# What is your opinion on coronavirus vaccines?



## Deleted User (Sep 7, 2020)

I have mixed feelings about coronavirus vaccines.

On one hand, the drastic measures it takes to control the spread of the coronavirus compromise peoples' quality of life and countries' economies. This is a deadly virus and survivors have shared some rather painful stories about their experiences. Anti-vax groups give me the shits and I'm tempted to say that a vaccine should be made mandatory just to spite them, fuck consent.

On the other hand, the coronavirus is highly politised and pharmaceutical companies have a financial incentive to be the first to release a vaccine to the market. I fear that those who document the vaccines' side-effects during testing phases are biased in vaccines' favour. I also tend to be paranoid.


----------



## Seliph (Sep 7, 2020)

Vaccines would be great if we just had socialized healthcare (mainly in the US, although I know this is an issue in other countries too).


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 7, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Vaccines would be great if we just had socialized healthcare (mainly in the US, although I know this is an issue in other countries too).


Paid for by hefty taxes, with lower quality, where you're put on a long waiting list. Sounds great!


----------



## Seliph (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Paid for by hefty taxes, with lower quality, where you're put on a long waiting list. Sounds great!


Taxes? I never said anything about the government being involved.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 7, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Taxes? I never said anything about the government.


Oh, right...I'm talking to an anarchist.


----------



## Seliph (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Oh, right...I'm talking to an anarchist.


Yes


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 7, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Yes


Imagine living in an alternate reality where modern-day Portland is the size of the US. That's anarchy.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Paid for by hefty taxes, with lower quality, where you're put on a long waiting list. Sounds great!



the taxes you pay for universal healthcare are always lower than the standard premiums + deductions you pay already with private insurance. also waiting lists are for non-emergency problems, if you are having an emergency, standard priority takes effect. also the USA has almost the worst price per quality of all of the 1st world countries. although being 15 I'm not sure you know much about premiums, deductibles, and taxes anyways.


----------



## Seliph (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Imagine living in an alternate reality where modern-day Portland is the size of the US. That's anarchy.


Lol, the state beating up protestors isn't anarchy.

*This *is anarchy.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 7, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the taxes you pay for universal healthcare are always lower than the standard premiums + deductions you pay already with private insurance. also waiting lists are for non-emergency problems, if you are having an emergency, standard priority takes effect. also the USA has almost the worst price per quality of all of the 1st world countries. although being 15 I'm not sure you know much about premiums, deductibles, and taxes anyways.


So I was wrong about the quality part. Everything else was correct.

Even if it's at a lower cost comparatively, it's still a large increase in taxes. You're able to choose what service you want when it's not funded by taxes.

As for the waiting list, sure, emergencies got treated ASAP, but what about vaccines?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2020)

Of course pharmaceutical companies have a financial incentive to be the first to develop, trial and release a working vaccine - that's the best kind of incentive there is. In fact, I personally wouldn't want them to have any other motive. Problems arise when governments waive the commonly accepted trial procedures agreed upon in the scientific community - that's dangerous. Recently governments worldwide have begun throwing around exemptions in the event of product liability claims as a way of further incentivising pharmaceutical companies to produce vaccines as quickly as possible - basically they'll be shielding them against any consequences of releasing a shoddily made product because "time is of the essence" when, statistically speaking, it really isn't. These trial rules don't exist for laughs, they've been developed in order to minimise the risk of side effects. For some reason the plan seems to be "keep everything locked down until we have a working vaccine and then force everyone to take it", which is a strategy based in panic as opposed to reason. Normally the process of developing, testing and releasing a vaccine takes anywhere between 5 to 15 years, just the pre-clinical stage alone is often 1-2 years, meanwhile the COVID-19 vaccine is expected to be done and dusted within a few months. I wouldn't call that safe, responsible practice - none of those vaccines will go through the usual rigors they should be subject to, so here's for hoping they get it right the first time. On the other hand, in an ideal world the government would be removed from this process altogether, pharmaceutical companies would operate independently, release products on their own schedule and bear all liability if those products turn out to be harmful, so I can't exactly complain when the vaccine is fast tracked through. Personally I'm in no particular hurry - I absolutely encourage everyone who is immunocompromised to take it as soon as it's available so that we can resume living our lives normally instead of having to suffer through the current circus. I myself will probably take it as well once it's proven to be safe, although truth to be told, I'm not in a high risk group and have no underlying conditions, so the virus doesn't really worry me.


omgcat said:


> the taxes you pay for universal healthcare are always lower than the standard premiums + deductions you pay already with private insurance. also waiting lists are for non-emergency problems, if you are having an emergency, standard priority takes effect. also the USA has almost the worst price per quality of all of the 1st world countries. although being 15 I'm not sure you know much about premiums, deductibles, and taxes anyways.


I've lived under two separate universal single payer healthcare systems so far and between the two I would much rather pick the secret third option and go to the vet - my guts can't possibly be that much different than those of a dog or a cat, and I at least get to skip the 4+ hour queue in the emergency room/5+ year wait for basic procedures. Jokes aside, it's only pretty when you look at it from a distance, the flaws of this setup become obvious once you've experienced it. As far as the U.S. is concerned, you guys may have had private healthcare some 200 years ago when you'd go to the doctor and pay on your way out - right now you have a weird insurance company oligopoly backed by government funding and crooked legislation - if you want to talk about private healthcare, Switzerland is what you should look at. U.S. healthcare can't be fixed, it has to be torn down and replaced with something that's not fundamentally stupid. That's neither here nor there though, since this thread isn't about universal vs private healthcare.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So I was wrong about the quality part. Everything else was correct.
> 
> Even if it's at a lower cost comparatively, it's still a large increase in taxes. You're able to choose what service you want when it's not funded by taxes.
> 
> As for the waiting list, sure, emergencies got treated ASAP, but what about vaccines?



most standard deductible are $6k+ on top of $500-$1100 per month which means you would need to spend more than $6k to start having the insurance take over on top of $12k per year in premiums. medical insurance in America is a joke, your tax burden for universal healthcare in Canada averages 6k, which means the average American would be saving $12k per year in medical coverage. this is also not including the out of pocket cost for medications which are always covered under universal healthcare. in summery, you would be saving $12+k a year in costs, coverage for everyone, and better medical standards.

oh and you are free to buy your own medical coverage as well, since the public option does not remove private options.

on another note, i will only trust a vaccine once it has been approved in multiple European countries. the fiasco with the FDA, and CDC has left me with no confidence.


----------



## Goku1992A (Sep 7, 2020)

Nothing you can do about it the vaccine is going to be mandatory


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 7, 2020)

Goku1992A said:


> Nothing you can do about it the vaccine is going to be mandatory


Science isn't about "why", it's about "why not". "Why is so much of our science dangerous?" Why not marry "safe science" if you love it so much? In fact, why not invent a special "safety door" that won't hit you on the butt on the way out, because you are FIRED! Not you, test subject, you're doing fine. Yes. You. Fired. Box. Your stuff. Out the front door. Parking lot. Car. Goodbye.

I haven't actually played Portal 2, I just watched a video about the ARG and loved this line.


----------



## Costello (Sep 7, 2020)

My opinions on coronavirus vaccines is - I'll be getting one, one of the safe ones that will have been tested on a large numbers of people. I'd probably trust the Oxford one but I don't know when it'll land.

I'm lucky enough to live in a country where the entire political isn't corrupt and the government is doing a good job, from the looks of it. A lot of scientists and industry professionals, not just career politicians. So if they approve one particular vaccine there's a strong chance it'll be on solid grounds, in consequence, I'd trust that vaccine.

Not getting a vaccine would be detrimental to the economy. If there aren't enough people vaccinated herd immunity won't work, therefore the pandemic will continue and entire industries will be at risk. On the other hand once a vaccine is available for the general public worldwide, you could just decide to get vaccinated, and if you don't, you'd have to fully bear the consequences (insurances wouldn't cover treatment if you aren't vaccinated, and such)


----------



## notimp (Sep 7, 2020)

BANANA_SLAMMER said:


> On the other hand, the coronavirus is highly politised and pharmaceutical companies have a financial incentive to be the first to release a vaccine to the market. I fear that those who document the vaccines' side-effects during testing phases are biased in vaccines' favour. I also tend to be paranoid.


Study design is set up so bias is removed as much as possible. (F.e.: Double blind.) If you have no political intervention, you should be good. (If you temper with large scale study results, it should show in the data.)

Also - public fallback. So while yes, multiple companies are racing to be first - it would be mostly for reputational gains. We brought down profits in vaccine development so much, that especially their production is highly centralized, and you are dealing with maybe 5 international large scale producers of vaccines, whose money lies in mass production.

So whoever develops a viable candidate, actually would profit most from reputational gains, not from 'make money quick' schemes to follow. (Need to elaborate, for this to make sense.  Whoever will become a candidate that gets mass produced, will get 'get rich money' quick, but you will not necessarily have 'schemes', because you cant get over the threashhold of producing vaccines en mass as a smaller company. Large players in the field have an incentive not to want to get kicked out of business by reputational costs of a failed vaccine, so they also are interested in having everything go above board. Or they are done in the business. So 'go scramble' culture ends after vaccine development.) Which means, if after phase 3 testing you have high rates of side effects - whatever you gained from 'being first' goes bye bye. Also phase 3 testing is set up to get an idea about edit: effectiveness at large scale. Also, testing should be independent, again, following test design thats there to eliminate passive, or active biases.

Vaccines will _not_ be made mandatory (at least at first), because you are dealing with a new 'target audience' thats not used to getting vaccinated after childhood, and doing so would result in lower compliance.


Highest risk imho are political pressures to release too early (as we've seen with the russian vaccine and countries who ordered those shots early). See f.e.: https://www.dw.com/en/philippines-p...vaccine-clinical-trials-in-october/a-54548273 (That said: https://www.dw.com/en/russia-vaccine-sputnik-coronavirus/a-54819322 )

edit: Here is how most (state) contracts are set up:


> The terms of APAs (Advance Vaccine Purchase Agreements) vary from deal to deal. In many cases, the payments to vaccine companies are contingent on the success of their vaccine, as is the case in most of the recent government deals to procure coronavirus vaccines. There are also instances when the investments are not subject to the clinical success of the vaccine, so if a vaccine does not get regulatory approval, both the sponsor and the drugmaker lose money.


https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-vaccine-nationalism-covid-19-us-germany-gavi/a-54634662

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Phases of vaccine development (normally):







Translation:

2-5 years: Research. Analyzing the virus, understanding what causes the immune reaction.

2-5 years: Pre clinical development. Design of the vaccine: Which components. Animal trials: Side effects, effectiveness.

3-7 years: Clinical trials
Phase 1: What effects does it produce in people. 10-30 volunteers needed in testing
Phase 2: Dosage testing. 50-500 volunteers needed in testing
Phase 3: Effectiveness testing: >1000 volunteers needed in testing

1-2 years: Approval by national health agencies

several years: Production: - building facilities, trial operation, mass production, packaging, transport

several years: Vaccination campaigns: Ideally world wide

source: vfa (trade association): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verband_Forschender_Arzneimittelhersteller


edit: On double blind testing vaccines:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157320/


----------



## Nemix77 (Sep 7, 2020)

Probably going to be free vaccine in Canada when it's available, we have free health care.

At the moment we just don't know which one the Canadian government will choose.


----------



## notimp (Sep 7, 2020)

The simpler answer would be: When was the last time you heard of a vaccine having gone 'horribly wrong'?

To which the counter argument is: But this time it was rushed.

To which the counter argument is: What steps, though. (At which point you'd need in depth knowledge about vaccine development, so the average listener clinks out.)

Also, I have to state, that the OP basically says, 'I'm not an anti-vaccer, but I believe all their arguments without reflection', help me Obi-wan.


----------



## MMX (Sep 7, 2020)

how about I can choose? Choice is great right? Consent is great right?

if YOU want to get the vaccine, fine. You and your people are safe.
if someone else doesn't - then by that logic doesn't he get sick and die? then problem solved too.




Nemix77 said:


> Probably going to be free vaccine in Canada when it's available, we have free health care.



who pays the doctors? who pays for the vaccine? The Government? The Government has no money, it gets money from taxes.
When people tell me taxes are great because that's how you have Streets, but when it's about Healthcare it suddenly is not from taxes it's "FREE"


----------



## campbell0505 (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So I was wrong about the quality part. Everything else was correct.
> 
> Even if it's at a lower cost comparatively, it's still a large increase in taxes. You're able to choose what service you want when it's not funded by taxes.
> 
> As for the waiting list, sure, emergencies got treated ASAP, but what about vaccines?


Vaccines are easy. I live in Australia, with an actual good healthcare system, and what you usually do is book it at your local doctors a day or two before, and then go there at your appointment time and get it, it’s quick and easy. Most times it free, at most: $15. Id rather pay slightly higher taxes than pay 1000s at the hospital and go into debt


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> The simpler answer would be: When was the last time you heard of a vaccine having gone 'horribly wrong'?
> 
> To which the counter argument is: But this time it was rushed.
> 
> ...


In 1955 the government approved a Polio vaccine in a rush in order to protect the children from the disastrous effects of the outbreak that was going on at the time. Thousands of batches were contaminated with the live virus on accident, infecting around 40,000 children with Polio, leaving 10 dead and a couple hundred paralysed. This event is remembered as the Cutter Incident, after the name of the company responsible, Cutter Labs. It is estimated that 10-30% of all vaccine batches were contaminated with the SV40 simian virus in the time period between 1955 and 1963 - that's a pretty big boo-boo if you ask me. That's not to say that people shouldn't get vaccinated, they absolutely should, but if we're dealing with a potentially deadly virus then we should maintain high safety standards instead of rushing to the goal post without even checking if we're not kicking the ball right past our own goalie by accident.


----------



## notimp (Sep 7, 2020)

Manufacturer was almost bankrupted:


> The second part of the story describes the resulting product liability trial, in which the manufacturer of the vaccine, Cutter Laboratories, was found to be liable even though it was not negligent. Cutter followed all available guidelines in production of the vaccine and only released lots that had passed recommended safety tests. However, the vaccine, rather than preventing polio as it was supposed to do, actually caused polio instead. In the trial, the jury did not find Cutter to have been negligent in the manufacture of the vaccine. However, Cutter was found to have violated the implied warranty that its product, when used as directed, would be safe and effective for its intended purpose. The author makes a convincing argument that this case set a precedent for liability without negligence that ultimately almost destroyed the vaccine industry in the United States. Only the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, in which claims against manufacturers are first arbitrated by a panel of experts, has kept manufacturers in the game.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570077/


Shouldnt happen this time around. 

Depending on which approach 'wins' it would have little to do with using the actual virus in a disabled state. But at that point I'm out of my depth. 


edit: Here is why it shouldnt happen this time around from the regulatory perspective:

Cutter incident led to changes in federal regulations for vaccine production
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/35600801/cutter-incident-led-to-changes-in/
(source not vetted)

see also: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1njkt9 (point 9 and epilogue) Havent found anything better yet.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 7, 2020)

I don't used Vaccine for flu either.. No flu vaccine for 12 years and no sick for 12 years also. Flu vaccine isn't safe. When I got flu vaccine and I got sick sometimes so I decided to stop 12 years ago and 12 years today, never got sick. I always wash my hands, and don't social in the stores. I always walk away from then and wash hands every time I touch things in any stores. I am talking about flu stuff that they touch in the stores. Stores, train, bus, and airports are full of germ. Hand wash with soap (without soap won't help!). I have seen many people don't wash or don't wash properly. They are GROSS people. That's why we got sick thanks to them. The partially is your fault too. Its your responsible to wash hands with soap. It's 100 percent effective and less getting sick.

I don't get sick nothing fo 12 years include bad cold and sore throat, nothing. That's your answer. Effective!!

For Coronavirus.. very dangerous and higher risk than flu. I haven't got Coronavirus since March and I travel during this year also. Wash the hand with soap and 70 percent and higher of alcohol are 100 percent effective.

Anyway.. This is something I will have to research about Coronavirus vaccine side effect first. If it does or doesn't then I will not take the vaccine at all.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 7, 2020)

I'll get it.....in about 5 years once more test are done and we see if there are any harmful effects.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 7, 2020)

CallmeBerto said:


> I'll get it.....in about 5 years once more test are done and we see if there are any harmful effects.


This balance between emergency and caution kind of makes me sleepless.

In the one hand I/we need it as soon as possible, I do at least, I will myself avoid planes as long as the pandemic is not very well controlled worldwide... that means it's not possible for me to visit a big part of my family and I miss that; also if people act like me this kills tourism and I really miss travelling also. (damn it's just first world problems I am talking about)

In the other hand I believe it needs more testing, and that makes me want to wait longer before using a vaccine (and not just 'when it comes out')... lack of certainty sure leads to decision stress... I will sure not wait 5 years to hop over the pond.


----------



## MMX (Sep 7, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> In the other hand I believe it needs more testing, and that makes me want to wait longer before using a vaccine (and not just 'when it comes out')... lack of certainty sure leads to decision stress... I will sure not wait 5 years to hop over the pond.



what if the government forces you to get vaccinated asap?
You can't enter stores if you don't have the shot, you can't stay employed, no bank will open an account in the cashless future if you aren't vaccinated. 

And of course, repeat this every 6-12 month because the virus is mutating.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 7, 2020)

MMX said:


> what if the government forces you to get vaccinated asap?
> You can't enter stores if you don't have the shot, you can't stay employed, no bank will open an account in the cashless future if you aren't vaccinated.
> 
> And of course, repeat this every 6-12 month because the virus is mutating.


Then I will take the shot in sake of the common good, but I trust that my government will only do so if it considers it is thoroughly tested.


----------



## MMX (Sep 7, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> Then I will take the shot in sake of the common good, but I trust that my government will only do so if it considers it is thoroughly tested.



what I'm saying is that I believe this is mostly used to control people.
It's easy then for the government to put dissidents on the street without any income.

think of it as a similar system to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
this opens the door for a system like this


----------



## osm70 (Sep 7, 2020)

MMX said:


> what I'm saying is that I believe this is mostly used to control people.
> It's easy then for the government to put dissidents on the street without any income.
> 
> think of it as a similar system to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
> this opens the door for a system like this


Did you really just compare Social Credit System with vaccines? I am sorry, but I don't see the connection.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 7, 2020)

MMX said:


> what I'm saying is that I believe this is mostly used to control people.
> It's easy then for the government to put dissidents on the street without any income.
> 
> think of it as a similar system to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System


I see your point, but I don't see it like that...
Sounds like the plot for the first season of Furture Man

I see it more like give up some individual freedom for the good of the whole, in the same way you give up your "freedom to drive 300 MPH on common streets so that less people die in traffic accidents".

*Snip*


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 7, 2020)

Have you seen the TV interview with Gates? He admitted that a large number people who took the vaccine had side effects but "some of them are not dramatic. It is just super painful". [quote from my own memory]
I was quite shocked.
If the the not so dramatic cases are already super painful, then what about the other cases?


----------



## MMX (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Have you seen the TV interview with Gates? He admitted that a large number people who took the vaccine had side effects but "some of them are not dramatic. It is just super painful". [quote from my own memory]
> I was quite shocked.
> If the the not so dramatic cases are already super painful, then what about the other cases?



 seen this one?
http://open.who.int/2018-19/contributors/contributor Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are the #1 private contributors to the WHO.

How can some people here be against lobbyism, yet quote sponsored studies by foundations like these. yeah I'm sure the government and companies want only the best for us. Just ask the western people on diabetes and how much sugar they pump into food. (sarcasm) or how about the endless wars while the public is clearly against it


----------



## Alexander1970 (Sep 7, 2020)

> *What is your opinion on coronavirus vaccines?*



If they helps to get "our People" back to "normal" Live - ok,bring it on please.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Manufacturer was almost bankrupted:
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570077/
> 
> ...


Exactly, but a lot of those regulations are going the way of the dodo bird due to the rush, bypassing what would normally be a years long process. Not only that, the liability exemption effectively means that it doesn't matter if the product is good or not - you literally cannot sue the company. Those are both bad things that people should be aware of, I think being informed of recent developments in the race for a vaccine is important. If we're going to put that thing in our system, the least due diligence we can do is make sure it's safe to use, otherwise all this research and development was pointless.

EDIT: A quick reminder to all participants - genuine concern is entirely permissable if based on facts - conspiracy theories and nonsensical drivel will be removed from the thread. Please discuss facts rather than delve into hocus pocus please.


----------



## notimp (Sep 7, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Exactly, but a lot of those regulations are going the way of the dodo bird due to the rush, bypassing what would normally be a years long process.


True, but afaik - in the western approach, not so much the testing (clinical trial) phases. (Approval might be fast tracked, but not the testing itself.)

Regulation is waved to enable all processes to move faster, money is pumped in to eliminate financial constraints, but the actual testing phases should remain under close/high level of scrutiny. Scientific community isnt taking this lightly. Vaccines are preproduced, with the notion that they could be scraped - if trials come in negative, to get to distribution faster at the next stage and so on.

State could wave/alter the approval (by national health bodies) stages (force testing to 'go faster' there, like in russia) which would lead to more risk (I see the highest potential for added risk there (but I might be wrong, I'm not a specialist in the field)).

But even if, it would mainly impact the 'effectiveness' state of vaccine testing, not safety, or dosage. This still is bad, because you are dealing with humans, that are likely to become very suspicious of a vaccine, if the first one 'didnt help as much as expected'. This should not affect 'side effect' testing as much. That said, phase 3 trials (1000 people and more) also are beneficial for the statistical assessment of those.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 7, 2020)

MMX said:


> how about I can choose? Choice is great right? Consent is great right?
> if YOU want to get the vaccine, fine. You and your people are safe.
> if someone else doesn't - then by that logic doesn't he get sick and die? then problem solved too.



This is a joke, right? If someone else doesn't, and they are infected, then anyone they come in close contact with is at risk. Not everyone can get a vaccine, e.g. immunocompromised people. Speaking theoretically here, if a vaccine did exist that had negligible risk (i.e. a small chance some side effects that will wear off in a couple of days) then it would be *selfish* for someone who _can_ take it not to take it. No one lives in a bubble. Unless you straight up live in a DIY house in the middle of the woods or mountains or something, hundreds of KMs away from any sign of civilisation and feed yourself by hunting, you have play your part to help the community.



MMX said:


> how about I can choose? Choice is great right? Consent is great right?
> who pays the doctors? who pays for the vaccine? The Government? The Government has no money, it gets money from taxes.
> When people tell me taxes are great because that's how you have Streets, but when it's about Healthcare it suddenly is not from taxes it's "FREE"



Obviously the funding comes from somewhere. It's free at the point of contact, and as a taxpayer the amount you pay has nothing to do with how much/little care you need. Which is great if you're chronically ill and/or have complex health conditions.

I pay a shit ton of tax, same as everyone else, but I'm thankful everyday that I have had the care from wonderful, highly experienced (in ALL demographics of people) doctors and nurses that I know for a fact are not incentivised by profit and push for unnecessary testing or medication just to stack bills. And, even better, everyone else is entitled to the same.



MMX said:


> what if the government forces you to get vaccinated asap?
> You can't enter stores if you don't have the shot, you can't stay employed, no bank will open an account in the cashless future if you aren't vaccinated.



I'm sorry but wtf are you talking about lmao


----------



## eyeliner (Sep 7, 2020)

In "I am legend", they found the vaccine/cure for cancer and then all of a sudden, the world was a barren wasteland, filled with zombies and Will Smith.

This vaccine was rushed and I feel that the relentless pursuit for the top spot will make it so that someone will suffer badly with yet unknown side effects. I'd bet anal leakage or chlamydia.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 7, 2020)

Some cute replies to this thread. Maybe I will come back later to have a giggle.

Show me a good one and if the thing is still otherwise raging (as opposed to manageable with contract tracing) around the world at the time (there are good plague vaccines, not much plague going around, there are good smallpox vaccines, not my smallpox going around, not much swine flu going around, not much bird flu, mers also a bit on the low side...) and I will have it.
If the list of symptoms going around is accurate I probably already had it (was not fun but was back to form in short order), though if immunity wanes in the short term as some seem to be speculating I guess it might actually be time to go see a doctor/their practice nurse for the first time since signing up there a few years back, and first time in general for many more.

Re: US distribution of things. While the system there is geared towards maximum money extraction it seems vaccines at least are reduced to small copay at worst. Even without that if insurance has a choice between a vaccine and several weeks on a ventilator in an ICU before you kick the bucket, making billing you hard and also without any more nice payments, anyway then yeah even if they were utterly without morals (and blind to public outrage -- if people are all about burning things down over a criminal actively fighting with police and going crazy for a nice bit of placebo mask use so as not to be killing grand papa then I would hope something could come up here, though I have been surprised by variation in reactions before) it would still be the lesser financial decision.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/pay-for-vaccines.html

As far as it being made mandatory... while I will call you a fool if you don't, if your 13 year old kid rocks up to my medic office and basic due diligence (do you have HIV, do you eat eggs, do you eat wheat...) I will give them all they need and consider a day well spent, would never convict a medic for doing that (even if it means dipping a toe in the nullification waters) and so forth then going back to principles I do have to allow you to be a fool in this regard. At the same time I don't know if it still is illegal to not report infectious diseases (was back in the 60s) but it probably ought to be, enforced quarantine of you and your should you develop something would not offend said same principles, no funds for no shot medics, and no school for you either (though schooling is) all work for me, and your kids will not be friends with my kids (granted your kids would probably not make it to be old enough usefully play but that is a different matter).

Re: errors in creation of vaccines.
Always happy to have examples of failures in things to study (failure analysis is kind of my thing) but would those listed thus far likely happen in the modern world? While my books on science and tech from that era are still pretty sharp today then controls and the like do a lot better. Rushed on what is otherwise a fairly new virus family for widespread vaccines (it is noted that some of the ones listed above, SARS and MERS being two of the more fun ones with it being 2002 for the former, but research desire was not there after it petered out, so much for both the capitalistic and non profit research approaches I guess) would be a prime candidate for something fun to happen but that does not preclude steps being in place to mitigate that.
Or if you prefer we were probably all here a few years back when that male pill trial was cancelled and it was noted that the first pill for women would likely not have got through if trialled today. Granted we did then see the female viagra (Addyi/flibanserin) get pushed through despite serious serious side effects and dubious efficacy so who knows.


----------



## MMX (Sep 7, 2020)

Lucifer666 said:
			
		

> x



let me guess: you're white


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 7, 2020)

MMX said:


> let me guess: you're white


I'm... not white? What?


----------



## depaul (Sep 7, 2020)

The virus exists, and it's spreading intelligently and continuously. It is malicious.

Look at India they were doing fine until the numbers spiked lately, reaching about 90.000 cases daily.

God help us all.


----------



## MMX (Sep 7, 2020)

Lucifer666 said:


> I'm... not white? What?


are you white or not?


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 7, 2020)

MMX said:


> are you white or not?


Dude, no. I'm Arab. Not that it makes a shred of a difference.

I'm confused as to why you would even bring up my ethnicity in a discussion about healthcare, in a thread about vaccines.


----------



## MMX (Sep 7, 2020)

Arabs are white


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 7, 2020)

MMX said:


> Arabs are white


Ok... tell that to a white supremacist /s


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 7, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> Ok... tell that to a white supremacist /s


Go one better.
Tell that to an Arab supremacist.

Ethnicity/race does have some bearing on healthcare (sickle cell rather less prevalent in those of European ancestry, skin cancer on the other hand is, this list goes on for a long time), and may even in this scenario.
The news was awash with reports on lesser outcomes in those not of European ancestry a while back. Nobody quite made any inroads into why (genetic factor, cultural factor, health factor*) but at this point in the game that matters rather less than not; if the prevalence of fat people in such a community is higher enough that bothers them in these stats then people are suddenly not going to not be fat, even with all the will in the world (which there is not) that is a months long process, so you get to account for that and devise around it/mitigate it if saving the most people/avoiding the most negative outcomes (possibly while balancing other needs) is the goal.

*obesity, smoking rates and various other risk factors or related ones seemingly more prevalent in some of those groupings, however I have yet to grab stats or see them lined up and tested for.


----------



## notimp (Sep 7, 2020)

depaul said:


> The virus exists, and it's spreading intelligently and continuously. It is malicious.
> 
> Look at India they were doing fine until the numbers spiked lately, reaching about 90.000 cases daily.
> 
> God help us all.


Virus is not sentient, and mortality rate in people below 60 isnt high.

Mask wearing in high risk areas helps. Also there are other means that help statistically, but cost more. (Real costs, economy.)

What is your opinion on coronavirus vaccines: 





MMX said:


> Arabs are white


Only on gbatemp. (Does a thread stray so far from topic into 'race identity' by page 3.)



FAST6191 said:


> The news was awash with reports on lesser outcomes in those not of European ancestry a while back. Nobody quite made any inroads into why (genetic factor, cultural factor, health factor*)


Sorry, I missed that news item entirely, would you mind sharing? (Germany has amongst the lowest death rates in the west.)

edit Data: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
(second graph)


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sorry, I missed that news item entirely, would you mind sharing?



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52219070
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/explainers-52969054
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53651954
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-understanding-the-impact-on-bame-communities
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...nes/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-bame-patients (I see these guys actually made a stab at identifying factors and looking at stats properly unlike the rest I had seen prior so that is nice. For reference the British Heart Foundation are some top tier researchers on heart and circulation matters. While vascular is probably the main thing to follow cardio in most titles then pulmonology, the study of lungs/respiratory systems, is not so very far behind).
https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events...ecting-children-young-people-bame-communities

Afraid you will have to look past the utterly idiotic "BAME" phrase (short for black and minority ethnic). Not sure when that got picked up and used widely but eh.


----------



## notimp (Sep 7, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52219070
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/explainers-52969054
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53651954
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-understanding-the-impact-on-bame-communities
> ...


Will read up on it, still most likely cultural, imho.

If you compare with case fatality rates in countries that should have the capability to test. Of course, geographic differences (climate).
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality


edit: Here: Look at this:





src: https://www.fom.ac.uk/wp-content/up...ff-at-risk-of-COVID-19-infection-12-05-20.pdf

Other staff value especially. Low case numbers, so high statistical variance and variability possible - but if this would be statistically 'solid' my first impression would be - cultural. See also high percentage of BAME doctors in the workforce.

edit:


> There is growing evidence that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups in the UK are at increased risk of death from coronavirus (COVID-19), with Black Afro-Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations being particularly at risk. Although the reasons are unclear, it is likely to be a combination of cultural and socioeconomic, as well as the higher prevalence of co-morbidities such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, raised body mass index (BMI) and type 2 diabetes in these populations.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-020-1781-6

For black african populations risk is 4.3 times higher in the UK, which is astonishing. For Black Caribbeans it only is 2.5 times higher though, so there goes our skin color based explanation.


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 7, 2020)

MMX said:


> Arabs are white



Please stop using drugs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2020)

DinohScene said:


> Please stop using drugs.


He's not entirely wrong. While most would classify Arabs as a distinct ethnic group, they fall well-within the Caucasian phenotype in terms of race and are considered Caucasian by the U.S. Census. These classifications are pretty dated and formerly there used to be a separate "Arabid" racial category, a subset of the Semitic peoples, but it's been long since deprecated. Having "olive" skin doesn't automatically subscribe a person to a different racial group, people of Middle Eastern, European, North African and aboriginal West Asian descent are in fact considered Caucasian, if you consider race to be of taxonomical importance. Most people don't, nowadays we focus more on cultural ancestry, race is a touchy and difficult subject.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 7, 2020)

MMX said:


> how about I can choose? Choice is great right? Consent is great right?
> 
> if YOU want to get the vaccine, fine. You and your people are safe.
> if someone else doesn't - then by that logic doesn't he get sick and die? then problem solved too.


Not true. Unvaccinated people spread diseases to children who are too young to be vaccinated and people with medical conditions which stop them from being safely vaccinated. We can only stop vaccinating when and if a disease is eradicated from the wild. Take smallpox for example.

If you can vaccinate, you must vaccinate.


Lucifer666 said:


> I'm sorry but wtf are you talking about lmao


The Australian government will likely heavily disadvantage people who refuse a coronavirus vaccine. Not sure about the UK.


> Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth has said measures to encourage vaccine take-up such as banning Australians from flights, restaurants and public transport would be discussed by health officials and ministers.



Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-tough-rules-people-refuse-COVID-19-jab.html

To my understanding, currently parents who do not vaccinate their children cannot get financial support from the government. I support this approach when you're dealing with vaccines which have been given adequate time to evaluate their safety.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 8, 2020)

My opinion is that it shouldn't be rushed aside some non - medical means (eg if the normal procedure is 'wait until previous patents are thoroughly tested'... Then it can take priority over other medicines). @Foxi4 already outlined the dangers of rushing. 

But once available, it should be really available to everyone. I won't speak on behalf of the US for civil reasons, but it should be obligated at to the groups where it's safe to do so.



MMX said:


> let me guess: you're white


I take it by your racist derailing of his reply that he burst your ignorant bubble of bullshit so well that you have no defense whatsoever.


----------



## notimp (Sep 8, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> @Foxi4 already outlined the dangers of rushing.


He/she did not.

In the Cutter incident, the company in question - as well as all companies at the time, had a problem with killing the polio virus they would use in their vaccine. This was known internally in one case, where they discarded batches, but didnt report it. This was before liability laws were installed that prevent companies from doing that without being legally liable. This was a manufacturing issue, not a vaccine creation issue. This had nothing to do with development being rushed. This would be prevented today by the mere fact, that nowadays you only have half a dozen of manufacturers, that can produce vaccines at scale (and they still want to be in business 10 years from now). This would be prevented today by the mere fact, that we aren just sticking dead Covid in a tube with the development of this vaccine - we are basically isolating part of its RNA and splicing it into a carrier virus, or modifying another virus in a way that antibodies would be produced that would also work for Covid. Or just manufacture the entire thing, but make sure to leave the parts out, that make it a living organism.

If you entirely make up your reality - why make it an effing dystopia. If you are too lazy to read, again - dont participate.



Taleweaver said:


> But once available, it should be really available to everyone. I won't speak on behalf of the US for civil reasons, but it should be obligated at to the groups where it's safe to do so.


Again if you had read the articles already posted, you wouldnt have to make wishes to the universe. You would already know, that people in deciding positions already know that leaving out parts of the world is a bad idea as the virus can start propagating from there again. At the same time, nations payed sometimes for 6x the needed dosis to be produced by different manufacturers, just to get a working vaccine as soon as possible, when ready (after clinical testing finished), and they did so to minimize economic damage to their economies. The US - by far - bought up the most capacity. Efforts to finance vaccine development/production entities for poorer nations largely failed so far, but there are pledges, to allocate capacity to poorer countries and donate (this ensures, that economic gains remain in western countries). Largest vaccine manufacturer by volume also is situated in India. Efforts to open up and share intellectual property, werent met with too much enthusiasm on part of the rights holders, so that isnt happening to a large extent.

As far as distribution in western countries is concerned, medical personal is first, then come older people, and by virtue of them paying more, probably international business travelers. At least in countries with a national health system (that still allow private parties to pay more to fasttrack their 'position in line'). All of that is already decided. But then governments with national health systems currently are buying up capacity 'for their entire countries'.


----------



## TheCasualties (Sep 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Imagine living in an alternate reality where modern-day Portland is the size of the US. That's anarchy.



Oh wow, imagine living in a reality where people can get the health care that they need.. without having to pay out the ass to get it. Wow. Mind blowing.

On topic, IDK what there is to discuss.. if it works, great. If not it is a game of deception. No surprise there.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 8, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> Oh wow, imagine living in a reality where people can get the health care that they need.. without having to pay out the ass to get it. Wow. Mind blowing.
> 
> On topic, IDK what there is to discuss.. if it works, great. If not it is a game of deception. No surprise there.


The market sets the prices based on supply and demand. This is how it should be.


----------



## TheCasualties (Sep 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The market sets the prices based on supply and demand. This is how it should be.


Yes corporations should decide who lives and who dies.. yes. wonderful.

(Sarcastic if not obvious)

Have you ever seen Idiocracy? @UltraSUPRA

Ignorance and distraction is the source of Samsara (cycle of struggle), Honestly I really hope "our mind" (the collective mind) will come to know itself.  The news cycle is exploiting this to make everyone basically zombies.

Getting super meta/meditiation: We can reach a pure awareness of consciousness, but we chose aspects to attach ourselves with, witch  separate ourselves from others. But we are all one consciousness.

I know most won't listen to this but the Buddha nature could put an end to this suffering: 

The nature of Mindfulness could put an end to this suffering but it won't happen in this lifetime.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The market sets the prices based on supply and demand. This is how it should be.



that's econ 101, the rest of economics go on to explain why econ 101 does not play out in reality. Healthcare in the USA is in a quasi-regulated state as of now, so standard market forces do not apply. if we had true free markets, there would be no medical patents, as that puts regulations on the market. The USA manipulates it's healthcare in the worst ways. honestly I'm looking forward to medical debt not being ejectable with bankruptcy like student loans are. then we can live in the true hellscape we always knew it could be.


----------



## notimp (Sep 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The market sets the prices based on supply and demand. This is how it should be.


This doesnt work in this case. Upfront costs to do all research are too high for a Covid vaccine to be on the short list of manufacturers. Everyone acknowledged, that this has to be distributed to as many people as possible at almost no cost. Or immunization doesnt work. Which means, high investment, ultra low margin, and once people have had it, they are cured (for a while at least, information on scale still outstanding). As a result vaccine development in this case was very far down on the priority list of any biolab. So states had to come in and flood those companies with money to install incentives.

This happened in this very case. Read up on it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2020)

People who say that supply and demand doesn't work have a hard time understanding that morality doesn't play a role in the market - the market by definition is an impartial force. It is inherently immoral to burden anyone with your own expenses - it's not your money. You are effectively stealing, you're just feeling good about it because you have a skewed understanding of right and wrong. There are multiple reasons why healthcare is expensive in America, none of which were caused by how market forces operate. The current situation is a logical consequence of bone-headed welfare and insurance legislation, as well as an attempt at wage control that dates back all the way to WWII and created the employer-based insurance system. Supply and demand had nothing to do with pricing lower class people out of the healthcare market, social reform did. There are countless examples of countries with free market healthcare systems that operate very well and offer high quality, accessible healthcare - sadly the United States isn't one of them after years upon years of reform that aimed at having the cake and still eating it at the same time.


----------



## notimp (Sep 8, 2020)

The issue with the US healthcare system is that you are conned by cartells, that have disabled market forces. So the market in your case doesnt work anymore.

This is largely independent of people on the lower income scale not receiving any 'non emergency' healthcare.

Your drug prices are just through the roof, because you have no other options, and no unified 'large force' that could implement baseline pricing, by being a large enough vendor. Its entirely messed up.

And the argument usually goes: Yeah, but it holds incentives for new drug development. Issue - most of them are not directed towards curing illnesses, and in previous years there have hardly been any large breakthroughs, but more and more patent wars instead (as more people worldwide become affluent enough to buy themselves a larger lifespan, ...).

Roughly. So for the average citizen the US medical system is broken (preexisting conditions issue, cost).
--

But also, market isnt the solution to all issues. Again, if you do a free trade agreement with india, as a result of their wages being lower, you are now developing india (and your affluent class). Those are market forces. Also markets tend to create bubble and bust cycles (thats misallocation), that then have to be mitigated by public investments. Trade nowadays is largely done by algorithms, we dont understand anymore - and which have had to be reigned in structurally, because of flash crashes, so you wrote those out of the systems, by writing in guideposts. Thats not free market. Those arent even human actors anymore. Then there are fields, where personal gains arent driving a better development of whatever exists in the field.

And there is the fact that the magic 'invisible hand of the market' doesnt exist. Adam Smith only ever wrote about it in the following context (in 'Wealth of nations'). People wouldnt be propelled to invest in foreign countries, they'd have a homeland bias, that would make them invest in England more, as if propelled by an invisible hand. Not even Trump believes that anymore.


See also criticisms (Stiglitz) and f.e. the 'externalities' argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 8, 2020)

Goku1992A said:


> Nothing you can do about it the vaccine is going to be mandatory


I expect the possibility that it will be mandated by companies and employers in US, but perhaps not the government itself, in which case I suppose I would quit my job. I would rather catch coronavirus than take the vaccine.


----------



## notimp (Sep 8, 2020)

Glyptofane said:


> I expect the possibility that it will be mandated by companies and employers in US, but perhaps not the government itself, in which case I suppose I would quit my job. I would rather catch coronavirus than take the vaccine.


Give us the why.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 8, 2020)

Glyptofane said:


> I would rather catch coronavirus than take the vaccine.


This, but only for the first month of the vaccine. After that, it's had enough testing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> Your drug prices are just through the roof, because you have no other options, and no unified 'large force' that could implement baseline pricing, by being a large enough vendor. Its entirely messed up.


Your proposed solution to a problem created by wage fixing is price fixing. Just wanted to point that out. The root cause of "the insurance cartel" taking over dates back to Roosevelt freezing wages in the wake of a labor shortage caused by World War II. Employers could no longer compete for labour on the basis of wages, so they started competing based of healthcare coverage for the workers, which was a very attractive proposition. The government then said "game on" and made those corporate contributions tax deductible. This in turn created a situation wherein insurance companies were no longer compelled to compete for individual customers, rather they went directly to corporations. Individual coverage became secondary to multimillion contracts, and the situation only got worse when this coverage became mandatory, removing any remaining incentive to compete based on price - if your corporate customers *have* to buy coverage no matter what then the concept of value goes completely out the window. At this stage an individual is irrelevant in the system and, predictably, ends up having to cough up fees equivalent to those paid by a giant corporation. Now, this might be outlandish, but hear me out - perhaps if the problem was caused by government intervention, the solution isn't another government intervention. Y'know, just a thought. Wink wink. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/...-has-employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html


----------



## notimp (Sep 8, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Your proposed solution to a problem created by wage fixing is price fixing. Just wanted to point that out. The root cause of "the insurance cartel" taking over dates back to Roosevelt freezing wages in the wake of a labor shortage caused by World War II. Employers could no longer compete for labour on the basis of wages, so they started competing based of healthcare coverage for the workers, which was a very attractive proposition. The government then said "game on" and made those corporate contributions tax deductible. This in turn created a situation wherein insurance companies were no longer compelled to compete for individual customers, rather they went directly to corporations. Individual coverage became secondary to multimillion contracts, and the situation only got worse when this coverage became mandatory, removing any remaining incentive to compete based on price - if your corporate customers *have* to buy coverage no matter what then the concept of value goes completely out the window. At this stage an individual is irrelevant in the system and, predictably, ends up having to cough up fees equivalent to those paid by a giant corporation. Now, this might be outlandish, but hear me out - perhaps if the problem was caused by government intervention, the solution isn't another government intervention. Y'know, just a thought. Wink wink.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/...-has-employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html


Nonsense as far as I'm concerned (fixed wages dont create a pharma cartel). But also entirely useless as far as a solution is concerned.

Historical arguments almost always are entirely useless. (Usually because history is seen as part of story telling and not real negotiations.)

"Price fixing" pharma prices (creating a larger entity that can go into negotiations with multinationals to figure out real cost over time), is the solution in pretty much every western country outside the us. That includes canada.

The only question left to ask is, why wouldnt you want to fix it? Everyone knows how to.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> Nonsense as far as I'm concerned (fixed wages dont create a pharma cartel). But also entirely useless as far as a solution is concerned.
> 
> Historical arguments almost always are entirely useless. (Usually because history is seen as part of story telling and not real negotiations.)
> 
> ...


You yourself have just said that the problem with American drug pricing is the fact that market forces have been removed from the equation. The solution is to re-introduce them, either by tearing the system down completely or by gradual deregulation. A few years of chaos are preferable to an eternity of suffering.

If you're asking me why price fixing is a bad idea in earnest, I can't really help you - this is a pretty basic concept in economic theory. A full discussion would go well beyond the scope of this thread, but in short, it's yet another measure that eliminates competition. You want to replace one price fixing cartel with another price fixing cartel and expect the outcome to be different this time around. There's a term used for repeating the same action over and over with the expectation of a different result, I'm sure you can figure that one out on your own.

As for disregarding history, those who don't pay attention to it are doomed to repeat it - that's not even an argument worth having, so I won't be having it. You're on your own with that one.

In regards to the Canadian healthcare system, anyone with two brain cells that occasionally meet opts for private alternatives - in fact, sorting out procedures in private clinics is often times recommended by Canadian doctors themselves as means to avoid the ridiculous queues when time is of the essence. According to recent surveys patients wait 20 weeks on average between getting a referral from their General Practitioner and seeing a specialist. Keep in mind, that's not actually having a procedure done - that's the consultation, actual operations still require additional queuing. So yes, I'm sure the service is excellent, top notch and A+, provided you're not in a hurry. If you are and you want to sort out an issue before it turns from mild to crippling, you'll avoid that queue at all costs. I don't know how people can say that the Canadian healthcare system is more accessible simply because it's "free" (it's not, healthcare is one of the most expensive items in the budget) when it's effectively impossible to speak with a specialist in a timely manner, that's purposefully deceptive. It's most definitely "cheaper" than in the U.S., but that lower price comes at a cost in other areas. That's not to say the American system is better, they both suck, just in different ways.


----------



## notimp (Sep 8, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The solution is to re-introduce them, either by tearing the system down completely or by gradual deregulation. A few years of chaos are preferable to an eternity of suffering.


Yeah, if you want to use the internet to promote the killing of people, on ideological grounds, which you made out to be 'without alternative', may I suggest a more secure platform, than gbatemp? 

Or facebook actually, because you are more likely to get help using that venue.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yeah, if you want to use the internet to promote the killing of people, on ideological grounds, which you made out to be 'without alternative', may I suggest a more secure platform, than gbatemp?
> 
> Or facebook actually, because you are more likely to get help using that venue.


I don't remember advocating for that. I do remember saying that the system needs to be torn down and replaced with a free market alternative. Don't burden me with imaginary deaths that exist exclusively in your head.


----------



## notimp (Sep 8, 2020)

You are doing it again.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also, your entire argument consists of religion. Your god is free market. Your founding myth is something a president did a hundred years ago. Your understanding of processes and how they are connected to the real world is non existent - and your solution still is faulty.

(People earning less, doesnt allow them access to the medical system - which at this point basically has decoupled from the bottom half of people within your society - to reap larger percentages from the upper half. This btw is in essence, why Covid-19 has become such an issue for the US. Trump just looked at economic figures for a while - and the health industry in your country really had no incentive to act. Because the assumption was - as always, that the state will provide funding in case of a crisis. Pretty much forever. So why not wait a little longer. The argument was faulty of course. Just as your believes, that markets will solve everything.

They dont solve the distribution issue, they dont solve climate change, they dont solve the health care crisis, didnt solve the US health system (you already are probably the most free (as in hands off) market economy in the western world today), they dont solve the bubble and bust cycle issue. And they dont account for the fact, that most of what the US exports as innovations today got created in state financed sectors.

Stop believing a lie.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> You are doing it again.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but it's your understanding of the issue that's flawed. The money that was intended for worker's wages was instead funneled into insurance companies, the same insurance companies that now effectively dictate the cost of healthcare, and this racket continues today. There are no ifs or buts about it, it's not a matter of opinion, it's precisely what happened. This move by the FDR administration led to long-term deflation of wages *and* it contributed to the establishment of a cabal of insurance companies, and further legislation in regards to public coverage caused the cost of healthcare to skyrocket further by turning it into mandatory spending, completely eliminating free market forces and not allowing the industry to self-regulate. I gave you a pretty exhaustive explanation of the logical progression here, in accordance with how markets actually work in reality, as opposed to some fictional vision of how they should work - if you can't follow that train of thought, again, I can't help you. Prosperity is based on risk, not safety - once you start meddling with that, you're meddling with forces that no government, no matter the size and scope, can't effectively control. There's a very simple way to fix this - dismantle the cartel by completely removing employer-based insurance from the equation, divvy up the current pools into private accounts for individual members and return to normalcy by still providing the deductible to incentivise buying in, but make insurance elective so that companies have impetus to compete in the realms of price and coverage. Anybody who falls outside of that system should pay at the till, just like for any other service, and after a few years of general chaos and confusion the market will stabilise, just like it always does. The argument of "killing" is moot to me, people are dying due to inadequate coverage right now, except without any hope of the situation improving, so you're arguing that in bad faith as far as I'm concerned. Of course none of this will ever happen since it's a proposition that's unpalatable to people of a certain political persuasion, but that doesn't make anything I've said untrue - it's demonstrably true based on all available evidence. Right now we're discussing the merits of fixing a dented car by whacking it with a hammer some more to make the dents symmetrical. Sometimes it's hard to swallow the fact that the jalopy you've been trying to fix for nigh on a century now belongs in the scrapyard and it's time to buy a new car, but that's just the way it is. You're not getting more mileage out of this system by buying an air freshener, you're just deluding yourself into thinking that you're not careening towards a cliff inside a junker with no breaks because the inside smells nice. In any case, since the conversation is getting circular here and it's straying grossly off topic, we should probably focus on the upcoming vaccine and opinions directly related to it - neither you nor I have the power to fix healthcare.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 8, 2020)

I don't trust government. NEVER!


----------



## notimp (Sep 8, 2020)

Foxi4: I'm pretty sure that all of what you wrote has no baring on reality.

Did you make it up? Did someone else you believe in? How did you come by your moderators badge...

Those are the necessary questions to start with.


Or we could start with the content - long term deflation of wages is not triggered by 'insurance companies getting together in a cabal to influence president FDR to give them money to control wages'. If you believe that - you are pretty much insane.

Also, there are at least three logic reversals in that statement. (Insurance companies control pharma pricing - upwards? (So that they get less business?) FDR forcing rules of operation and higher taxes, which were used for state projects to get out of a recession, and pushing union building benefited cartel creation? High taxes to this day are the cause of wage deflation? (What?) Removing all state control and letting the market rule free, might cause a small period of economic chaos (and people dying), but its the only alternative we've left and much better, than continuing what we have now?

Anybody home?


Lets start with a simple economic principle. Free markets, if unattended lead to monopolies. (One market leader, one less important rival, if you are lucky.) If you dont get fully fledged monopolies, the centralization tendencies caused by free market forces lead to ambitions to form price cartels. (Big players dont want their price structures to come down more at a certain point, and if there are few enough rivals left, maybe you could get them to talk to each other to prevent competition.)

Regulation is what prevents that. (Remember when Gates was on trial? Say hello to Bezos next. At least if your government would be working. In reality those companies become multinationals, and exploiting other nations always is more profitable to the US than breaking those up, so you leave them be and give them even more taxbreaks to build their headquarters in your city.)


Also this little problem:


> Compromising with Congress, FDR dropped universal health care from his Social Security bill before signing on


https://timeline.com/social-security-universal-health-care-efe875bbda93


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> Foxi4: I'm pretty sure that all of what you wrote has no baring on reality.
> 
> Did you make it up? Did someone else you believe in? How did you come by your moderators badge...
> 
> ...


FDR didn't freeze wages because he was colluding with insurance companies, he did it because his administration was expecting a massive recession due to a labour shortage since most working age men went to the front lines. If "left unattended" industries would have to compete for the worker by increasing wages, this was prevented from happening by freezing wages, so the *only* way for companies to remain competitive on the market was to offer attractive healthcare coverage. When those same companies were offered a deductible they must've thought the administration was insane - their spending *hasn't changed*, their budget for wages was exactly the same as they planned for anyway, except instead of paying it all to the worker the "excess" was tax-free and paid to insurance companies - if that's not deflating on-hand wages for the employee then I have a bridge to sell you too. I'm not going to argue this topic any further, it doesn't pertain to the COVID vaccine discussion, any further off topic comments will be removed. You don't have to "believe" me, you can just grab a history book in your spare time - educating you is not my responsibility. I already laid out the historical facts and gave you the breakdown of what they ultimately led to, you're welcome to have a different opinion, being wrong isn't illegal. If you want to discuss this subject with me privately then you're welcome to shoot me a PM instead of derailing the thread.


----------



## Magsor (Sep 8, 2020)

Wear a mask. There is just evidence there.
 I just wanted to say that.
And Canada is better because our health care is free we have opened up schools and business now. Our numbers are real and we are gonna do good.
If I am sick I get service and will never have to pay even  I have not a penny it is misinformation to say otherwise.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 8, 2020)

Magsor said:


> Wear a mask. There is just evidence there.


I'm not gonna tear off my ears and fill my face with saliva and mucus.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm not gonna tear off my ears and fill my face with saliva and mucus.


Why are you even considering tearing off your ears and filling your face with saliva and mucus?

Please, seek help, whoever told you you needed to tear off you ears was certainly trying to deceive you, there's no need or reason to tear off your ears and certainly if this person suggested you had to fill your face with saliva and mucus and you still believed them it shows they sure have you under their feet at least psychologically.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> Why are you even considering tearing off your ears and filling your face with saliva and mucus?
> 
> Please, seek help, whoever told you you needed to tear off you ears was certainly trying to deceive you, there's no need or reason to tear off your ears and certainly if this person suggested you had to fill your face with saliva and mucus and you still believed them it shows they sure have you under their feet at least psychologically.


I think I've seen that kind of face mask in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, very fetching. Not sure about its filtering capabilities though - I'm pretty sure Leatherface was mostly for show.


----------



## Fawe (Sep 8, 2020)

Janus is real


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 8, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> Why are you even considering tearing off your ears and filling your face with saliva and mucus?
> 
> Please, seek help, whoever told you you needed to tear off you ears was certainly trying to deceive you, there's no need or reason to tear off your ears and certainly if this person suggested you had to fill your face with saliva and mucus and you still believed them it shows they sure have you under their feet at least psychologically.


So I don't have to wear a mask.


----------



## notimp (Sep 9, 2020)

Here is how producers are fighting potential political pressures:
https://www.dw.com/en/covid-vaccine...l-rules-as-one-key-trial-is-paused/a-54860720

edit: Same article Astra Zeneca vaccine candidate showed severe side effects in clinical testing on one person. Testing is currently suspended.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 11, 2020)

I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that in my shitposts I was mocking the source, not promoting it.

https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-coronavirus-is-not-contagious-and-does-not-cause-disease.571967/

This is slightly off-topic:

The author of this blog entry (and one of the authors of the book) consistently pumps out articles which are readable for people with little to no background knowledge on the subject, grammatically correct, uses images and links to evidence to support her claims. She produces high quality articles designed to disinform readers.

When the person posting the article is me everyone disregards it as bullshit not worth listening to. The problem is that conspiracy theorists who have already fallen down the rabbit hole share these sort of articles with each other on Whatsapp and actually believe them. Most people who read these articles aren't well educated on the science being discussed but trust the author. The author becomes a sort of hero to them. Someone who they can look up to for evidence to reinforce their beliefs. The author is actually cherry picking studies and misrepresenting science to use as false evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/25/qanon-facebook-conspiracy-theories-algorithm

Sally Fallon is the founder of her own health group, a non profit organization. I strongly doubt she truly believes in her content. If she's researched these topics herself then she knows she's misrepresenting information. She can convince herself its true when she needs to speak at events and convey sincerity through her body language. When a lie is told often enough even the teller believes it to be true.

What I really want to know are her motives. Her health group is a non profit organization. She claims she does not receive any kickbacks from the companies manufacturing the health products she recommends. Perhaps she takes cash under the table? Do companies cover her travel expenses as she travels around America speaking at various events? Maybe companies give her a lot of free samples which she enjoys? There's no way she would spend time and effort writing high quality bullshit without getting something in return.


----------



## notimp (Sep 11, 2020)

If shes in any event circuit (as in regular), she is likely to be payed at least indirectly by the companies financing them. Which should be supplement vendors.

Just going by probability, its also supplement vendors, because those have the most to gain (they are running a 90+% margins business, if they know what they are doing).

Listing selfpublished books on amazon can both be a source of revenue, as well as PR - but usually thats not enough to sustain someone 'managing' a community. (Depends how dumb her followers are probably.)

Samples dont make you do anything - if you have acquired a decent following.

All of this is speculation of course.

edit: Zuck the Berg recently had to defend bubbles again, because of the protester killings (protesters were killed) btw:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=axios+on+hbo+zuckerberg


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 11, 2020)

notimp said:


> If shes in any event circuit (as in regular), she is likely to be payed at least indirectly by the companies financing them. Which should be supplement vendors.
> 
> Just going by probability, its also supplement vendors, because those have the most to gain (they are running a 90+% margins business, if they know what they are doing).
> 
> ...


That's the one thing I truly hate about modern Internet - large, popular sites fabricating reality custom to the user so that "everyone has a good time". Filter bubbles are extremely damaging, I can't really see an up side besides conflict avoidance. Targeted advertising, fine, I get it. Targeted news events? No, thank you. Just "news" is good enough, I don't need them tailored, I'll pick what I want to see myself. Nowadays everyone thinks they have the majority opinion and no views are ever challenged because that's all people see - they don't get to see the other side anymore. This is one of the reasons why I still see forums and BB's as superior to mass social media networks - they feel more "real" and you get to meet people from all walks of life. You don't always agree with them, but at least you get to interact.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 11, 2020)

What do you mean that "I have to" wear clothes in public? I'm not going tear off my limbs and be soaked in sweat.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 11, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> What do you mean that "I have to" wear clothes in public? I'm not going tear off my limbs and be soaked in sweat.


Clothing has been a natural instinct since Eve ate the apple.
Also, if your clothes are tearing your limbs off, I don't know what clothes you're wearing.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Clothing has been a natural instinct since Eve ate the apple.
> Also, if your clothes are tearing your limbs off, I don't know what clothes you're wearing.


If your masks are tearing your ears off, I don't know what masks you're wearing.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 12, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> If your masks are tearing your ears off, I don't know what masks you're wearing.


Cloth masks. I have a big head.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 12, 2020)

I've got no issues with vaccines personally. I was immunized as a child and have kept up with various shots since then. That includes my yearly flu shot, which I got in the past couple of weeks. I know there are risks, but there's risks drinking water and taking aspirin, risks crossing the street, risks changing your car battery, etc ... There are risks in life, but I find that the reward outweighs the risks when it come to vaccinations. 

I also don't support socialism/communism, so if you don't want to get a shot you shouldn't be forced to get one. I am a bit weary of the COVID19 vaccines due to them being "fast tracked" as that simply means normal testing phases and safety measures are being ignored to get it out sooner. If there are not any devastating reactions regarding the first few batches that people more brave then I am take then I think I'd be willing, but not right away.


----------



## notimp (Sep 12, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I also don't support socialism/communism, so if you don't want to get a shot you shouldn't be forced to get one.


Jebus. Who in the world is forcing grown people (politically or not) to get vaccines?

Thats just layered in unfounded prejudism.


edit:
Sources:

https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories/mandatory-vaccination-work-europe/comment-page-1/
(for a quick overview)
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/145/2/e20190620
(more in depth)


----------



## Axido (Sep 12, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Paid for by hefty taxes, with lower quality, where you're put on a long waiting list. Sounds great!



First of all, did you ever hear someone from a country with universal health care complain about it being expensive?
And what's that part about the waiting list. Would you rather die not being able to get the treatment at all? 
Or are you sure "it will always hit the others but not me"? If you treat your whole life as a gamble, you might find that the longer you live the higher the chances become that you'll lose (that's basic law of chance, actually).

Then again, I can partly understand your point. Lots of workers in the US get paid such a low wage that they need to fear the loss of every cent they make. Must be painful if you have to decide whether you want your current or your future finances to be stable. Before universal health care is an option people in the US would either have to get paid more (which I guarantee you won't happen anytime soon, since your government is obviously run by corporations regardless of which party is in the oval office) or it had to be financed by means not affecting the poorest of people. And there's a lot of resistance against the latter as well that stems from decades of getting told that anything you should care about is yourself. Whenever I see US officials or media outlets comparing European standards to Communism, it baffles me. However, I do recognize that more and more US citizens come to understand that they are mistreated and bullshitted. And that gives me hope.

Back to topic, I'd get the vaccine if it is thoroughly tested through all of the stages. Though, since my immune system is in its prime, I might at least consider volunteering as a test subject in order to help out getting a vaccine on the way (even though I don't really know whether or not I even caught the virus yet).


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 12, 2020)

Axido said:


> First of all, did you ever hear someone from a country with universal health care complain about it being expensive?
> And what's that part about the waiting list. Would you rather die not being able to get the treatment at all?
> Or are you sure "it will always hit the others but not me"? If you treat your whole life as a gamble, you might find that the longer you live the higher the chances become that you'll lose (that's basic law of chance, actually).


Yes, you do, and that person is me.  A death by a million cuts is still a death, you can boil a frog alive if you set the stove just low enough for it not to notice. The often-touted example here is Sweden, the left's poster child for universal healthcare. Their top personal tax bracket sits at *57.1%* (for anyone earning X1.5 national average income) and average tax rate isn't much lower. On top of that you have to add VAT (25% flat rate) and municipality taxes (varies between municipalities, the average is 32%). You might be happy about all the "free" stuff you're getting from the state as a result, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're a slave for over half of the year and you're thankful for it. I'll pass, thank you. I don't even care how much someone earns, that's none of my business, but as a general rule taking *the majority* of someone's earnings in taxation is morally repugnant. Making someone work in indentured servitude and feeling good about it because you give them metaphorical "food and lodge" is slavery, plain and simple.


----------



## notimp (Sep 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, you do, and that person is me.  A death by a million cuts is still a death, you can boil a frog alive if you set the stove just low enough for it not to notice. The often-touted example here is Sweden, the left's poster child for universal healthcare. Their top personal tax bracket sits at *57.1%* (for anyone earning X1.5 national average income) and average tax rate isn't much lower. On top of that you have to add VAT (25% flat rate) and municipality taxes (varies between municipalities, the average is 32%). You might be happy about all the "free" stuff you're getting from the state as a result, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're a slave for over half of the year and you're thankful for it. I'll pass, thank you. I don't even care how much someone earns, that's none of my business, but as a general rule taking *the majority* of someone's earnings in taxation is morally repugnant. Making someone work in indentured servitude and feeling good about it because you give them metaphorical "food and lodge" is slavery, plain and simple.


When a moderator of a forum has no clue, that public infrastructure doesnt fall from the sky, and after an exchange of more than half a dozen messages still fails to realize, that people largely have to use that paygap to buy overpriced insurance in the US. Of course not at the top end of the income spectrum, but our moderator - likely hasnt reached that, hasnt realized what it means, that wealth is concentrating more and more, and social cohesion is getting less and less. But still plays an effing unreflected cheerleader for a model he got spoonfed by GOP party taglines. (Deregulate healthcare!)


Here is the actual deal. ANY country in the world neads public infrastructure to be built. Private businesses arent interested (too long term) in doing any of it on their own risk. So citizens, and corporations have to pay taxes. To get any of it.

Or as per an already defunct US model, you give certain families exclusive development rights for generations, and hope that in the end you are left with a functioning railroad system. Which then doesnt get maintained very well.

In the US historically they only had to pay taxrates that were on par with those of tax heavens, and countries in the developing world. Reason? US companies, pretty much controlled 70% of worldwide GDP. So if you could make them pay a pittens in country - US had everything that was needed.

Thats slipping away currently. Percentage of world wide GDP in the US is falling, because everyone in the international class is developing other nations, with better demographic structures, with known tech, and no new investments in R&D needed.

But, if you keep the US GDP (in PPP after inflation) 'stable', and have a higher percentage of it be earned by a smaller and smaller financial elite. And the rest of your people working in service jobs. While competing against homelessness and crippling sickness, under declining social mobility, you kind of get US populations that voted three times in a row for 'change' but STILL get more of the same as their only option. 

The moderator, who doesnt unterstand much, then tells you - yes, but if we only deragulate healthcare, so younger people can get less of it, so they have more disposable income, in exchange for health risks, and higher health costs later in life (treat early, actually saves costs) -- thats all the US needs really.

Issue: US suffers from cartel building in the pharma industry, and ridiculous treatment and medication prices, because the industry basically has decoupled from the bottom half of americans, while charging the remaining half more than double of market pricing. So part of your underclass not getting full health coverage to have more 'disposable income' while they are young - exactly solves NOTHING - in terms of all those US health industry issues. And doesnt get you a wider coverage (the reverse is true actually).

Yet, because the US really, really has an education problem on top of this, half of their population gets sold on 'public option' on healthcare would take your plan, and your money away. Crafted for utter morons.
-

That said, US GDP is held stable, while the rest of the worlds GDP increases, and while more and more of GDP is created by less and less jobs (service sector jobs get you nowhere). Thats america in decline.

But for politicians - as long as GDP stays roughly the same, they get roughly the same financing - so why change anything? Oh yeah, riots in the steets, and people dying from a virus, yeah - theres that... But really, nothing that the military used internally cant solve..


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 12, 2020)

notimp said:


> When a moderator of a forum has no clue, that public infrastructure doesnt fall from the sky, and after an exchange of more than half a dozen messages still fails to realize, that people largely have to use that paygap to buy overpriced insurance in the US. Of course not at the top end of the income spectrum, but our moderator - likely hasnt reached that, hasnt realized what it means, that wealth is concentrating more and more, and social cohesion is getting less and less. But still plays an effing unreflected cheerleader for a model he got spoonfed by GOP party taglines.
> 
> 
> Here is the actual deal. ANY country in the world neads public infrastructure to be built. Private businesses arent interested (too long term) to doing any of it on their own risk. So citizens, and corporations have to pay taxes. To get any of it.
> ...


I'm well-aware of "where public infrastructure comes from", but there is a golden mean here, and "the majority of an individual's income" isn't it. I don't see how me "being a moderator" is a factor here. Ad hominem like this isn't going to take you far, I'm just a guy on the Internet with a nickname that shows up as a different colour than yours.

It is my point of view that individuals know best how to spend their own income that they, not you nor the government, worked for. Taxation should be kept to an absolute bare minimum required to support public infrastructure, and I make that concession only for the purposes of facilitating private commerce which admittedly does use public resources, for instance roads. There's also the question of keeping up the peace (police) and national defense (military), so there are some genuine expenses the government has, and those should absolutely be funded with taxation. Social engineering and keeping people "safe from themselves" via a variety of convoluted social programs and restrictive regulation are not among those legitimate expenses. The government exists in order to protect the inalienable rights of the citizens, that is its primary and only interest, its sole raison d'etre.

You're welcome to disagree, but don't pretend that your position is the only sensible one - it's not. There are extremes on both ends of the spectrum, you have total anarcho-capitalism on one end and "real" communism on the other, sensible people sit somewhere in-between of the two. There is absolutely nothing outlandish in thinking that the government shouldn't reap *the majority* of the fruits of someone's labour, we're not a feudal society operating under a caste of lords, I reject the notion that people should be worked to the bone and receive the scraps, even if the state "provides" for them as a result. I can provide for myself, thank you.

In short, you're using argumentum ad absurdum and strawmen - you're exaggerating my position well past the point of what I argued because it's very comfortable and easy to dismiss it that way. Nice fallacy, but you're arguing with yourself - nobody said that there should be no taxes, just that excessive taxation is not something anyone should aim for.

*EDIT*: This particular argument is especially funny to me. You can disagree with me, that's fine. You know who agrees with me? The Swedish government.

https://www.businessinsider.com/swedish-government-collects-too-much-tax-2017-2

Due to a reduction of interests rates they've collected a surplus of $9.5 billion over the course of 2016 and they had no idea what to do with it. Negative interests rates encouraged *overpayment* as taxpayer accounts offered better interest than those of banks. Nice system you've got there, it'd be a real shame if someone used it to make some mad dolla.


----------



## notimp (Sep 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm well-aware of "where public infrastructure comes from", but there is a golden mean here, and "the majority of an individual's income" isn't it.


Actually it is middle class tax payments and consumption taxes, which also impact lower and middle classes more. If you are high income tax dodging becomes increasingly possible, if you are a multinational these days, ist pretty much where all of your efforts are going into. (Also why you like dealing with those developing nations, even at slightly higher risk, they offer you tax exemptions as incentives.)

You almost literally cant get the money anywhere else.

(We can stop the ad hominem, I agree.)

edit: Video for most easy explanation:


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 12, 2020)

notimp said:


> Actually it is middle class tax payments and consumption taxes, which also impact lower and middle classes more. If you are high income tax dodging becomes increasingly possible, if you are a multinational these days, ist pretty much where all of your efforts are going into. (Also why you like dealing with those developing nations, even at slightly higher risk, they offer you tax exemptions as incentives.)
> 
> You almost literally cant get the money anywhere else.
> 
> (We can stop the ad hominem, I agree.)


It is my opinion that if you have the means, you should protect all of your income and pay as little tax as humanly possible as long as you're not breaking the law in the process. Depending on political persuasion some might call that "using loopholes", others will call it "protecting what is rightfully yours". That's a discussion for another thread though, we're getting further and further away from the topic of vaccines. My initial point, just so that it is not overshadowed by the economics discussion, was that the "free" healthcare isn't free - everyone pays for it. We can have the argument of whether it is just to burden high income earners with it until the cows come home, but that has no relation to COVID in and out of itself, so I'll leave it at that - "there's no such thing as a free lunch".


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 12, 2020)

Seliph said:


> anarchy



Anarchy is promoted by very low IQ people who don't comprehend that anarchy is nothing more than a power vacuum - an extremely brief transition period before the power vacuum is then filled by a strong man.  "Anarchists" in practice are always nothing more than useful idiot canon fodder used by outside forces to destablize a government before they take it over.

The only way "anarchy" would work is if you somehow managed to convince every nation on the planet to disarm itself all at the same time and abolish their entire military, nuclear weapons, etc.  Of course this will never happen in any game theory scenario, so anarchists are then resigned back to the position of useful idiot pawns for other powers.

They usually throw in the anarchists + communists/socialists all at once for destabilization purposes in places like Latin America, and even though on the surface the groups appear to be ideologically different, they both help accomplish the exact same destabilization end goal.  Then the inhabitants are ripe for exploitation.


----------



## notimp (Sep 12, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Anarchy is promoted by very low IQ people


https://bigthink.com/politics-curre...-anarchist-beliefs?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

(I dont believe in anarchism as a societal model myself.)


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 12, 2020)

Is this a joke?  Who links Noam Chomsky?  Anyone who isn't banned from TV, Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the internet in the year 2020 is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.  The last person I want to hear any political opinion from is a Zionist like Noam Chomsky who pretends he doesn't know Jeffrey Epstein is a Mossad agent sent to blackmail western leaders for Israel.

He feigns ignorance on the subject is and is like....ah...never heard of him HAHAHAHA.


----------



## notimp (Sep 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It is my opinion that if you have the means, you should protect all of your income and pay as little tax as humanly possible as long as you're not breaking the law in the process. Depending on political persuasion some might call that "using loopholes", others will call it "protecting what is rightfully yours". That's a discussion for another thread though, we're getting further and further away from the topic of vaccines. My initial point, just so that it is not overshadowed by the economics discussion, was that the "free" healthcare isn't free - everyone pays for it. We can have the argument of whether it is just to burden high income earners with it until the cows come home, but that has no relation to COVID in and out of itself, so I'll leave it at that - "there's no such thing as a free lunch".


In the US state will likely pay for your vaccine doses. US economic fallout is largely because you are currently destroying structural wealth as a result of high unemployment - which were an indirect result of the US healthcare system not caring about the poor. Late reactions of part of your 'leadership' in part were a reaction to the US not being able to scale up testing early, as the capacity wasnt nearly there - to do something that would have you care about everyone of your citizens.

And if you see tax avoidance, even using loopholes as your duty, to what end? Look at Apple - all of their worth increase in the Tim Apple (Cook) aera has come from productivity increases, and licensing. Money mountain grows, whenever a european country tries to tax them US threatens to stop german car imports. Yipee, what a life?

You are simply an extremist, following an outdated ideology that is not fit to solve anything at the downturn of a bust cycle. What you dont understand is what mainstream economists realized 80 years ago.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 12, 2020)

notimp said:


> downturn of a bust cycle



Any nation with a central bank is in a permanent "bust cycle" because the central bank picks winners and losers - privatized gains, socialized losses.  That's crony capitalism and nobody can compete with that.  It's designed to eat all competitors leaving nothing but monopolies run by the usury bankers with everyone as their slaves.

Using the word "bust cycle" implies Keynesianism has any validity whatsoever when it doesn't.  Keynesianism is slavery, period.  Keynesianism also causes there to be no limit on government growth and waste which is 100% guaranteed to cause complete collapse.

Keynesianism claims to 'ease' the fallout of the business cycle, but all it does is amplify the severity of the business cycle through intervention with things like loose credit.  People claim the business cycle would still exist under physical metals, but the severity would be so much less you might barely even notice it compared to now where it's a world ending event.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Sep 12, 2020)

once thing for sure you do not want to take the Russian vaccine. ever seen that movie gundala?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2020)

Sketchy. I'm not going to take any, anyway.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Bladexdsl said:


> once thing for sure you do not want to take the Russian vaccine. ever seen that movie gundala?


The one where the guy looks like a cheap knockoff of Kamen Rider / Power Rangers? No. It's the first time I've looked it up.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Nemix77 said:


> Probably going to be free vaccine in Canada when it's available, we have free health care.
> 
> At the moment we just don't know which one the Canadian government will choose.


Free health care like in U.K.? Well, that's not exactly free.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Goku1992A said:


> Nothing you can do about it the vaccine is going to be mandatory


That's what concerns me and others. Let them try that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



BANANA_SLAMMER said:


> I have mixed feelings about coronavirus vaccines.
> 
> On one hand, the drastic measures it takes to control the spread of the coronavirus compromise peoples' quality of life and countries' economies. This is a deadly virus and survivors have shared some rather painful stories about their experiences. *Anti-vax groups give me the shits and I'm tempted to say that a* *vaccine should be made mandatory just to spite them, fuck consent*.
> 
> On the other hand, the coronavirus is highly politised and pharmaceutical companies have a financial incentive to be the first to release a vaccine to the market. I fear that those who document the vaccines' side-effects during testing phases are biased in vaccines' favour. *I also tend to be paranoid*.



No wonder.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 12, 2020)

He wants vaccines to be mandatory?  I counter-mandate anyone using the word mandatory vaccine receives the mandatory electric chair. 

Since feminists and women have been elevated to the status of living Gods in the gynocentric dystopia of western civilization, my mandate clearly takes precedent because even though I'm not a woman, I can simply invoke a female slogan like "my body, my choice" and I automatically win.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2020)

This thread has fallen into the shits. It's time for it to get locked.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@Veho @Issac @T-hug @Scarlet can one of you please lock this thread?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 12, 2020)

BANANA_SLAMMER said:


> This thread has fallen into the shits. It's time for it to get locked.



Because you got wrecked trying to play God thinking you get to screw with other people's lives who you have no authority over?  Did your parents not teach you things like this when you were say...10 years old.


----------



## Scarlet (Sep 12, 2020)

BANANA_SLAMMER said:


> This thread has fallen into the shits. It's time for it to get locked.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> @Veho @Issac @T-hug @Scarlet can one of you please lock this thread?


If you think a thread should be locked, report it so mods can see it and discuss appropriately. Tagging people tends not to be the best move.


----------



## notimp (Sep 12, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Any nation with a central bank is in a permanent "bust cycle" because the central bank picks winners and losers - privatized gains, socialized losses. That's crony capitalism and nobody can compete with that. It's designed to eat all competitors leaving nothing but monopolies run by the usury bankers with everyone as their slaves.


And then you woke up and the remembered, thats just a song someone told you? 

For the 10thish time, get away from the idea of Disney villains and heroes.

All of this comes out of believes of 'what is best' in a given situation.

A term that is thrown around a lot in relation to those concepts is 'creative destruction':

https://web.archive.org/web/2020052...conomists-creative-destruction-theory-is.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jan/21/alan-greenspan-business-cycle

Another part of this is, 'out of the old, in with the new', which also is inherently what capitalism (system) flurishes on.

National banks, for the most part try to keep a stable 2% (roundabout) inflation rate going, with growth right around, but a little over that mark. (This includes violating their mandate and injecting direct investments into companies (instead of giving banks the means to give out credit) with a high headcount these days - which is done to stabilize, societies - largely. (Something european central banks were caught doing recently.))

And boom an bust kind of always seem to happen in capitalism. No bad guy meticulously planning them..


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Because you got wrecked trying to play God thinking you get to screw with other people's lives who you have no authority over?  Did your parents not teach you things like this when you were say...10 years old.


You try telling this to Catherine Hughes whose son died of whooping cough because he was too young to be vaccinated and wasn't protected by herb immunity.

If you can vaccinate, you must vaccinate. This is not about freedom of choice, this is about protecting those around you.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ncy-could-undermine-australias-covid-response

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Scarlet said:


> If you think a thread should be locked, report it so mods can see it and discuss appropriately. Tagging people tends not to be the best move.


Done, thanks for the tip.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 12, 2020)

notimp said:


> In the US state will likely pay for your vaccine doses. US economic fallout is largely because you are currently destroying structural wealth as a result of high unemployment - which were an indirect result of the US healthcare system not caring about the poor. Late reactions of part of your 'leadership' in part were a reaction to the US not being able to scale up testing early, as the capacity wasnt nearly there - to do something that would have you care about everyone of your citizens.
> 
> And if you see tax avoidance, even using loopholes as your duty, to what end? Look at Apple - all of their worth increase in the Tim Apple (Cook) aera has come from productivity increases, and licensing. Money mountain grows, whenever a european country tries to tax them US threatens to stop german car imports. Yipee, what a life?
> 
> You are simply an extremist, following an outdated ideology that is not fit to solve anything at the downturn of a bust cycle. What you dont understand is what mainstream economists realized 80 years ago.


What do you mean by "tax avoidance"? You should pay how much you owe and not a single penny more, easy as that - that's not "avoidance", that's "following the law". I know reading is hard, but I'm not a fan of American healthcare - I was the one who said it should be torn down, remember? You're arguing with yourself again.

*EDIT*: Closing thread upon OP's request.


----------

