Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, November 20, 2020

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech announced they plan to file Friday for emergency authorization of their coronavirus vaccine, a landmark moment and a signal that a powerful tool to help control the pandemic could begin to be available by mid- to late December.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Only after the agency has given the green light will a first, limited group of high-risk people be able to access the shots. Government officials anticipate having enough vaccine to inoculate about 20 million people with the two-dose regimen in the U.S. in December, between Pfizer's vaccine and a second shot likely to be considered for emergency authorization soon, from biotechnology company Moderna. The United States will receive about half of the 50 million doses Pfizer is aiming to produce by the end of the year.

There will probably be enough vaccine for 25 million to 30 million people a month in early 2021, according to Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser of Operation Warp Speed, the federal government initiative to speed up vaccine development. He did not specify how many doses each company would contribute.

Glimpses of the Pfizer data through news releases have so far exceeded expectations: The two-dose vaccine regimen was 95 percent effective at preventing disease in clinical trials and had no major safety problems, according to the company. It was 94 percent effective in people over 65, a group of critical concern because older people are more likely to develop life-threatening illness after contracting the virus. The companies are also submitting two months of follow-up data on 38,000 people, far more than the minimum of half the participants in their 44,000-person trial. They will also present safety data on 100 children between 12 and 15 years old, a group they only recently began to include in their trial.

Great news today and Godspeed to everyone along the production chain trying to make this happen at record pace.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 07:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But, since the government gave them the money to develop these vaccines it is fair now to ask how much they plan to charge us for them. They invested very little of their own money to develop them but now they should hold patents that enable them to charge exorbidant prices for the vaccines we paid them to develop? What about 3rd world countries, they shouldn't get the vaccines due to lack of the ability to pay? Thank God President Biden will have a different view of all of this than the sitting -------. Fighting a worldwide pandemic should not be a profit opportunity.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2020-11-20 08:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How soon before becomes available in USA? Welllll... it all depends where Trumptibunkerboi invested his money.

#3 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-11-20 08:09 AM | Reply

How soon before becomes available in USA?

That's the whole point, if authorized, it will be made available in America next month, December.

But, since the government gave them the money to develop these vaccines it is fair now to ask how much they plan to charge us for them.

As it regards Pfizer/BioNTech, the US government did not fund the vaccine's research, it only contracted to purchase tens of millions of doses once the vaccine passes FDA approval.

The doses won't cost individual Americans anything - although I'm sure there likely will be some costs to compensate those who will provide the shots and offset their overhead.

As a matter of fact, the broad purchase of hundreds of millions of vaccine doses from multiple suppliers falls under the category of something anathema to most Americans who've been brainwashed to believe that corroborated efforts by our federal government will eventually lead to the downfall of our democratic society.

The purchase of vaccine doses and distributing them to all Americans is by its very definition the defacto practice of socialized medicine.

Anyone now want to make the argument that government should have no role in the healthcare system as it regards this pandemic?

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 08:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The purchase of vaccine doses and distributing them to all Americans is by its very definition the defacto practice of socialized medicine."

Which should be the normal method of getting healthcare, no American should not be able to afford healthcare, it should be M4All and the idiotic Trump supporters would be their demanding their free healthcare right along with the rest of us no matter how loudly they claim that they don't want socialized healthcare. They are just grandstanding a******s worried that black and brown people will get something for free. They are just racists and they prove it every day.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2020-11-20 09:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

They are just grandstanding a******s worried that black and brown people will get something for free.

While those in the 1% take trillions off the top while avoiding what little in taxes they still have to pay.

No one in America gets anything for free. Living in America means that either directly or indirectly each person - citizen or not - pays multiple taxes as a course of living, eating, and existing.

We can argue about the fairness of individual tax burdens versus one's quality of life and ability to pay, but the argument that some get anything for free just isn't true. We all pay - and those who get the most already have more than most. That is why those with more invest money into electing politicians to keep it that way, where most working people simply struggle to pay the bills and keep roofs over their heads.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 09:24 AM | Reply

"We can argue about the fairness of individual tax burdens versus one's quality of life and ability to pay, but the argument that some get anything for free just isn't true."

I know that, you know that but go try and convince a Trumpie of that same fact. Good luck with that. They are absolutely convinced that black and brown people are all leeching off of government programs because they are too lazy to work.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2020-11-20 09:37 AM | Reply

But, since the government gave them the money to develop these vaccines it is fair now to ask how much they plan to charge us for them. They invested very little of their own money to develop them but now they should hold patents that enable them to charge exorbidant prices for the vaccines we paid them to develop?

Pfizer/BioNTech aren't part of operation warp speed. They developed this independently of US government funding, which is why it was so funny when Trump and Pence tried to take credit for it.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 09:44 AM | Reply

That's the whole point, if authorized, it will be made available in America next month, December.

In their statement when they released the efficacy data they stated there would be about 50 million doses available by the end of the year. Two doses per person means 25 million people can get vaccinated in the next two months.

Probably (hopefully) healthcare workers.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 09:47 AM | Reply

There are two companies currently with "successful" products... one Trumptoibumkerboi owns stock in.

#10 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-11-20 09:56 AM | Reply

The purchase of vaccine doses and distributing them to all Americans is by its very definition the defacto practice of socialized medicine.

#4 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2020-11-20 08:28 AM

Everything you just described is capitalist, public-private partnership in medicine. Obamacare. That's only socialism to right wing nuts.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-11-20 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

God I hope the vaccine is good as they say it is and get appproval.

#12 | Posted by Tor at 2020-11-20 10:10 AM | Reply

Everything you just described is capitalist, public-private partnership in medicine.

The purchase process is as you described.

The distribution process - controlled and coordinated by the government - is socialistic.

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 10:30 AM | Reply

Tony,

Please don't play into the rightwing games.

Socialism has a definition. What you're describing is not it.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 10:35 AM | Reply

The argument over what is and what isn't "socialism" has been a pretty big topic here recently.

Why is that? Why are people so invested into that term and how it's used?

The only reason what the "Hitler was not a socialist" thread stopped was because the comments were closed.....otherwise it would still be going.

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-20 10:41 AM | Reply

Please don't play into the rightwing games.

I'm not playing right wing games, I'm correcting misperceptions. Socialization is nothing to be feared, it's the common practice of the US Government.

How you think that this message is a right wing game completely escapes me. The US Government is a socialistic construct, all governments are when they're funded by the masses and deliver coordinated services to those same masses.

Socialism is not a boogeyman, it's what we've always lived under to various extents since the nation was formed.

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 10:42 AM | Reply

Why is that? Why are people so invested into that term and how it's used?

For me, the discussions are based on the fact that the GOP won numerous races by wrongly implying that Democrats want to institute some insidious practice called "socialism" when the fact is socialism has been here all along.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There's a difference between capital S "Socialism" and socialist policies. The Pubs are invested in not knowing this.

#18 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2020-11-20 10:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The Pubs are invested in not knowing this.

They tend to trot out the word whenever faced with a policy involved with doing what's best for the overall public good outside of the profit considerations for individual investors.

My focus is to point out that when society-altering events happen, we all depend upon our shared contributions to our various governments to provide whatever relief is needed.

That structure is based upon a shared responsibility for the whole through direct forms of 'socialism' set up as governmental entities that protect and defend us all.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 11:03 AM | Reply

Socialization is nothing to be feared, it's the common practice of the US Government.

#16 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2020-11-20 10:42 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

You silly political messaging machine. I get the feeling in the party for the urgent need to rehab the world socialism because it's a loser in America and just cost house seats, and Florida, but you have to let it go instead of trying to rehab it.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-11-20 11:07 AM | Reply

"The argument over what is and what isn't "socialism" has been a pretty big topic here recently.
Why is that?"

^
That's because a lot of people on the right are deniers.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-20 11:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How you think that this message is a right wing game completely escapes me.

Because the government is not in any way controlling the means of production.

A joint government-private side venture is not "soshulizm" so please stop saying it is.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 11:41 AM | Reply

Everything you just described is capitalist, public-private partnership in medicine.

The purchase process is as you described.

The distribution process - controlled and coordinated by the government - is socialistic.

#13 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

I wish you would actually read what I say and not invent your own definitions.

#23 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 11:45 AM | Reply

I understand the GOP is going to use the term socialism as a fear tactic with voters....apparently this worked in South Florida.

But as Sitz points out in 20......trying to "rehab" that term isn't going to work.

Better to stay away from it.

Not that anybody really tried to rehab terms like communism, fascism, nazism, etc....but socialism remains a loser term that can't be rehabbed.

I accept that we have socialistic policies in our society and I'm fine with it.....but that term is still a problem.

Christ, we use the term "progressive" because "liberal" is still a dirty word.

Moderates aren't even afraid of such terms.

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-20 11:48 AM | Reply

There's a difference between capital S "Socialism" and socialist policies. The Pubs are invested in not knowing this.

#18 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST

And so is JPW evidently.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 11:50 AM | Reply

The argument over what is and what isn't "socialism" has been a pretty big topic here recently.

Why is that?

#15 | Posted by eberly

Because your cult has nothing to offer the average person, so all they can do is scare the public of "socialism" and america is so dumb they fall for it.

That was literally the trump campaigns strategy: "sure trump is a lying criminal con man, but the alternative is Venezuelan cuban communist socialism!"

A city sidewalk is socialism.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-11-20 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Christ, we use the term "progressive" because "liberal" is still a dirty word.

#24 | Posted by eberly

Too bad your cult isn't as good at governing and helping people as they are as turning political words into slanders against their opponents.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-11-20 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Because your cult...."

Sure, ----.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-20 12:21 PM | Reply

we use the term "progressive" because "liberal" is still a dirty word.

I don't consider either to be a dirty word.

So it makes me wonder.

When you say "we use the term", are you talking about your Trumper friends at Boaz's Konservative Kry Klub?

Who is the "we" in Eberly's shht talking circle?

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-20 12:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You silly political messaging machine.
#20 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Says the guy who is the victim of the Republican political message machine.

You want to be smart. But you constantly prove otherwise.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-20 12:36 PM | Reply

And so is JPW evidently.

#25 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Words have definitions.

In the quest to redefine the word you have lost and the GOP has won. Let it go.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 12:37 PM | Reply

There's a difference between capital S "Socialism" and socialist policies. The Pubs are invested in not knowing this.
#18 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST

Donald Trump has exposed the gullibility and cult like adherence of Trumpers

There's nothing that can be done for these people.

They're just too angry, ignorant and scared.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-20 12:41 PM | Reply

Words have definitions.

Hey. Did you know that "figuratively" and "literally" now mean the same thing because too many people use the word "literally" to mean "figuratively"?

So, yes, words have definitions. But their definitions can obviously change.

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-20 12:45 PM | Reply

For me, the discussions are based on the fact that the GOP won numerous races by wrongly implying that Democrats want to institute some insidious practice called "socialism" when the fact is socialism has been here all along.
#17 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Democrats aren't even close to being Socialist or fighting to end capitalism.

They're fighting for Universal healthcare and public education beyond Kindergarten through 12th grade.

It's not like they're planning on destroying trade with China and then subsidizing out of work farmers with tax dollars. No. That's what Trump and the GOP did. Which. Trumpers seems completely fine with.

If RoC was still alive, he'd tell us how brilliant Trump's trade war has been for America.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-20 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So, yes, words have definitions. But their definitions can obviously change.
#33 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I addressed that in the second line that you ignored.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 01:41 PM | Reply

I addressed that in the second line that you ignored.

Yea. It was garbage.

The GOP have won?

Guess you should give up then.

#36 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-20 01:44 PM | Reply

Words have definitions.

Yes they do.

II. Types of Socialism

b. Market Socialism - The government has an important role to play in protecting the poor, the environment, and future generations, but should not set prices or interfere too much in the market. Often combined with democratic socialism, or the view that socialism should be based on elections. Many countries in Europe pursue this model, which has helped them limit the effects of extreme poverty, but also imposes high tax burdens and in some cases, when not managed well, can create budget problems.

In America, socialists were central to many social movements throughout the 20th century, most notably the Women's Suffrage movement and the Civil Rights movement. Socialists continue to be active in America today, though they have rarely used that term to describe their own movements. Socialists want to build on the accomplishments of their predecessors in the previous century and advocate for a society based on the model of Democratic Socialist countries such as Norway and Finland.

philosophyterms.com

And mine are supported by reality, not snide asides.

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 01:48 PM | Reply

The GOP have won?
Guess you should give up then.

#36 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

When it comes to the perception of "soshulizm" by the electorate? Yes.

But go ahead and keep banging your head against that wall. Sounds like a great use of energy.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 02:12 PM | Reply

Still swinging and missing, Tony.

Market socialism still requires public ownership.

www.britannica.com

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 02:15 PM | Reply

In any case, I'm done with the conversation.

There are better things to focus on than trying to rehabilitate a word that is unnecessarily being clung to.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 02:19 PM | Reply

In any case, I'm done with the conversation.

Good, because you refuse to accept what's written for it's literal interpretation. Anyone can pull up definitions that obviously conflict with another one. But when the words directly oppose what is provided to you as the very thing I am referring to, such an attempt is odious and mendacious. Your's is not superior to the other, just different.

Often combined with democratic socialism... for a society based on the model of Democratic Socialist countries such as Norway and Finland.

Are modern day Norway and Finland analogous to "Yugoslavia in the 1960s ...(and) Hungary during the late 1960s and early 1970s?

What a dishonest discussion. No wonder you're done.

#41 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 02:41 PM | Reply

There are better things to focus on than trying to rehabilitate a word that is unnecessarily being clung to.

The only people clinging to the word socialism and socialist are conservatives.

They're the ones labeling everything left of Hitler, including Hitler, as socialist.

Perhaps you should pay more attention.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-20 02:44 PM | Reply

-There are better things to focus on than trying to rehabilitate a word that is unnecessarily being clung to.

I agree. Even in the absence of Madbomber from this discussion, there is huge debate as to what it means.

And regardless, the GOP will continue to scare the crap out of voters with the term.

So I really don't think pointing to things and saying, "see, socialism isn't so bad, it works here....and here...and here..."

It's just putting gas on the fire, IMO.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-20 02:50 PM | Reply

-Are modern day Norway and Finland analogous to "Yugoslavia in the 1960s ...(and) Hungary during the late 1960s and early 1970s?

I would have to look that up in order to answer. The only answer I have right now is I don't know.

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2020-11-20 02:53 PM | Reply

such an attempt is odious and mendacious.

Such a sentence is bloviating and pretentious.

What a dishonest discussion. No wonder you're done.

#41 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Says the guy linking to philosophyterms.com who's entry begins with "Socialism is an economic philosophy based on the need for regulations on capitalism."

You're pointing to made up definitions to justify your made up definition.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 03:01 PM | Reply

#42 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Tony is a conservative?

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 03:02 PM | Reply

It's just putting gas on the fire, IMO.

#43 | POSTED BY EBERLY

It's also stupid because it's become, rightly or wrongly, a loaded term.

Enact the policies sans the label and let people see they like it.

But insisting on calling it socialism so that people can see socialism isn't so bad is like telling somebody who doesn't like cilantro that there's cilantro in the food you're about to serve them instead of letting them taste and judge without the immediate bias.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2020-11-20 03:04 PM | Reply

It's also stupid because it's become, rightly or wrongly, a loaded term.

This entire argument is stupid and based on the fact that JPW never bothered to read the context of the original reference to socialized medicine which is where this all began.

The government paying for and having complete control over the distribution of CV vaccines to the entirety of the US is a socialized construct, full stop, hence an example of socialized medicine - in this instance.

I used the word because that's precisely what it is regardless of which connotation of socialism one chooses to place upon the facts.

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-11-20 03:21 PM | Reply

Most of those opposed to "socialism" drive their government safety regulated cars, (getting a government regulated fuel efficiency standard) on government funded roads to drop their public school educated kids off at the government funded library on their way to take their Social Security dependent parents to their government funded medical appointments. And, of course, waving appreciatively at the government paid cops and firefighters along the way. and thanking the government funded military for allowing them the freedom to protest "socialism". Farmers often add in a side trip to deposit their government farm subsidies in their Government protected bank accounts.

#49 | Posted by northguy3 at 2020-11-20 03:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Did you know the government actually pays people to live in Alaska?

Yet Alaska votes Republican. Every four years.

They sure do hate socialism.

#50 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-11-20 03:42 PM | Reply

Dems should label their policies Norwayism to avoid giving the Fascists a messaging win.

#51 | Posted by bored at 2020-11-21 07:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This vaccine was created by the children of Turkish immigrants in Germany.

It is a Socialist serum administered by Sharia swab and Jihad jab.

#52 | Posted by bored at 2020-11-21 07:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

SOURBEER -

Who are you again?

"Skankaliscious"

Yeah, STFU.

#56 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-11-21 11:00 PM | Reply

"Bad flu season"

Republican Math

"STFU. You're a gay Iranian in stinky pajamas."

Ahhh, the return of ------.

(Punctuated to avoid the auto-censor)

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-21 11:02 PM | Reply

#58

Old Trumpers never die... they just smell like it.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2020-11-21 11:07 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort