Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These for (massive) profit pharmaceutical companies are being waived of all risk and liability, and all the risk is being put on the consumer (us). Shouldn't we be sharing in some of their profits? As it is right now, we'll get the vaccine for "free", but it will be paid for by the government so it's not really free of course.
Maybe the drug companies should be heavily discounting the vaccine to the government, or even providing incentive to the general public to take the vaccine? Will the drug companies pull the same profit margin as if they did have liability?
Almost 2,000 hospitalizations and a positive test rate of 9.5% yesterday, both numbers continuing to trend up.
Which continues to prove my points that A) masks cause more harm than good by providing a false sense of security and B) the spread isn't coming from retail establishments. (Walmart has never closed. Only the small businesses. Hmmm...) It's coming from our own homes and socializing with neighbors!
These for (massive) profit pharmaceutical companies are being waived of all risk and liability, and all the risk is being put on the consumer (us). Shouldn't we be sharing in some of their profits? As it is right now, we'll get the vaccine for "free", but it will be paid for by the government so it's not really free of course.
Maybe the drug companies should be heavily discounting the vaccine to the government, or even providing incentive to the general public to take the vaccine? Will the drug companies pull the same profit margin as if they did have liability?
From what I've been reading, the COVID vaccines will be relatively inexpensive with the most expensive one costing less than $40 total for two doses and some as little as a few bucks.
As far as liability, like I mentioned earlier, vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability. This goes for all vaccines. It's not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22
So for the most part, these COVID-19 vaccines are not being treated any differently than any other. The difference of course is the speed at which they were developed and tested.
As far as safety, the trials involved thousands of people, so any immediate adverse effects would be apparent unless they were incredibly extremely extraordinarily rare. And latent adverse effects are exceedingly rare with vaccines and are usually only associated with live attenuated vaccines like varicella (chickenpox). And even then, the adverse effects are the same as they might be from getting the actual virus like getting shingles.
This really comes down to a risk/benefit assessment, and everyone is going to need to decide if it's worth it for them. I don't really care what individuals decide to do, and I think it's obviously necessary to discuss real potential problems with these vaccines. What I find concerning though is the spreading of half-truths, misinformation, and fear like the group that put the banners across several highways around the country this weekend is doing. These types of campaigns are nothing more than worthless fearmongering based on gut feelings.
Last edited by ITB_OG; 12-01-2020 at 06:56 AM..
Reason: corrected typos
As far as liability, like I mentioned earlier, vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability. This goes for all vaccines. It's not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22
So for the most part, these COVID-19 vaccines is not being treated any differently than any other. The difference of course is the speed at which they were developed and tested.
Glad it was helpful! I only learned what I have about vaccines because the anti-vax movement was in full swing when my kids were little, so I had to do a lot of digging. Also, one of my kids has a disability that was (still is???) often claimed by some anti-vaxxers to be the result of vaccines, so there was that to contend with.
Close Contact Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period* starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to test specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated. * Individual exposures added together over a 24-hour period (e.g., three 5-minute exposures for a total of 15 minutes). Data are limited, making it difficult to precisely define “close contact;” however, 15 cumulative minutes of exposure at a distance of 6 feet or less can be used as an operational definition for contact investigation. Factors to consider when defining close contact include proximity (closer distance likely increases exposure risk), the duration of exposure (longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk), whether the infected individual has symptoms (the period around onset of symptoms is associated with the highest levels of viral shedding), if the infected person was likely to generate respiratory aerosols (e.g., was coughing, singing, shouting), and other environmental factors (crowding, adequacy of ventilation, whether exposure was indoors or outdoors). Because the general public has not received training on proper selection and use of respiratory PPE, such as an N95, the determination of close contact should generally be made irrespective of whether the contact was wearing respiratory PPE. At this time, differential determination of close contact for those using fabric face coverings is not recommended.
Hmmm.... this leads me to a neighbor's experience with the virus. Husband and wife exhibited symptoms. Both got tested, were positive and are now quarantining. All of the neighbors in the conversation all accused the husband of contracting it because "he's an avid golfer who golfs everyday and never wears a mask while golfing even though he's around his buddies. He's so selfish." I said I disagree. I believe she contracted it from her job (she's a yoga instructor who's classes consist of older adults.) Majority immediately popped off with attacks how I'm wrong because her classes are very safe because she has very strict mask policy and everyone must be wearing masks entire time. I said I disagree but whatever. Seems the CDC agrees to disregard mask usage as prevention. (unless I'm not understanding this correctly which is entirely possible)
Hmmm.... this leads me to a neighbor's experience with the virus. Husband and wife exhibited symptoms. Both got tested, were positive and are now quarantining. All of the neighbors in the conversation all accused the husband of contracting it because "he's an avid golfer who golfs everyday and never wears a mask while golfing even though he's around his buddies. He's so selfish." I said I disagree. I believe she contracted it from her job (she's a yoga instructor who's classes consist of older adults.) Majority immediately popped off with attacks how I'm wrong because her classes are very safe because she has very strict mask policy and everyone must be wearing masks entire time. I said I disagree but whatever. Seems the CDC agrees to disregard mask usage as prevention. (unless I'm not understanding this correctly which is entirely possible)
I'm reading the CDC statement "Because the general public has not received training on proper selection and use of respiratory PPE, such as an N95, the determination of close contact should generally be made irrespective of whether the contact was wearing respiratory PPE. At this time, differential determination of close contact for those using fabric face coverings is not recommended." to mean that mask use, be it an N95 or fabric, should not be considered when determining close contact for the general public and NOT to mean disregard mask usage as a prevention. On other words, it doesn't matter if people were wearing masks when determining who was in close contact. Seems to align with what they and other experts are saying about masks which is they are one component to an overall strategy and they may help prevent spread but that they should not be considered 100% effective.
Last edited by ITB_OG; 12-01-2020 at 09:33 AM..
Reason: clarified redundant sentence
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
