Coronainsanity

[Spartanmack]

I don't think the Russian and German vaccine companies would do that though.

well, in that case...

Actually, why is that? Large multinational companies operate in the United States, which is one of the biggest markets for their products. Why wouldn't they care who was President if it affected their business and act in their own best interests if one candidate was better for their business than the other?

Anyway, Pfizer is a multinational corporation but it is an American company with world headquarters on 42nd street in Manhattan, New York in the United States. It was founded in Brooklyn in 1849, it's stock is NOT an ADR, it's listed here in the United States.

How many people have seen a vaccine headline that names BioNTech? Me neither, they're all about Pfizer which should indicate who is driving the ship. Also the 3 largest stakeholders in BioNTech (the billionaire founder and 2 billionaire investors) have seen their collective fortunes rise by $1.9B (US$) since the post-election announcement - clearly, that's indicative of nothing, I'm sure they're just in it for the greater good of hu(wo)manity and wouldn't allow Pfizer's politics (since, as a German company, they don't care about US politics) enter into their decision making.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So which one of us is remembering it wrong?

You.


Actually, probably not. You're probably conflating stuff on purpose. It's not clear, but when you said it was proven to be false, that seems more in reference to the more recent talk of election day readiness claim. Instead, you're bringing up far more speculative stuff from May in the context of "proof" and "lies". Put the goal posts wherever you like. You're this close to convincing somebody that Trump's way more honest than he gets credit for.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So are you saying the major news outlets like NBC, CNBC and NPR going out of their way to fact check and publish stories about the President's "false" claims weren't actually taking it seriously?

Again, clearly referencing the before election claim.


...but you know, another post starting with "So you are saying..."

 

[Gulo Blue]

I googled that last one too, they say that Trump's own officials say it could take well into 2021 for enough Americans to get the vaccine (and then will still be wearing masks into 2022) (I hope not!) And then argue about timelines and the military assisting in the vaccine rollout.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/10/...nd-of-the-year-despite-contrary-evidence.html


So while the headline allows you to conflate stuff, it's not as you portray it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

well, in that case...

Actually, why is that? Large multinational companies operate in the United States, which is one of the biggest markets for their products. Why wouldn't they care who was President if it affected their business and act in their own best interests if one candidate was better for their business than the other?

Anyway, Pfizer is a multinational corporation but it is an American company with world headquarters on 42nd street in Manhattan, New York in the United States. It was founded in Brooklyn in 1849, it's stock is NOT an ADR, it's listed here in the United States.

How many people have seen a vaccine headline that names BioNTech? Me neither, they're all about Pfizer which should indicate who is driving the ship. Also the 3 largest stakeholders in BioNTech (the billionaire founder and 2 billionaire investors) have seen their collective fortunes rise by $1.9B (US$) since the post-election announcement - clearly, that's indicative of nothing, I'm sure they're just in it for the greater good of hu(wo)manity and wouldn't allow Pfizer's politics (since, as a German company, they don't care about US politics) enter into their decision making.

Announcing for their own interests, of course. The most important thing being how it relates to an election in an environment where people believe whatever they want anyway? No.

 

[Spartanmack]

You.


Actually, probably not. You're probably conflating stuff on purpose. It's not clear, but when you said it was proven to be false, that seems more in reference to the more recent talk of election day readiness claim. Instead, you're bringing up far more speculative stuff from May in the context of "proof" and "lies". Put the goal posts wherever you like. You're this close to convincing somebody that Trump's way more honest than he gets credit for.

probably not. Also, I'm not conflating anything - I'm providing quotes of headlines and from experts in the stories themselves, some as late as October. You're trying to split hairs again for some reason to try to make it sound like the media wasn't wrong and didn't make baseless claims in an attempt to discredit Trump, like there isn't a pattern of this and other tactics to make it look like Trump says nothing that isn't a lie. I wonder why that is.

 

[Spartanmack]

Again, clearly referencing the before election claim.


...but you know, another post starting with "So you are saying..."

Again, one of those quotes was from October.

maybe that's because it sounds an awful lot like that's what you're saying - moving the goalposts a bit, reframe the argument, ignore that as late as October the opposition was telling people the vaccine wouldn't be ready before the end of the year so you can make the false claim that the issue was about whether or not the vaccine wouldn't be ready by the election.

You're probably not aware, but this pedantic, nit picking tact you're taking proves the point - all along, no matter what Trump said at what time of the year, the media went out of their way to "disprove" that claim and you feel justified in this because at one point Trump said it might be ready before the election, so he's the one who has been lying all along - even though it seems oddly coincidental that the Pfizer announcement came 7 days AFTER the election. You're trying to hard, and you're failing.

 

[Spartanmack]

I googled that last one too, they say that Trump's own officials say it could take well into 2021 for enough Americans to get the vaccine (and then will still be wearing masks into 2022) (I hope not!) And then argue about timelines and the military assisting in the vaccine rollout.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/10/...nd-of-the-year-despite-contrary-evidence.html


So while the headline allows you to conflate stuff, it's not as you portray it.

ah, so ready means widely available, not approved and being rolled out quickly as possible and for that reason, Trump was definitely lying. I suppose if it was widely available, Trump would still have lied because 100% inoculation would be the new definition of "ready" for vaccines. Who's moving goalposts? Again, you're trying to hard here.

 

[Spartanmack]

Announcing for their own interests, of course. The most important thing being how it relates to an election in an environment where people believe whatever they want anyway? No.

here's how it relates - Trump fast tracked the vaccine but did a lot of things that hurt big Pharma in the US. Good news about the vaccine before the election would be a win for Trump and would very likely change some votes. Joe Biden was a big part of an administration that took money from big pharma so they could write the ACA. Good news about the vaccine before the election hurts Joe Biden. the fact that some people will believe whatever is irrelevant - there are people on both sides who wouldn't change their vote either way. It's the people on the margins that count. So, yes. Just because you don't have them on tape saying they did it for their own interests to help Biden, doesn't mean they didn't.

 

[Gulo Blue]

ah, so ready means widely available, not approved and being rolled out quickly as possible and for that reason, Trump was definitely lying. I suppose if it was widely available, Trump would still have lied because 100% inoculation would be the new definition of "ready" for vaccines. Who's moving goalposts? Again, you're trying to hard here.

There are a crap-ton of stories over months of evolving available new information, statements by Trump, and headlines that don't fully capture contents. You mash it together to pitch a narrative that's different from what you'd get if you picked a specific time. Early on there was less certainty, later on people distinguish between the existence of a vaccine or an impactful quantity deployed.

 

[Gulo Blue]

here's how it relates - Trump fast tracked the vaccine but did a lot of things that hurt big Pharma in the US. Good news about the vaccine before the election would be a win for Trump and would very likely change some votes. Joe Biden was a big part of an administration that took money from big pharma so they could write the ACA. Good news about the vaccine before the election hurts Joe Biden. the fact that some people will believe whatever is irrelevant - there are people on both sides who wouldn't change their vote either way. It's the people on the margins that count. So, yes. Just because you don't have them on tape saying they did it for their own interests to help Biden, doesn't mean they didn't.

I'm not asking how it relates. I'm saying that how it relates is not the most important thing to the drug company. Being ahead of the other drug companies would outweigh some secondary effect on the election.

 

[Spartanmack]

There are a crap-ton of stories over months of evolving available new information, statements by Trump, and headlines that don't fully capture contents. You mash it together to pitch a narrative that's different from what you'd get if you picked a specific time. Early on there was less certainty, later on people distinguish between the existence of a vaccine or an impactful quantity deployed.

I'm not the one mashing anything together. I'm quoting headlines and quotes from "experts" from as early as May to as late as October. And no, you wouldn't get a different narrative if you picked a specific time because as has been demonstrated, the media took everything he said at every stage of this process and found "experts" to allow them to claim whatever Trump said at that time was false. Early on there was no less certainty in the media that Trump was being irresponsible and dangerous than there was later on and in both cases, they were wrong.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not asking how it relates. I'm saying that how it relates is not the most important thing to the drug company. Being ahead of the other drug companies would outweigh some secondary effect on the election.

maybe, but that's pure speculation by you - you have nothing other than "I think this would be more important, therefore they probably didn't delay announcing their results and that's enough to say politics had nothing to do with it."

and even if it's of secondary importance, it's possible and even very likely that it's important enough to delay an announcement by a few weeks give or take to help their guy, particularly given facts like there's no real evidence that others had a viable solution that is further along and if they did, those companies also have the same interest in the election.

It would be more plausible if you said something like, 'it's probably not true because big pharma would know the media would find a way to downplay or spin the story in a way that would hurt Trump so it probably wouldn't matter when they announced.'

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't know who you're trying to fool. Yourself maybe?



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...onavirus-will-go-away-without-a-vaccine-video


He also said it would go away without a vaccine and there might be some flare ups in the fall and next year.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't know who you're trying to fool. Yourself maybe?



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...onavirus-will-go-away-without-a-vaccine-video


He also said it would go away without a vaccine and there might be some flare ups in the fall and next year.

I'm not trying to fool or convince anyone - clearly, there are people who will refuse to see the facts for what they are. I wonder at this point, if you even know where you've put the goalposts.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not trying to fool or convince anyone - clearly, there are people who will refuse to see the facts for what they are. I wonder at this point, if you even know where you've put the goalposts.

It's perfectly clear, why don't you go back and look for it?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don't know who you're trying to fool. Yourself maybe?



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...onavirus-will-go-away-without-a-vaccine-video


He also said it would go away without a vaccine and there might be some flare ups in the fall and next year.

Of course it would go away without a vaccine.

From the dawn of time horrific deadly illnesses been a part of human life.

The ones that happened during the time before we knew how to make vaccines just killed everybody that they were going to kill, and then died out when the rest of society developed heard immunity.

 

[Michchamp]

Of course it would go away without a vaccine.

From the dawn of time horrific deadly illnesses been a part of human life.

The ones that happened during the time before we knew how to make vaccines just killed everybody that they were going to kill, and then died out when the rest of society developed heard immunity.

They sometimes recurred for decades though. Herd immunity is not easy to achieve in the context of a human lifetime.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's amusing watching the "deeply held" beliefs of some Americans like "personal freedom" and "the sanctity of human life" change from one second to another to "everybody go die so businesses don't suffer."

 

[tomdalton22]

They sometimes recurred for decades though. Herd immunity is not easy to achieve in the context of a human lifetime.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's amusing watching the "deeply held" beliefs of some Americans like "personal freedom" and "the sanctity of human life" change from one second to another to "everybody go die so businesses don't suffer."

this one is my favorite.

"the government shouldn't be telling us we can't do what we want, make us wear masks, limit our freedoms, just because of some disease"

another COVID outbreak occurs

"the government didn't protect us. We need more hospital beds and a vaccine"

Kind of like that "cop free" zone that was in Seattle. They didn't want any police in that area, so the cops left. Then someone got shot and the same people that didn't want any police in the area complained that it took too long for the police to respond to the shooting. :hmm:

 

[Michchamp]

this one is my favorite.

"the government shouldn't be telling us we can't do what we want, make us wear masks, limit our freedoms, just because of some disease"

another COVID outbreak occurs

"the government didn't protect us. We need more hospital beds and a vaccine"

Kind of like that "cop free" zone that was in Seattle. They didn't want any police in that area, so the cops left. Then someone got shot and the same people that didn't want any police in the area complained that it took too long for the police to respond to the shooting. :hmm:

that last part sounds like a story made up for some right wing blog