Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[seafoid]

   https://www.ft.com/content/b7b5da3f-f863-4cf2-bd0d-2694dfe6ae1e

   The race for a Covid-19 vaccine was hit by twin setbacks as Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline delayed the rollout of their jab until the end of next year and Australia abandoned a shot that produced "false positives" for HIV.

France's Sanofi and GSK of the UK said on Friday their vaccine had failed to produce a strong immune response in the elderly as they explained the delay until at least the last quarter of 2021.

[macdanger2]

   https://www.ft.com/content/b7b5da3f-f863-4cf2-bd0d-2694dfe6ae1e

   The race for a Covid-19 vaccine was hit by twin setbacks as Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline delayed the rollout of their jab until the end of next year and Australia abandoned a shot that produced "false positives" for HIV.

France's Sanofi and GSK of the UK said on Friday their vaccine had failed to produce a strong immune response in the elderly as they explained the delay until at least the last quarter of 2021.

That's odd, you'd expect the scientists working for big pharma to just ignore the results and rush to get the vaccine released anyway so that the share price would go up

[Angelo]

   https://www.ft.com/content/b7b5da3f-f863-4cf2-bd0d-2694dfe6ae1e

   The race for a Covid-19 vaccine was hit by twin setbacks as Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline delayed the rollout of their jab until the end of next year and Australia abandoned a shot that produced "false positives" for HIV.

France's Sanofi and GSK of the UK said on Friday their vaccine had failed to produce a strong immune response in the elderly as they explained the delay until at least the last quarter of 2021.

That's odd, you'd expect the scientists working for big pharma to just ignore the results and rush to get the vaccine released anyway so that the share price would go up

You don't think it happens?

[Angelo]

I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.

You must not know how billionaires and major corporate CEOs operate. They are repulsive, amoral individuals in the main.

[seafoid]

https://www.ft.com/content/ef3449eb-084b-4192-ab95-91a715317ad0

Soon after Britain became the first country to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, several prominent French doctors said it was too early to declare the mRNA-based shot safe and effective. Alain Fischer, the government's top vaccine adviser, called for time to allow European and French regulators to complete their assessment. "We only have two to three months of perspective on the safety and efficacy data of these vaccines," he said on television. "The data is not yet complete either to know if they protect against transmitting the virus." "There is still a lot we don't know about the virus . . . And we do not obviously know everything about the vaccines that are coming," French president Emmanuel Macron said on 4 December.

[macdanger2]

   https://www.ft.com/content/b7b5da3f-f863-4cf2-bd0d-2694dfe6ae1e

   The race for a Covid-19 vaccine was hit by twin setbacks as Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline delayed the rollout of their jab until the end of next year and Australia abandoned a shot that produced "false positives" for HIV.

France's Sanofi and GSK of the UK said on Friday their vaccine had failed to produce a strong immune response in the elderly as they explained the delay until at least the last quarter of 2021.

That's odd, you'd expect the scientists working for big pharma to just ignore the results and rush to get the vaccine released anyway so that the share price would go up

You don't think it happens?

I KNOW it happens, only the sheeple would believe otherwise. I'm just surprised that it didn't happen in this case, it's very peculiar

[trueblue1234]

I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.

You must not know how billionaires and major corporate CEOs operate. They are repulsive, amoral individuals in the main.

No doubt. But let's at least be fair to them, and point to the evidence of wrong doing here and they we can all group together in our condemnation of what he has done. Should be fairly straightforward.

[Angelo]

I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.

You must not know how billionaires and major corporate CEOs operate. They are repulsive, amoral individuals in the main.

No doubt. But let's at least be fair to them, and point to the evidence of wrong doing here and they we can all group together in our condemnation of what he has done. Should be fairly straightforward.

But it's the optics of it. Big Pharma is a shady industry, when you have the CEO signing agreements to profit from a vaccine that is rushed through in unprecedented circumstances it does unquestionably raise a huge conflicts of interests. He has a massive self-interest in getting this to market and for the outside looking in, these sort of issues only serve to discourage already skeptical people further.

As far as industries go, big pharma are as shady as it gets. We've seen countless examples of record corporate fines, FDA board members being bribed or induced to approve drugs. Money takes precedent over the health of the world with these people, white collar criminals have an uncanny knack of breaking laws to enrich themselves and getting away with it.

[trueblue1234]

I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.

You must not know how billionaires and major corporate CEOs operate. They are repulsive, amoral individuals in the main.

No doubt. But let's at least be fair to them, and point to the evidence of wrong doing here and they we can all group together in our condemnation of what he has done. Should be fairly straightforward.

But it's the optics of it. Big Pharma is a shady industry, when you have the CEO signing agreements to profit from a vaccine that is rushed through in unprecedented circumstances it does unquestionably raise a huge conflicts of interests. He has a massive self-interest in getting this to market and for the outside looking in, these sort of issues only serve to discourage already skeptical people further.

As far as industries go, big pharma are as shady as it gets. We've seen countless examples of record corporate fines, FDA board members being bribed or induced to approve drugs. Money takes precedent over the health of the world with these people, white collar criminals have an uncanny knack of breaking laws to enrich themselves and getting away with it.

Naw sorry, going to need a bit more than that. The rushed stages have been explained so that's a none runner. CEO's of all businesses have obviously got self interest in the business preforming well. That's a given, but alas not proof of wrong doing.
With regards to the optics, people are obviously welcome to make decisions based on what's out there. But again, going on what's out there, I'd seriously question people's intelligence or motivation if they are trying to use this as a reason to discredit the vaccine. 

[imtommygunn]

Trueblue I think he should give his profits to charity and then that would appease the whole thing 

I can just see the headline now. "Man makes money from job." It's an outrage.

[Angelo]

Trueblue I think he should give his profits to charity and then that would appease the whole thing 

I can just see the headline now. "Man makes money from job." It's an outrage.

Or the actual headline which reports on reality:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/pfizer-ceo-sold-stock-worth-5-6-million-same-day-n1247398

So long as we're clear that Big Pharma is primarily concerned about making billions of profits rather than the safety and wellbeing of the population.

[imtommygunn]

Was that not agreed months before it though?

[Milltown Row2]

Trueblue I think he should give his profits to charity and then that would appease the whole thing 

I can just see the headline now. "Man makes money from job." It's an outrage.

Or the actual headline which reports on reality:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/pfizer-ceo-sold-stock-worth-5-6-million-same-day-n1247398

So long as we're clear that Big Pharma is primarily concerned about making billions of profits rather than the safety and wellbeing of the population.

And I was going to give you a couple of million, but seems it would be wasted on you...

[Angelo]

Was that not agreed months before it though?

Nope.

It was agreed in August, right in the middle of the pandemic and just a couple of months before approval was granted. It's a clear conflict of interest.

[Seaney]

Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?

No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.

Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.

This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.

90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?