|
Question. This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes. |
|
76 | 50.67% |
| No. |
|
74 | 49.33% |
| Total: | 127 votes | ||
|
CommieGIR posted:They really are not, its pretty traumatic for them. To be clear, I'm in agreement and was pointing out this position to the person I was quoting.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
facialimpediment posted:There's a solid chunk of the country that will simply not give a flying gently caress about scientific research and data. So they're looking for whatever or whoever confirms their bullshit, which is usually randos on Facebook in a chicken-or-egg cycle of bullshit. Throw on top of that: There's been a decent amount of discussion that resistance to vaccines in the West is largely due to the effectiveness of vaccines in the West. No one gets measles, mumps, rubella, polio, or smallpox anymore so people become inured to the idea that the vaccines are worse than the diseases, an opinion which can only exist because vaccination has been so effective. This is just part and parcel of an overall increased distrust in government since the late 60s/early 70s. Edit: its a little different in developing countries thanks to the CIA trying to use vaccines to catch bin Ladin!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
boop the snoot posted:I think the media would rather report on this as the next segment of “America, the insane reality show starring insane people” than to, I dunno, fill the loving void left by the media. It's very Not Great https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1379432838315921418?s=19 https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/1379126440629780480?s=19 So news companies, when faced with a Republican party that has actively gone insane and doesn't even slightly care about lying anymore 1) simply repeats their talking points or 2) goes after them in a completely idiotic way because they don't know the subject matter (Publix is really loving big in Florida!) If It Bleeds, It Leads replaced by a repeating parakeet that sometimes makes fart noises
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:It's very Not Great They think De Santos will run in 24 so they are starting smear campaigns early. They understand the subject completely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
the yellow dart posted:This is just part and parcel of an overall increased distrust in government since the late 60s/early 70s. What's the reason for this? Vietnam?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:What's the reason for this? Vietnam? Shitloads of anti-government and anti-union propaganda began ramping up. By the time Reagan got to office, the populous had been generally whipped up that anything from the government was terrible and the free market would provide everything. This propaganda was in response a backlash to the civil rights movement and has very much always been from the aggrieved white.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
That evil government is forcing colored kids into your schools! Bussing is gonna destroy this nation! This is tyranny that we must fight against!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That evil government is forcing colored kids into your schools! Bussing is gonna destroy this nation! This is tyranny that we must fight against!! The Powell memo under Nixon lays out the discrediting of labor, academia, science, and non whites that conservatives started in order to make more money and gently caress over everyone else. A lot of it was in response to civil rights, but also Ralph Naders work in consumer advocacy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
No longer being energy independent plus gas rationing due to the oil embargo and then stagflation. Those plus Vietnam plus the start of the culture war made people feel that the country was worse off than it was 10 years prior. My parent's first home loan in 1983 was 20% interest. Their car loan around that time was 28%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Oxygenpoisoning posted:The Powell memo under Nixon lays out the discrediting of labor, academia, science, and non whites that conservatives started in order to make more money and gently caress over everyone else. A lot of it was in response to civil rights, but also Ralph Naders work in consumer advocacy. And to be clear, the deceptive narrative the government surrounded the Vietnam War was also a huge part of this. Part of it is also human nature; when Nader showed that car companies literally had been astroturfing faux campaigns around how seatbelts were the real danger in order to avoid spending an additional like $200 per vehicle people stopped believing authorities. This is good! People should be skeptical of narratives that make little to no sense! But our brains are also giant heuristic-generators which can take information like that and transform it into a method of thinking which becomes "if a car company, or any company, or government, ever says anything, we shouldn't believe them." This combined with the anti-government narratives taken up by the entirety of conservatism and large portions of left leaning Americans in the late 70s through today has basically helped create a thinking ecosystem where the public reflexively distrusts any government intervention in anything and even positive corporate work in America. This is a random example, but the city I live in conducts a levy every 5 years in order to ensure its schools are some of the best in the state. I live in an area bolstered by a large Air Force base and an otherwise decent local economy. They're having to maximize advertising and heartily persuade people to vote for this school levy to ensure that kids still get transportation to and from school, kindergarten can remain all-day instead of half day, arts and music classes aren't cut, and most sports remain free or heavily discounted, among other things. In addition, close to 200 people in our school system will be laid off, with over half of those being teachers. This levy will cost people at the highest end around $600-700 a year in additional property taxes, and most others far less. This levy has already failed twice because of "accountability concerns" where people want to know where the money is going to. While this can be a real concern, none of these people have found the information supplied sufficient, despite a pretty detailed accounting of what could be cut and what those effects would look like. At the end of the day, many of those people voting against the levy will simply vote against it because they don't trust the very local government to handle their money, because they've been convinced that there is no situation in which the government can handle funds effectively. I don't have any children but I'll vote for it because having good schools is important to keep a community strong and, at the end of the day, increases their property values, increases in which will likely far outweigh the payment of the property tax, which they were already paying for. This area has already seen a dip (yes, an actual dip) in a neighboring community where a Trump-esque figure defeated a similar levy with the argument that they can easily pay teachers less and cut funding from schools and there will be no effects. People don't trust government any more, they don't trust what they see or don't see, and can be convinced to basically harm themselves as a result.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Yeah those are basically the big questions of the current times - what can you do or say to the people that are skeptical in bad faith? For how long do you humor the people that are skeptical in good faith? How the gently caress can you tell the difference between the two? What makes a good-faith skeptic to get manipulated into facebookland and use that as a legitimate source? Skepticism of government is good, but the alternative lately is this: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1379494549135966217?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
the yellow dart posted:positive corporate work in America. lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Yeah those are basically the big questions of the current times - what can you do or say to the people that are skeptical in bad faith? For how long do you humor the people that are skeptical in good faith? How the gently caress can you tell the difference between the two? What makes a good-faith skeptic to get manipulated into facebookland and use that as a legitimate source? Its just a rapid reversion to the mean. Late human history is an anomaly in terms of intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/C_Stroop/status/1379499232915189762?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 19:36
|
|
lightpole posted:Its just a rapid reversion to the mean. Late human history is an anomaly in terms of intelligence. I think inertia has us regressing below the mean.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
pantslesswithwolves posted:https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1379393476404580352?s=20 Circling back to earlier, I'm not sure about the costs related to b), but it's clear that it's on the mind of Biden and the administration: https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/1379506691209900043 Incidentally, this was at a temporary vaccination location - a church! That's a good idea for pop-up vaccination locations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
It was stated by Anthony Fauci a few weeks ago at a senate hearing that we would make our vaccine supply available to other countries once we reach an acceptable level of vaccination. What that means in execution is anyone’s guess.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
We're also ensuring that the vaccines retain their IP protections. Keeping those protections up will delay their rollout, and then us 'giving' them away later is both a direct transfer of cash from the gov to the private sector and inherently delays distribution, all while being spun as us being the nice guys. https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1378093870412611587?s=21
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1379511583534161925?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Let's make it three lovely things in a row: https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1379510866987614212?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Circling back to earlier, I'm not sure about the costs related to b), but it's clear that it's on the mind of Biden and the administration: I heard a few experts on NPR the other say saying how Russia and China are using their vaccines as soft power, exporting them to poorer countries, and how wealthy nations like the US and most of Europe aren't exporting many vaccines yet. They also said how we won't be safe until most nations are vaccinated, because poorer countries with no vaccines can be incubators for new more powerful mutations that might not be affected by our current vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:I heard a few experts on NPR the other say saying how Russia and China are using their vaccines as soft power, exporting them to poorer countries, and how wealthy nations like the US and most of Europe aren't exporting many vaccines yet. That last part is what I am afraid of right now. I'm on wait lists for the shot, so is the wife. Am I going to get jabbed only to find out the new [INSERT COUNTRY] strain bypasses the shot? That would suck on such a grand scale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:We're also ensuring that the vaccines retain their IP protections. Keeping those protections up will delay their rollout, and then us 'giving' them away later is both a direct transfer of cash from the gov to the private sector and inherently delays distribution, all while being spun as us being the nice guys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:I'd be more onboard with thinking that this is a moral argument if other countries weren't trying to get the best, most technically sophisticated vaccines for local manufacture at the same time as saying that they want to keep the IP. The AZ and J&J vaccines are much easier to make and just as effective at preventing deaths, why insist on Moderna and Pfizer like South Africa has been doing? The best drugs should be made readily available worldwide. There is no justification for IP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
In water is wet news, affirming the chosen gender of trans youth leads to fewer reports of suicide attempts https://twitter.com/Grace_Segers/status/1379516720034021381?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
UP THE BUM NO BABY posted:In water is wet news, affirming the chosen gender of trans youth leads to fewer reports of suicide attempts Those numbers were much higher than I thought they would be. Knowing this, I will try harder to use correct pronouns, especially with younger people. (I have a very difficult time with names/faces, which makes remembering pronouns hard for me)
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:I'd be more onboard with thinking that this is a moral argument if other countries weren't trying to get the best, most technically sophisticated vaccines for local manufacture at the same time as saying that they want to keep the IP. The AZ and J&J vaccines are much easier to make and just as effective at preventing deaths, why insist on Moderna and Pfizer like South Africa has been doing? IIRC RSA wants those two because AZ was shown (in very limited clinical trials) to be ineffective against their variant. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-idUSKBN2BD0K4
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
lightpole posted:The best drugs should be made readily available worldwide. There is no justification for IP. EDIT: Effectively what I'm arguing is that a world where there are X drugs that 30% of the world's population has access to immediately and 70% in 20 years and forever thereafter is a better world than X-N drugs are available to everyone in the world immediately and forever thereafter. The best world would be X+N drugs are available immediately and forever thereafter to anyone, but that's going to require much more major structural changes. the yellow dart posted:IIRC RSA wants those two because AZ was shown (in very limited clinical trials) to be ineffective against their variant. They're also trying to become a biotech powerhouse and getting their hands on brand new broadly applicable world class tech is a quick way to do that. There is a broad middle ground between "we give you all the best tech that is widely applicable outside of COVID" and "everyone dies" and there are plenty of reasonable compromises to be made. I don't think it's helpful to the process of finding those compromises to turn it into a black and white moral issue when the situation has plenty of gray. wins32767 fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
It’s almost like life saving social goods shouldn’t be beholden to capital profits. Almost like we have a way to do that too 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:IP (temporary monopolies) is how drug development investment is incentivized in the current configuration of the world. I'll happily advocate for different approaches (say bounties), but absent that it's a bad idea to knock the legs out from under the folks who built a great tool for helping cure a lot of different diseases. That's how you end up with less effective treatments, not more. Malaria, which is a scourge of most of the poorer countries in the world is very likely going to be curable with the mRNA tech. Nobody invests hundreds of millions dollars on tech moonshots if you can't make back at least that much. Those drugs were developed with a large amount of public research and investment. Merck, Moderna, Pfizer, and JnJ are just vehicles to get the drugs out there. Those drugs are still operating on a waiver in the interest of the public, they aren't actually fully approved. Furthermore, drug companies say things such like the high costs paid by rich world consumers are due to the high costs of development that poor countries can't afford. Its just another mechanism to extract rents and milk profit. Demanding an RoI and withholding lifesaving measures from vulnerable populations is not justified, is not in the public interest, and absolutely is a moral black and white situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:100% with you. The flu generally leaves you immobile for days. You'll know when you have it. Half of all influenza infections are asymptomatic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:I'd be more onboard with thinking that this is a moral argument if other countries weren't trying to get the best, most technically sophisticated vaccines for local manufacture at the same time as saying that they want to keep the IP. The AZ and J&J vaccines are much easier to make and just as effective at preventing deaths, why insist on Moderna and Pfizer like South Africa has been doing? South Africa trialed AstraZeneca’s vaccine and it was i effective against B.1.351. It’s no coincidence that we call that strain “the South African variant”. Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine seems to be all right, but unfortunately the options are it or mRNA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
lightpole posted:Those drugs were developed with a large amount of public research and investment. Merck, Moderna, Pfizer, and JnJ are just vehicles to get the drugs out there. Those drugs are still operating on a waiver in the interest of the public, they aren't actually fully approved. Moderna's mRNA tech was developed prior to COVID, as was BioNTech's. And I'm not sure how the waiver applies in this case? Are you saying the drugs aren't actually safe? quote:Furthermore, drug companies say things such like the high costs paid by rich world consumers are due to the high costs of development that poor countries can't afford. Its just another mechanism to extract rents and milk profit. Demanding an RoI and withholding lifesaving measures from vulnerable populations is not justified, is not in the public interest, and absolutely is a moral black and white situation. I can respect a view that no one should make money on healthcare, but just giving away drug IP for free in a vacuum doesn't make that happen and will limit future successful drugs making it to market. Systemic overhaul, sure! But getting all righteous about an action that may well create more suffering than it fixes (so long as it's in the future) is backwards in my book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:Moderna's mRNA tech was developed prior to COVID, as was BioNTech's. And I'm not sure how the waiver applies in this case? Are you saying the drugs aren't actually safe? I was focused on the COVID drug, not mRNA. I am well aware of biotech. Continuing to push a faulty business model is a poor choice when you are freely admitting there are other, better options or compromises.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 22:49
|
|
wins32767 posted:Moderna's mRNA tech was developed prior to COVID, as was BioNTech's. And I'm not sure how the waiver applies in this case? Are you saying the drugs aren't actually safe? EUAs are not approvals.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
boop the snoot posted:EUAs are not approvals. I'm aware. What's your larger point? lightpole posted:I was focused on the COVID drug, not mRNA. Then clearly I'm not making my point very well. I'm saying that the current drug discovery and development is part of a larger system and by only changing one element (giving away IP) you'll make things worse, not better by reducing long term investment. Larger systemic changes could certainly improve on the status quo but they'd need to be implemented in order to actually improve things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 23:09
|
|
wins32767 posted:I'm aware. What's your larger point? Christ you’re insufferable. You were responding directly to a comment about how it isn’t approved. That’s literally how the waiver applies. Which is what you specifically asked about. wins32767 posted:Moderna's mRNA tech was developed prior to COVID, as was BioNTech's. And I'm not sure how the waiver applies in this case? Are you saying the drugs aren't actually safe? Here’s a visual for you.  Stop being argumentative. boop the snoot fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Apr 6, 2021 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/quote:A few weeks later, Oxford—urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course. It signed an exclusive vaccine deal with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low prices—with the less-publicized potential for Oxford to eventually make millions from the deal and win plenty of prestige. bill gates is a piece of poo poo who should have all his excess money removed from him along with every other billionaire
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
boop the snoot posted:Christ you’re insufferable. You were responding directly to a comment about how it isn’t approved. That’s literally how the waiver applies. Which is what you specifically asked about. I just confused you and lightpole. I'm not sure why the drugs being on a waiver applies to my argument and I was trying to understand why it was important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/ It's super typical of the rightwing to hate perfectly terrible people but completely whiff the reason for it
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2021 23:17
|
|