zero masks its astonishing.

I was in northern Georgia all week last week and it was hard to tell that there is even a pandemic going on.  Everywhere you go masks are "suggested" and it seems like maybe 1 in 100 people are masking up in public places.

Anywhere good?  I used to live in Atlanta, and the drive up through Rome to get to Tennessee was some of the most beautiful country I've ever seen, and we used to also drive up to the Dahlonega area a lot too.   Just beautiful.

[cramx3]

My Mom called me last night saying she really wants me to be in Florida for Christmas.  Said it was worth the risk due to mental health and most of my family is already down there (both sisters drove down already).  So I booked a flight today to go down with my sisters husband (who has already recovered from covid a couple months ago) and then to fly back solo and he will stay there longer and drive back with my sister at some future date.  I just hope this isn't set up to be like one of the stories you'll hear on the news.  I think I'll be getting tested before the flight to be safe as well and of course follow all precautions.

I just came down to Florida to see my brother, st.pete/Tampa area and ill tell that you would think covid doesn't exists here. The amount of people out everywhere with zero masks its astonishing.

I was in northern Georgia all week last week and it was hard to tell that there is even a pandemic going on.  Everywhere you go masks are "suggested" and it seems like maybe 1 in 100 people are masking up in public places.

My sister drove down to my parents in Florida a couple weeks ago, and her reaction was pretty much the same.  It's like a night/day difference between living in FL vs NJ right now.  Having said that, when I go down, I don't plan on leaving the house for those 4 nights. 

I also see Jannus Live venue in St. Pete/Tampa Bay area (I think) is operating as normal with a Steel Panther show coming up soon

[kirksnosehair]

My Mom called me last night saying she really wants me to be in Florida for Christmas.  Said it was worth the risk due to mental health and most of my family is already down there (both sisters drove down already).  So I booked a flight today to go down with my sisters husband (who has already recovered from covid a couple months ago) and then to fly back solo and he will stay there longer and drive back with my sister at some future date.  I just hope this isn't set up to be like one of the stories you'll hear on the news.  I think I'll be getting tested before the flight to be safe as well and of course follow all precautions.

I just came down to Florida to see my brother, st.pete/Tampa area and ill tell that you would think covid doesn't exists here. The amount of people out everywhere with zero masks its astonishing.

I was in northern Georgia all week last week and it was hard to tell that there is even a pandemic going on.  Everywhere you go masks are "suggested" and it seems like maybe 1 in 100 people are masking up in public places.

Anywhere good?  I used to live in Atlanta, and the drive up through Rome to get to Tennessee was some of the most beautiful country I've ever seen, and we used to also drive up to the Dahlonega area a lot too.   Just beautiful.

Nothing special really, my son lives in Dallas and we stayed in a mediocre hotel in Hirem 

[ReaperKK]

Stay safe you two.

thanks Jingle

[emtee]

There are a tremendous number of people in the U.S. who think that corporations are pure evil. Among the most despised by this segment are drug and pharma companies. Where would we be without these companies now? Hopefully some minds and hearts will be changed. A thanks and show of support by someone like AOC would be beneficial.

[MirrorMask]

There are a tremendous number of people in the U.S. who think that corporations are pure evil. Among the most despised by this segment are drug and pharma companies. Where would we be without these companies now? Hopefully some minds and hearts will be changed. A thanks and show of support by someone like AOC would be beneficial.

In future generations this will be seen as a moment of mass hysteria against science and medicine. People will learn of the history of vaccines and how they were useful but how sometime in the early decades of the third millennium people started to consider vaccines evil, means of biomanipulation and something meant only to provide profit for big corporations (didn't see any complaints about literally everything else that is a profit for those providing it).

[Chino]

There's plenty to criticize the US pharmaceutical industry for despite it being revolutionary. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54636002

The settlement follows years of investigation into claims that Purdue and other drug-makers encouraged over-prescription of opioids, leading to overdoses and addiction which strained public health and policing resources in cities and towns across the US.

Under the terms of the settlement, Purdue will admit to conspiring to defraud the US and violating anti-kickback laws in its distribution of the addictive painkillers.

Those included payments the firm made to healthcare companies and doctors to encourage prescribing the drugs, which were ultimately paid for by public health programmes.



They knew what they were doing. Someone ordered and reviewed a cost benefit analysis at some point and determined that the profit to be made off of over-pushing their drugs would outweigh the inevitable lawsuits. Their actions dicked the taxpayer and ruined thousands of families and lives. Call that whatever you want. I have no problem calling it evil.

[Podaar]

I haven't read anything that would indicate that the pharma industry is putting forth all this effort for free. I wouldn't be too quick project noble motives on them. These companies' past track records and Occam's razor would indicate they stand to gain a pretty big windfall out of all this...for years to come.

That being said, I can always hope. I did read the other day that Astrazeneca estimated $20.00 cost per shot...which doesn't sound too bad considering the effort to research, manufacture, and package the vaccine.

Edit: Ninja's by Chino

[MirrorMask]

I haven't read anything that would indicate that the pharma industry is putting forth all this effort for free. I wouldn't be too quick project noble motives on them. These companies' past track records and Occam's razor would indicate they stand to gain a pretty big windfall out of all this...for years to come.

Of course they stand to gain from it, but making a profit does not excludes an actual good working vaccine. All of our favorite musicians stand to make a profit from their music, this doesn't mean they don't pour their hearts into it.

Everyone in this world makes everything for a profit, ourselves included at our jobs, but I don't get why only "big pharma" is evil if they profit from a vaccine. Yes, the specific cases of malpractice are bad and they need to be investigated. And yes, those doctors who made available their findings for free so that they would be available for everyone are encomiable. But making a profit does not always and necessarily imply "bad".

[Podaar]

I'm a businessman, I get profit and applaud it. I want them to make a profit.

I was more concerned with emtee's tone that the drug companies are somehow absolved a history of (IMO) obscene profits by making us a vaccine. The jury is still out on where they line up on the evil/good scale depending on what they charge for the vaccine.

Profiteering on misery is going to rub people the wrong way.

Edit: This could be more of a U.S. problem, though. We tend to pay way more for drugs than other counties. At least, that's my understanding.

[Stadler]

I haven't read anything that would indicate that the pharma industry is putting forth all this effort for free. I wouldn't be too quick project noble motives on them. These companies' past track records and Occam's razor would indicate they stand to gain a pretty big windfall out of all this...for years to come.

Of course they stand to gain from it, but making a profit does not excludes an actual good working vaccine. All of our favorite musicians stand to make a profit from their music, this doesn't mean they don't pour their hearts into it.

Everyone in this world makes everything for a profit, ourselves included at our jobs, but I don't get why only "big pharma" is evil if they profit from a vaccine. Yes, the specific cases of malpractice are bad and they need to be investigated. And yes, those doctors who made available their findings for free so that they would be available for everyone are encomiable. But making a profit does not always and necessarily imply "bad".

Except, in the case of corporations, it does, it seems.  I'm in agreement with you; it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people think that corporations should be carrying our societal water.   They are somehow responsible for our climate, our healthcare, our social mores, our familial economic choices...   frankly I think we ask too much of our corporations, in the sense that instead of making them RESPONSIBLE for this stuff, we ought to take them out of the loop entirely.   It's INSANE to me that we have continued to tie healthcare to our jobs in that way.   

So what if they stand to make a profit on this?   How do we expect them to pay for the scientists, the equipment, the time, the materials, the intellectual property, to achieve these milestones?   What about the other firms that tried and failed (the White House apparently did not give Pfizer the exclusive rights to the vaccine, anticipating that as many as six firms would ultimately have a workable vaccine; a smart move in most instances, except the one where only Pfizer of the six achieved approval.)

And in case it matters, I've long written that rather than Obama cutting a backroom deal with Pharma to guarantee them billions in profit in advance of the introduction of the ACA, we should have agreed to foot the development costs for new drugs; that way we - meaning the government - could better control what was developed and marketed.  "R&D" is, as I understand it, a large part of the costs of a pharmaceutical (Millah can correct me if I'm wrong) and to take that risk out of the equation would be beneficial to all.

[jingle.boy]

The US Pharma industry is absolutely bizarre to me.  The fact that about 1/3 of the commercials I see on US airwaves are for drugs is ... bizarre is the only word I can conjure up.  Never once have I seen an add on Canadian TV with the words "ask your doctor about" for prescription meds.

[Stadler]

The US Pharma industry is absolutely bizarre to me.  The fact that about 1/3 of the commercials I see on US airwaves are for drugs is ... bizarre is the only word I can conjure up.  Never once have I seen an add on Canadian TV with the words "ask your doctor about" for prescription meds.

I first heard about that - the idea to market directly to patients, and get them to "pressure" their doctors for the latest and greatest - in business school, and from a purely marketing standpoint, it's GENIUS.  It's the perfect storm; the patient isn't paying directly for it (that's insurance), the doctors don't want to appear out of touch or as if they don't care about the best care for their patients, and the pharmaceuticals get to save on what I used to call the "pharma stewardesses", the hot sales woman that went around handing out samples and testers (think Penny on the Big Bang Theory latter seasons).   

Critics have claimed that it led to "doctor shopping" and/or to doctor's prescribing medication for the wrong reasons, but I honestly have never experienced that myself (though I have little experience with the prescription of behavioral medication). 

[Ben_Jamin]

@ Stads... our gov't most certainly does "make" us do some of these things - building codes, health codes for the food industry, seatbelts for drivers, other safety standards for auto manufacturers ... the condom analogy falls apart (except for those knowing they have an STD), as does the teethbrushing, but the others do not.  As was noted, individual lack of compliance doesn't affect others in those senses.  Where gov't (imo) has the right to be involved is when said lack of compliance can directly affect the well-being of others.

Some of those are basic simple science, physical science. A seatbelt is just physics, and the Gov't realized this, "You go fast, and hit a wall, without a restraint, you will go splat into the wall" (Cars were invented not that long ago, and are now even faster and the body isn't made of the strong metal like the cars before). If you build a building that isn't up to code, basically shoddy construction work, your house will collapse and fall. If you don't follow health code you or your customers will get sick. It's like knowing getting punched in the nose will cause a nosebleed. It's not for the well-being of others.

The government, implemented those as a means for people's safety, and to regulate the safety of the customer. All those are company related. They made seatbelts a law, as they saw people not wearing seatbelts and were tired of the high death rate from an automobile crash that could easily have been prevented by a simple restraint. That's an easy thing to control. As the car doesn't have legs and is alive.

With the seatbelt analogy. I may choose to wear a seatbelt, but I should know, if I don't I risk getting thrown and going splat. But If I decide not to, I chose not to, and that is my choice, and I accept the consequences of that choice, whether good or bad.

People on the other hand, are not easily controlled. It's why we need an authoritarian figure to discipline, correct mistakes, and guide them to not make those mistakes again while being beneficial to society. It's a process, first you discipline, then you correct their mistakes, then you should guide them to be a better person in society. The US, doesn't do the last process. They just toss them back in society, and expect them to guide themselves, and correct their own mistakes. It's the concept of Subterranea, being secluded for so long and being let out into the world without guidance, it's why the main character ends up going back to the Provider, as a secluded prisoner needs that guidance or else they'll just revert back to what is familiar and comforting for them, which is to the provider of the Prison System.

It's why I say, are we really self-reliant or are we too reliant on "The Other"? I can tell you now, we are not self-reliant.

[King Postwhore]

The US Pharma industry is absolutely bizarre to me.  The fact that about 1/3 of the commercials I see on US airwaves are for drugs is ... bizarre is the only word I can conjure up.  Never once have I seen an add on Canadian TV with the words "ask your doctor about" for prescription meds.

I first heard about that - the idea to market directly to patients, and get them to "pressure" their doctors for the latest and greatest - in business school, and from a purely marketing standpoint, it's GENIUS.  It's the perfect storm; the patient isn't paying directly for it (that's insurance), the doctors don't want to appear out of touch or as if they don't care about the best care for their patients, and the pharmaceuticals get to save on what I used to call the "pharma stewardesses", the hot sales woman that went around handing out samples and testers (think Penny on the Big Bang Theory latter seasons).   

Critics have claimed that it led to "doctor shopping" and/or to doctor's prescribing medication for the wrong reasons, but I honestly have never experienced that myself (though I have little experience with the prescription of behavioral medication).

I have 1st hand.  My primary pushed Nexium on me.  At the tie a month prescription was $48.00 with insurance.  I found out that Omeprazole worked the same way and cost through my insurance $5.00 for a 2 month prescription.  I had to ask him if I could use those and he said yes.  Unless I asked him he never would have told me the cost break.

[Ben_Jamin]

On a different subtopic, I heard something this morning that I thought was interesting.  I radio commentator I was listening to suggested that the elderly be given less of a priority for the eventual vaccine, and that, e.g., grocery store workers be giving higher priority.  The reasoning is that there are workers out there in capacities that are crucial for our society and business infrastructure that, by virtue of the nature of their jobs, have to interact with others, so it is therefore better for the overall recovery of our society as a whole to protect those people first.  What do you all think of that?

So, my job is now at risk, If I do not want to take a vaccine? (Guarantee this is being said)

[TAC]

With the seatbelt analogy. I may choose to wear a seatbelt, but I should know, if I don't I risk getting thrown and going splat. But If I decide not to, I chose not to, and that is my choice, and I accept the consequences of that choice, whether good or bad.

So do you also give up the right to sue a guy that hit you for injuries that could've been avoided had you been wearing your seatbelt, and could your medical costs not be covered for the same reason?

[Stadler]

I'm a businessman, I get profit and applaud it. I want them to make a profit.

I was more concerned with emtee's tone that the drug companies are somehow absolved a history of (IMO) obscene profits by making us a vaccine. The jury is still out on where they line up on the evil/good scale depending on what they charge for the vaccine.

Profiteering on misery is going to rub people the wrong way.

Edit: This could be more of a U.S. problem, though. We tend to pay way more for drugs than other counties. At least, that's my understanding.

The problem is, of course, "obscene".  To some, a naked boob is "obscene", and to others, the line is MUCH different.  The same here with profit. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (by way of example) doesn't get to be the arbiter of what's "obscene" or not.

[TAC]

On a different subtopic, I heard something this morning that I thought was interesting.  I radio commentator I was listening to suggested that the elderly be given less of a priority for the eventual vaccine, and that, e.g., grocery store workers be giving higher priority. The reasoning is that there are workers out there in capacities that are crucial for our society and business infrastructure that, by virtue of the nature of their jobs, have to interact with others, so it is therefore better for the overall recovery of our society as a whole to protect those people first.  What do you all think of that?

I'm all for that!!

[Ben_Jamin]

There are a tremendous number of people in the U.S. who think that corporations are pure evil. Among the most despised by this segment are drug and pharma companies. Where would we be without these companies now? Hopefully some minds and hearts will be changed. A thanks and show of support by someone like AOC would be beneficial.

1. I don't trust drug or pharma companies because in the end, they're pushing a product. If people understand, there are other alternatives, that could be used instead of their products, why would people buy their products. It's proven, a diet change, can help reverse some symptoms and effects of illnesses.

2. We have become too reliant on "The other" for the bare necessities of life. The big one is food. We can't even farm our own food, much anymore, we rely on the big box stores for our food supply. Processed Foods, and Foods that have no Nutritional Value, affect our health. If we were more self-reliant on our basic necessity of Food, we wouldn't have to rely on those big box stores for our food supply. And won't be in panic mode if those supply chains were to be unlinked.


I do recognize there is potential for good things from those companies. Like the creation of Epi-pens, for those serious allergic reactions. Drugs, that are used for cuts, abrasions, to help you while under surgery (Anesthesia). Foods, that are not of this region, being made available.

[Ben_Jamin]

There's plenty to criticize the US pharmaceutical industry for despite it being revolutionary. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54636002

The settlement follows years of investigation into claims that Purdue and other drug-makers encouraged over-prescription of opioids, leading to overdoses and addiction which strained public health and policing resources in cities and towns across the US.

Under the terms of the settlement, Purdue will admit to conspiring to defraud the US and violating anti-kickback laws in its distribution of the addictive painkillers.

Those included payments the firm made to healthcare companies and doctors to encourage prescribing the drugs, which were ultimately paid for by public health programmes.



They knew what they were doing. Someone ordered and reviewed a cost benefit analysis at some point and determined that the profit to be made off of over-pushing their drugs would outweigh the inevitable lawsuits. Their actions dicked the taxpayer and ruined thousands of families and lives. Call that whatever you want. I have no problem calling it evil.

Thanks, for helping prove my point. If they did this and got away with it, until they got exposed. What makes you think these companies are not doing this with the current Vaccine? It's why I question, the rush for this vaccine. It's in our history, if people can get away with it, people will go that route. There are sinister people in this world.

[Stadler]

@ Stads... our gov't most certainly does "make" us do some of these things - building codes, health codes for the food industry, seatbelts for drivers, other safety standards for auto manufacturers ... the condom analogy falls apart (except for those knowing they have an STD), as does the teethbrushing, but the others do not.  As was noted, individual lack of compliance doesn't affect others in those senses.  Where gov't (imo) has the right to be involved is when said lack of compliance can directly affect the well-being of others.

Some of those are basic simple science, physical science. A seatbelt is just physics, and the Gov't realized this, "You go fast, and hit a wall, without a restraint, you will go splat into the wall" (Cars were invented not that long ago, and are now even faster and the body isn't made of the strong metal like the cars before). If you build a building that isn't up to code, basically shoddy construction work, your house will collapse and fall. If you don't follow health code you or your customers will get sick. It's like knowing getting punched in the nose will cause a nosebleed. It's not for the well-being of others.

The government, implemented those as a means for people's safety, and to regulate the safety of the customer. All those are company related. They made seatbelts a law, as they saw people not wearing seatbelts and were tired of the high death rate from an automobile crash that could easily have been prevented by a simple restraint. That's an easy thing to control. As the car doesn't have legs and is alive.

With the seatbelt analogy. I may choose to wear a seatbelt, but I should know, if I don't I risk getting thrown and going splat. But If I decide not to, I chose not to, and that is my choice, and I accept the consequences of that choice, whether good or bad.

People on the other hand, are not easily controlled. It's why we need an authoritarian figure to discipline, correct mistakes, and guide them to not make those mistakes again while being beneficial to society. It's a process, first you discipline, then you correct their mistakes, then you should guide them to be a better person in society. The US, doesn't do the last process. They just toss them back in society, and expect them to guide themselves, and correct their own mistakes. It's the concept of Subterranea, being secluded for so long and being let out into the world without guidance, it's why the main character ends up going back to the Provider, as a secluded prisoner needs that guidance or else they'll just revert back to what is familiar and comforting for them, which is to the provider of the Prison System.

It's why I say, are we really self-reliant or are we too reliant on "The Other"? I can tell you now, we are not self-reliant.

It's all so arbitrary, though, and is a big reason why I wrote what I did about America and our thirst for "quick and easy".  None of this is for the greater good.   NONE of it.  It's what's EASY.  If we cared about our drivers, getting a driver's license wouldn't be as easy as signing up for a magazine subscription.  I hear often (and will hear here, no doubt) that the seatbelt is for SOCIETAL good, but it's not.   It's for the INSURANCE company's good, but not society.   If they wanted to improve things for society, we would prevent the accident to begin with.   We'd install all cars with a jammer to prevent cellphone use in the car.  Instead, we're equipping them with blue tooth, and Alexa and touch screens and a 100 other things to distract us from the road.  We'd teach our kids how to really DRIVE a car, as opposed to "parallel park".   We'd renew that DRIVER'S ED - not just the license - every four years.   The idea that we need "government" to protect us is a delusion, at least up to the point that we're doing all we can to protect ourselves first, and we're nowhere close to that now.

I've come to view "getting government involved" as sort of an adult version of tattling to the teacher in grade school; it's a way to get people to do what you WANT them to do when they're simply doing things you don't like.

[TAC]

  I hear often (and will hear here, no doubt) that the seatbelt is for SOCIETAL good, but it's not.   It's for the INSURANCE company's good, but not society. 

As are carriage corrals, which is the point I've been making.




OK..carry on...

[Ben_Jamin]

Except, in the case of corporations, it does, it seems.  I'm in agreement with you; it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people think that corporations should be carrying our societal water.   They are somehow responsible for our climate, our healthcare, our social mores, our familial economic choices...   frankly I think we ask too much of our corporations, in the sense that instead of making them RESPONSIBLE for this stuff, we ought to take them out of the loop entirely.   It's INSANE to me that we have continued to tie healthcare to our jobs in that way.   

This goes into not being "Self-Reliant" and being too reliant on "The other". We, Humanity, have evolved to be more reliant on "the other", that we lost the knowledge of being "Self-Reliant", which includes Growing and Hunting our own food, a bare necessity of life.

So what if they stand to make a profit on this?   How do we expect them to pay for the scientists, the equipment, the time, the materials, the intellectual property, to achieve these milestones?   What about the other firms that tried and failed (the White House apparently did not give Pfizer the exclusive rights to the vaccine, anticipating that as many as six firms would ultimately have a workable vaccine; a smart move in most instances, except the one where only Pfizer of the six achieved approval.)

For one, you'd think The Scientists, would do these things not out of money, but for the betterment of humanity in general. You'd think those scientists would see the betterment of humanity as payment enough for their work. Same can be said to the healthcare workers. To me, that is the definition of Greed. Doing things because of the money involved (or rewards) and not out of the kindness of your own heart (expecting nothing in return for your work).

The government should be funding the supplies, materials, and the equipment, for these scientists/healthcare workers, to do what needs to be done. But then, you have government being selective with their research "NO, it's forbidden to research this, and we won't fund you the supplies, materials, and equipment, if you decide to research it." (Cannabis and Hemp).

I don't care if they make a profit. It's a part of a Capitalist Society. I can choose not to buy their product. As I don't do now anyways, and won't ever. That's where I know that company is a greedy company and only cares about profits, and not the betterment of Society, and humanity as whole. Which would make them Sinister.

[Stadler]

There's plenty to criticize the US pharmaceutical industry for despite it being revolutionary. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54636002

The settlement follows years of investigation into claims that Purdue and other drug-makers encouraged over-prescription of opioids, leading to overdoses and addiction which strained public health and policing resources in cities and towns across the US.

Under the terms of the settlement, Purdue will admit to conspiring to defraud the US and violating anti-kickback laws in its distribution of the addictive painkillers.

Those included payments the firm made to healthcare companies and doctors to encourage prescribing the drugs, which were ultimately paid for by public health programmes.



They knew what they were doing. Someone ordered and reviewed a cost benefit analysis at some point and determined that the profit to be made off of over-pushing their drugs would outweigh the inevitable lawsuits. Their actions dicked the taxpayer and ruined thousands of families and lives. Call that whatever you want. I have no problem calling it evil.

Thanks, for helping prove my point. If they did this and got away with it, until they got exposed. What makes you think these companies are not doing this with the current Vaccine? It's why I question, the rush for this vaccine. It's in our history, if people can get away with it, people will go that route. There are sinister people in this world.

Respectfully, though, you're mixing apples and oranges.   There's no dispute that opioids are ineffective for the purposes intended, and some purposes that are not intended.   Oddly, the case against Purdue is implicitly predicated on the drug being TOO effective.  If the vaccine kills the virus and keeps us safe, that's something that is independent of malicious behavior on the part of the pharmaceuticals.

This borders on general trust, not trust of the pharmaceuticals.  For this vaccine to be a long con on the global population would take a conspiracy of unprecedented proportions, involving ciorporations, government regulators, multiple national governments, and probably the Knights Templar and the Illuminati.

I'll be fair here; I'm one to allow people to make mistakes, and I don't believe in promising outcomes, only opportunity.  Having said that, I do think it's an additional variable when you factor in psychological elements like addiction (this applies to the settlements against the tobacco companies).    I think it's different when the nature of the product makes you physically and mentally more likely to use the product.  Social media factors in here as well.

[Stadler]

  I hear often (and will hear here, no doubt) that the seatbelt is for SOCIETAL good, but it's not.   It's for the INSURANCE company's good, but not society. 

As are carriage corrals, which is the point I've been making.




OK..carry on...

That's different.  We're not animals.   

[Ben_Jamin]

With the seatbelt analogy. I may choose to wear a seatbelt, but I should know, if I don't I risk getting thrown and going splat. But If I decide not to, I chose not to, and that is my choice, and I accept the consequences of that choice, whether good or bad.

So do you also give up the right to sue a guy that hit you for injuries that could've been avoided had you been wearing your seatbelt, and could your medical costs not be covered for the same reason?

Yes, because I was irresponsible for not wearing that seatbelt, so why should I sue someone for injuries that were caused by my irresponsibility. If I do sue someone, I am just being an asshole.

[Stadler]

Except, in the case of corporations, it does, it seems.  I'm in agreement with you; it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people think that corporations should be carrying our societal water.   They are somehow responsible for our climate, our healthcare, our social mores, our familial economic choices...   frankly I think we ask too much of our corporations, in the sense that instead of making them RESPONSIBLE for this stuff, we ought to take them out of the loop entirely.   It's INSANE to me that we have continued to tie healthcare to our jobs in that way.   

This goes into not being "Self-Reliant" and being too reliant on "The other". We, Humanity, have evolved to be more reliant on "the other", that we lost the knowledge of being "Self-Reliant", which includes Growing and Hunting our own food, a bare necessity of life.

So what if they stand to make a profit on this?   How do we expect them to pay for the scientists, the equipment, the time, the materials, the intellectual property, to achieve these milestones?   What about the other firms that tried and failed (the White House apparently did not give Pfizer the exclusive rights to the vaccine, anticipating that as many as six firms would ultimately have a workable vaccine; a smart move in most instances, except the one where only Pfizer of the six achieved approval.)

For one, you'd think The Scientists, would do these things not out of money, but for the betterment of humanity in general. You'd think those scientists would see the betterment of humanity as payment enough for their work. Same can be said to the healthcare workers. To me, that is the definition of Greed. Doing things because of the money involved (or rewards) and not out of the kindness of your own heart (expecting nothing in return for your work).

The government should be funding the supplies, materials, and the equipment, for these scientists/healthcare workers, to do what needs to be done. But then, you have government being selective with their research "NO, it's forbidden to research this, and we won't fund you the supplies, materials, and equipment, if you decide to research it." (Cannabis and Hemp).

I don't care if they make a profit. It's a part of a Capitalist Society. I can choose not to buy their product. As I don't do now anyways, and won't ever. That's where I know that company is a greedy company and only cares about profits, and not the betterment of Society, and humanity as whole. Which would make them Sinister.

That's a philosophical question though; why should scientists and healthcare workers shoulder that burden?  Who's going to pay for the equipment, schooling, research, raw materials and testing for all this "free science"?   My cousin is a nurse in Connecticut, and that kid has worked her balls off for the last 10 months; who was going to pay her rent, buy her food, pay her car payments, etc. etc. while she was giving all this care out of the goodness of her heart?    I choose to think of "capitalism" slightly different than most; it's no different than communism except there are transfer payments.  It's an additional step.  And the "corruption" (in the sense of not being pure) of capitalism is greed, while the "corruption" of communism is socialist totalitarianism.  They both can be abused, but in the purer form facilitate a utility. 

I'm not a nurse or doctor.  I wouldn't make a good one as I don't like blood or mutilation.  So I do what my skillset offers, in that I can think strategically, and I'm good at negotiations.  So I let my cousin - and thousands of men and women like her - tend to the sick and wounded, and I offer my support to society in the way I can.  Rather than directly trade "legal services" with each and every medical person (or vice versa), we trade our individual skills for "money", a placeholder for future (other) services rendered.    We trust our corporations and institutions to spread the costs; Pfizer buys the research and development equipment and know-how to apply to COVID, HIV, the flu, erectile dysfunction, and psoriasis, and the resources necessary to get the job done, so that each individual person doesn't have to trial and error their way to a COVID cure.    And in turn the corporation takes the risk; if the doctor has a bright idea for a cure of something, she can test it, model it, formulate it, using the corporate resources she didn't have to buy for a one-off use.   If it's successful, the corporation shares in that windfall, and if it fails, the corporation takes that hit almost exclusively.  It costs BILLIONS for a successful drug trial run (i.e. market approval), and yet nine out of ten potential drugs DON'T get that approval.