4 ms·

> All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. That's how it works everywhere in public policy, which is

by mpyne 5y ago

> All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. That's how it works everywhere in public policy, which is the only area where you can't directly sue Pharma companies (i.e. when the government makes a vaccine series part of the childhood vaccination series or part of a pandemic response regimen). But at that point the party directing you to take the vaccine isn't the Pharma company or companies, it's the Federal government, so they are properly the ones that should be counter-party to a suit in any event. > It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. You say that as if it proves your case, and yet we can see from data that is obvious even to the untrained eye that the product you're complaining about 'actually works'.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
That depends on the definition of 'actually works' and vaccine. Both which need redefining in the new scheme. Personally I'll grant that wearing gloves helps prevent frostbite. But I wouldn't make people in Hawaii wear them. I think you have to look at the groups most at risk and it turns out its really old people with multiple morbidity either already in hospital near death or coming in from nursing homes. I just don't see how showing some statical benefit to that group translates to general healthy much younger population. And even than, I think you could show a statistical benefit to giving two doses of a laxative in fighting covid in 80+ year olds, if all you counted was the health outcomes in the stronger surviving subpopulation that survived the laxative two weeks later. I've taken enough statistics at university to know I can safely ignore anything that isn't a double blind study. So lets just say it's debatable.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  Hospital rate of unvax vs vaccinated population is easily verifiable, as previous poster said, the vaccine works, everywhere. The data is there. And it’s not just for 80+. It’s been seen in many jurisdictions across the world. The fact that you willingly ignore this data shows that you are trying to blind yourself on purpose.

by mpyne 5y ago

dukeofdoom 5y ago

That depends on the definition of 'actually works' and vaccine. Both which need redefining in the new scheme. Personally I'll grant that wearing gloves helps prevent frostbite. But I wouldn't make people in Hawaii wear them. I think you have to look at the groups most at risk and it turns out its really old people with multiple morbidity either already in hospital near death or coming in from nursing homes. I just don't see how showing some statical benefit to that group translates to general healthy much younger population. And even than, I think you could show a statistical benefit to giving two doses of a laxative in fighting covid in 80+ year olds, if all you counted was the health outcomes in the stronger surviving subpopulation that survived the laxative two weeks later. I've taken enough statistics at university to know I can safely ignore anything that isn't a double blind study. So lets just say it's debatable.

jeromegv 5y ago
Hospital rate of unvax vs vaccinated population is easily verifiable, as previous poster said, the vaccine works, everywhere. The data is there. And it’s not just for 80+. It’s been seen in many jurisdictions across the world. The fact that you willingly ignore this data shows that you are trying to blind yourself on purpose.