4 ms·

> the successful development of several vaccines to the novel coronavirus are a sign that America (with some help from Germany) is still capable of achieving B

> the successful development of several vaccines to the novel coronavirus are a sign that America (with some help from Germany) is still capable of achieving Big Things when we are pushed to it. So the The Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID vaccine is from the USA then? Wrong. It just isn't. (1) Bad data in gives bad conclusion out. Likewise, I would be more impressed by a competent rail rollout (both urban driverless; and long-distance high speed) using technologies proven for decades, than with promises of self-driving cars real soon. 1) https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-23-oxford-university-breakthrough-global-covid-19-vaccine https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-23-oxford-university-break...

quicklime 6y ago
Isn't the article talking about the mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer (with some help from Germany's BioNTech)?
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  Last time I checked, there were preliminary results from 3 different vaccines, with teams based in Germany (BioNTech - Pfizer), USA (Moderna in Cambridge Mass) and the UK (Oxford University - AstraZeneca). So the statement that "the USA has achieved several vaccines" _plural_ is sloppy wording and sloppy with the facts, and just as sloppy thinking. Pfizer in Germany: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/10/europe/biontech-pfizer-vaccine-team-couple-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/10/europe/biontech-pfizer-va...
  - svara 6y ago
    The company that CNN article is referring to is called BioNTech, not Pfizer, and they have been working on RNA based therapeutics (mostly as cancer treatments) for a long time. They started working on the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in January 2020. As is often the case when a relatively small pharmaceutical company develops a new product, they teamed up with Pfizer to run the trials, manufacturing and logistics. The article misrepresents this in multiple ways.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      > The company ... is called BioNTech, not Pfizer, You are correct. They seem to be based in Mainz, Germany. Not American in any sense at all. I have edited grandparent comment to read "BioNTech - Pfizer", in similar style to "Oxford University - AstraZeneca"
rjknight 6y ago
The author is "Director of Innovation Policy" at a US-based think-tank. His agenda (which I agree with, fwiw!) is to influence US government policy. He is trying to do this by encouraging the belief that American innovation has high returns on investment right now, as the "great stagation" may be coming to an end. Because it's political rhetoric rather than scentific argument, some fudging of the facts is to be expected. The only people likely to be offended at having credit for the innovations stolen are outside the US, and they are not the audience. It doesn't really detract from the force of the argument, since anything that can be said about American innovation could reasonably be said about European innovation, and "America" could be taken as short-hand for "developed nations at the technological frontier".
- rwmj 6y ago
  Wouldn't it be better for an article which is meant to influence US policy to be grounded in facts? Or are you saying it's fine to make up any old thing because the ends justify the means?
  - rjknight 6y ago
    It might be preferable if everyone dealt in facts all of the time, but political influence is a competitive game. I'm not saying that it's fine to elide the details, just that it's understandable, and understanding why people do things is fun and interesting.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      > It might be preferable if everyone dealt in facts all of the time, but political influence is a competitive game. And how is playing Liar's Poker with a pandemic virus working out for you? Read the mood, man. Like they say, "It's only when the tide goes out that you learn who has been swimming naked."
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > Wouldn't it be better for an article which is meant to influence US policy to be grounded in facts? IMHO, the last few years in the USA should serve as a strong lesson in why fact-based policy is superior to fantasy politics.

quicklime 6y ago

Isn't the article talking about the mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer (with some help from Germany's BioNTech)?

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
Last time I checked, there were preliminary results from 3 different vaccines, with teams based in Germany (BioNTech - Pfizer), USA (Moderna in Cambridge Mass) and the UK (Oxford University - AstraZeneca). So the statement that "the USA has achieved several vaccines" _plural_ is sloppy wording and sloppy with the facts, and just as sloppy thinking. Pfizer in Germany: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/10/europe/biontech-pfizer-vaccine-team-couple-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/10/europe/biontech-pfizer-va...
- svara 6y ago
  The company that CNN article is referring to is called BioNTech, not Pfizer, and they have been working on RNA based therapeutics (mostly as cancer treatments) for a long time. They started working on the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in January 2020. As is often the case when a relatively small pharmaceutical company develops a new product, they teamed up with Pfizer to run the trials, manufacturing and logistics. The article misrepresents this in multiple ways.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > The company ... is called BioNTech, not Pfizer, You are correct. They seem to be based in Mainz, Germany. Not American in any sense at all. I have edited grandparent comment to read "BioNTech - Pfizer", in similar style to "Oxford University - AstraZeneca"

rjknight 6y ago

The author is "Director of Innovation Policy" at a US-based think-tank. His agenda (which I agree with, fwiw!) is to influence US government policy. He is trying to do this by encouraging the belief that American innovation has high returns on investment right now, as the "great stagation" may be coming to an end. Because it's political rhetoric rather than scentific argument, some fudging of the facts is to be expected. The only people likely to be offended at having credit for the innovations stolen are outside the US, and they are not the audience. It doesn't really detract from the force of the argument, since anything that can be said about American innovation could reasonably be said about European innovation, and "America" could be taken as short-hand for "developed nations at the technological frontier".

rwmj 6y ago
Wouldn't it be better for an article which is meant to influence US policy to be grounded in facts? Or are you saying it's fine to make up any old thing because the ends justify the means?
- rjknight 6y ago
  It might be preferable if everyone dealt in facts all of the time, but political influence is a competitive game. I'm not saying that it's fine to elide the details, just that it's understandable, and understanding why people do things is fun and interesting.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > It might be preferable if everyone dealt in facts all of the time, but political influence is a competitive game. And how is playing Liar's Poker with a pandemic virus working out for you? Read the mood, man. Like they say, "It's only when the tide goes out that you learn who has been swimming naked."
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > Wouldn't it be better for an article which is meant to influence US policy to be grounded in facts? IMHO, the last few years in the USA should serve as a strong lesson in why fact-based policy is superior to fantasy politics.