In business, there's this concept of a money-back guarantee. If you don't like it, your misfortune is paid for by the >vendor. If the vaccine is safe and effective, the manufacturers and the US government should cover 100% of the >medical bills arising from any side effects from the vaccines. Including:
I think 100% of medical bills being covered from side effects is reasonable...if you are forced to to receive the vaccine. Otherwise, before you get the vaccine, you sign something that acknowledges the risks (which are stated in a piece of paper that you are given...at least in the U.S.).
Businesses must be entitled to damages for lost workforce, revenue, customers
Health insurance companies must be entitled to 100% reimbursement for any additional health expense they cover
Entertainment venues entitled to 100% damages for lost revenue from cancelled events due to surges post vaccine
Sports leagues 100% reimbursement for lost sales due to lack of viewership or attendance due to surges post vaccine
Airlines 100% reimbursement for lost revenue from flights cancelled due to surges post vaccine
Restaurants 100% compensation for any revenue lost due to any surges or lockdowns post vaccine
If the vaccine does work, and side effects are rare, the powers at be must be forced to back it up.
You lost me here. Surges are to be expected until and unless we achieve herd immunity. That takes 80-90% vaccination/natural immunity rate. The vaccine does work (doesn't mean 100%) and side effects are rare (doesn't mean 0).
Finally, the vaccine must be a right! It should be given freely to all countries world wide to combat this global >pandemic.
Instead - three companies wield monopoly over all vaccines. The president is about to implore the world to pay >them more https://www.scribd.com/document/525278011/39ff1de7-8bfc-4f0a-a7f3-2dfb4540af3b
for billions of doses of the vaccine. They maintain their complete immunity from side effects or harm. And all >three vaccines continue to be pushed in the USA under the EUA - that explicitly justifies their approval based on >the lack of an FDA approved alternative. Said again, moderna / J&J must be pulled from thee shelves once the >FDA truly approves a treatment.
Something that requires someone else's material and labor to produce cannot be a 'right' unless you support slavery. Somebody must pay for the cost of development, including materials and labor, even if no profit is involved. And while profit may sound like a dirty word in the context of a global pandemic, it is a powerful motivator. You remove it at the peril of slowing or even stopping development. Also, three companies by definition are not a monopoly...unless they are colluding.
Ideas are more infectious than viruses. This is a simple binary - either this is about saving lives, and the >government will 100% finance the risks, or it is about profit and we the people are funding the dissolution of >our own liberty.
It is not a simple binary at all. By government financing something, you really mean that it is taxpayer funded as this is where government gets its money. Thus far, government HAS been financing this for the most part and giving away a lot to other countries as well. But this just means that U.S. taxpayers are paying for it. But don't forget, these three companies are just the ones making a vaccine in the U.S. There are also European, Russian, and Chinese producers of other vaccines (and maybe others).
It does not cost trillions of dollars to cover medical bills for 'rare' side effects. Stop arguing about the data - >they know it's bogus too. They want to keep your eyes off what's really going on:
I don't know how the numbers work out. When you are talking about hundreds of millions or even billions of vaccines, even very low probability side effects can add up and hospital care isn't cheap. I think these expenses should be covered if you are forced to take the vaccine, but not if you accept the risks and get it voluntarily. However, the more the cost of liability increases, the more the cost of the vaccine increases.
There is no FDA approved treatment
As far as vaccines, the 'Comiarty' brand by Pfizer has been approved as of August. As far as treatments, there are FDA approved treatments including remdesivir which is an antiviral, among others.
Natural immunity is more effective
Probably true but so what..and by how much? The vaccine is to reduce the risk of bad outcomes with regards to COVID. Ideally preventing you from contracting it at all but reducing the effects if you still do. Natural immunity only comes after contracting COVID and overcoming those risks. Natural immunity might protect you a little better or a little longer...it's not going to be a huge difference though. Neither natural immunity nor vaccination is likely give you permanent immunity.
Ah forgot the capitalism one!
I'm with you mostly as long as the commitment is balanced. I.E. Companies should be paid to do the work, develop drugs, and take risks. But remove the risk, remove controlled testing, remove open data sharing, that's not capitalism.
Case in point:
If it's truly open, and truly sponsoring good - let everything on the market, and let consumers and doctors decide what to risk - admitting the vaccines are untested and these alternatives (untested against covid) are demonstrably safe and have been for decades.
That's not what's happening. There are mandates in place to take one drug from one company (that the fda has 'approved' 2 years from now) under the loosest possible definition of success - with absolutely no legal recourse or financial consequence to the business if it is ineffective. No market in the world works that way.
From what I have been able to tell, the Pfizer vaccine has been "fully approved" by the FDA in the U.S. Do you have a link to the letter you are referring to? I know the others are not fully approved and are still being used under the EUA. Also, "not approved" is not the same as "untested".
Is far as counting vaccinated vs. unvaccinated its kind of mixing apples and oranges. You can't count someone as fully vaccinated for the purpose of measuring effectiveness if they have not had both doses and at least 14 days have passed since the last dose. In other words, if you legitimately died of COVID between dose 1 and 14 days after dose 2, you can't say it is because the vaccine is ineffective. As far as I know, an adverse effect from the first does would still be reported to VAERS and accepted. They aren't going to throw it out because you are "unvaccinated". The VAERS numbers are available publicly. I'm confused as to what data you think is being hidden. Even if you take all the VAERS reported deaths at face value and add them to the "died of covid while vaccinated column" it would not change the percentages. The number is too small for that. It is also without a doubt true that at least some people contracted covid but didn't know it yet before getting vaccinated. At that point it is too late for the vaccine to help.
As far as how it is possible to have 3x more daily cases, etc. It's because there are still enough unvaccinated/people without natural immunity for that to happen. 70% is not 80% or 90% and it can make a big difference. Some people get COVID more than once (I personally know one healthcare worker who did and this is before there was a vaccine). I think "cases" is probably not the best way to measure effectiveness. Certainly not exclusively. It appears that full protection is time limited and effectiveness may be reduced against variants. However, it does appear that the vaccines lower the risk of other negative outcomes (hospitilization/death) for a longer period of time and vs. the variants (at least the ones we have so far).
For at least the pfizer vaccine, they had the typical clinical trials you would have for something like that. The concession that was made to speed things up was that some of the phases of the trials were allowed to overlap to save time vs. analyzing the results of phase 2 before being allowed to move on to phase 3, etc.
I'm sure the vaccines have killed more people than Ivermectin or whatever but hundreds of millions of people aren't taking those. I also don't know that the evidence shows that those treatments are more effective than the vaccine. There are ongoing clinical trials though. Every vaccine or drug ever made kills people. It is unclear yet whether this particular vaccine kills more people than average or not. Initial reports through VAERS would say more than the flu vaccine but not orders of magnitude more. Anecdotally I know of several unvaccinated people (friends or coworkers of other friends for the most part) that have died from COVID (legitimately, not cancer/covid) yet I know of nobody personally (yet) that has died from the vaccine or of COVID after being vaccinated (partially or otherwise). Most of those I know of that have died have been close to the age of 50 and mildly to moderately overweight. You are probably slightly more at risk from the vaccine vs. covid only if you are otherwise very healthy and in one of the risk groups for the vaccine (young adult males for myocarditis vs. Pfizer vaccine, child bearing age for women vs. J&J vaccine). Of course, you could choose to take the vaccine you aren't in the higher risk group for too...
It isn't clear to me why this vaccine would somehow weaken your immune system. The whole point is to stimulate an immune response. My understanding is this normally happens vs. the dna of the virus when you get a virus or get a traditional vaccine (live attenuated or dead). The difference with the new mRNA vaccines is that they are triggering an immune response to the protein that surrounds the virus. But why would this somehow weaken your immune system? I am not enough of a virologist or immunologist to say for sure but it doesn't make any sense to me at a high level. Your immune system doesn't know the difference between a pretend invader and a real one. The same accusation has been levied at the flu vaccine. Testing has shown that was not the case. It makes me skeptical of the accusation here.
As far as open markets and all that, I absolutely agree...in theory. The problem is that existing laws and regulations make it difficult for this to work. Lets say the vaccine causes a few deaths and there are lawsuits. There could even be an injunction to stop vaccinating people. Or there could be lawsuits for obscene amounts of money. Lawsuits that take months or years. This would lead to the cost of the vaccine being obscene amounts of money or no vaccine at all. If you need to vaccinate people quickly this is not ideal. And what about signing a waiver? If you do it voluntarily, does that not protect the company from liability (provided they weren't lying of course)? I think everybody must sign a form acknowledging the risks in order to get the vaccine. Things like myocarditis and blood clots are known risk factors (though very low probability ones). Now if you are absolutely FORCED to get the vaccine, that's another story. But then it is the government doing the forcing, not Pfizer.
I think for an open market solution to work here there actually has to be an open market and other laws have to be changed. I also think if a company is honest about the testing they have done, reveal the risks they are aware of, and you sign a waiver acknowledging and taking responsibility for those risks, then it is on you, not the company at that point. Again, if the company misleads or hides things, that is another story.