US Says It Won't Join WHO-Linked Effort To Develop, Distribute Coronavirus Vaccine (washingtonpost.com) 215
The Trump administration said it will not join a global effort to develop, manufacture and equitably distribute a coronavirus vaccine, in part because the World Health Organization is involved, a decision that could shape the course of the pandemic and the country's role in health diplomacy. The Washington Post reports: More than 170 countries are in talks to participate in the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access (Covax) Facility, which aims to speed vaccine development and secure doses for all countries and distribute them to the most high-risk segment of each population. The plan, which is co-led by the WHO, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi, the vaccine alliance, was of interest to some members of the Trump administration and is backed by traditional U.S. allies, including Japan, Germany and the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union.
But the United States will not participate, in part because the White House does not want to work with the WHO, which President Trump has criticized over what he characterized as its "China-centric" response to the pandemic. "The United States will continue to engage our international partners to ensure we defeat this virus, but we will not be constrained by multilateral organizations influenced by the corrupt World Health Organization and China," said Judd Deere, a spokesman for the White House. The Covax decision, which has not been previously reported, is effectively a doubling down by the administration on its bet that the United States will win the vaccine race. It eliminates the chance to secure doses from a pool of promising vaccine candidates -- a potentially risky strategy.
But the United States will not participate, in part because the White House does not want to work with the WHO, which President Trump has criticized over what he characterized as its "China-centric" response to the pandemic. "The United States will continue to engage our international partners to ensure we defeat this virus, but we will not be constrained by multilateral organizations influenced by the corrupt World Health Organization and China," said Judd Deere, a spokesman for the White House. The Covax decision, which has not been previously reported, is effectively a doubling down by the administration on its bet that the United States will win the vaccine race. It eliminates the chance to secure doses from a pool of promising vaccine candidates -- a potentially risky strategy.
It's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: It's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point I don't think the WHO or the members care. Historically, the US is a leader in these kinds of efforts. And in being so, other major countries rally around and support the direction the US chooses thus giving it the weight that almost everyone follows and all reap the benefits of.
But in COVID-19, the US not only hasn't led but also hasn't supported the ones leading. This has pretty much isolated the US from the rest; and that too is something the US has actually aimed for. And it doesn't look like the rest are spending any efforts to change that. Maybe it will be a humbling experience for the US in 4 years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But in COVID-19, the US not only hasn't led but also hasn't supported the ones leading. This has pretty much isolated the US from the rest; and that too is something the US has actually aimed for. And it doesn't look like the rest are spending any efforts to change that. Maybe it will be a humbling experience for the US in 4 years.
So the 30 thousand US citizens involved in the Oxford Covid vaccine trial isn't considered support in your view? You know, the leading vaccine that is currently furthest developed that the US has been supporting all along.
Re: It's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh. Let's get this right. A Vaccine developed in the UK (at Oxford) is undergoing broad trials before final approval. They need a mass of people who were almost certainly going to be exposed to the virus in their normal environment.
They went to places like the US and Brazil simply because the virus is uncontained there (out of control) and this move will firm up the data as quickly and certainly as is currently possible. Ethics doesn't currently allow for the deliberate exposure of the hundred or more thousand people needed to shore up the data for a mere "candidate". Going to a place like New Zealand is a total waste of time and effort. Stupid Government there isn't letting it spread, so the data is useless.
So, are you saying that the US has been supporting the Oxford Covid vaccine trial "all along" by creating an environment where the spread dynamics are able to be accurately modelled by simply letting the virus rage out of control? That is the only support that is usefully evident. I had no idea it was intentional!
USA USA USA! Ready to sacrifice its blood and treasure in great proportion to enhance world health. Amazing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's no citation or evidence for this claim. The following is from https://www.ukri.org/news/oxfo... [ukri.org] (that's the UK Research Institute)
on 20th July.
This work has been funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network and the German Center for Infect
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's no citation or evidence for this claim.
Really? Just because an AC said so?
The US called the program "Operation Warpspeed", and committed $1.2B to the development of the Oxford Vaccine: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/o... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no citation or evidence for this claim.
Really? Just because an AC said so? The US called the program "Operation Warpspeed", and committed $1.2B to the development of the Oxford Vaccine: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/o... [cbsnews.com]
Nice to slam straight into the ad-hominem attack. The citation provided doesn't count because it came from someone who didn't leave their name? As far as I can see 'operation warpspeed' has purchased 300 Million units at $4 each. I don't know whether that is a useful contribution to the development effort itself. (having guaranteed purchases is clearly useful, but I don't know how much of that pot is left after the manufacture).
Re: It's Trump (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: It's Trump (Score:4, Informative)
COVID-19 vaccine progress tracker: https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
The leading candidates are:
- Oxford/AstraZenica, UK
- Wuhan Institute of Biological Products/Sinopharm, China
- Sinovac, China
- Beijing Institute of Biological Products/Sinopharm, China
- University of Melbourne/Murdoch Childrenâ(TM)s Research Institute, Australia
- BioNTech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer, US
- Moderna/NIAID, US
That last one is a bit out there, Moderna is using a new technique that has never been approved before and the company has never brought a treatment to market.
Anyway, the current front runners are the Chinese and the UK. The British one is unlikely to be approved this year, and brexit is screwing the process up. The Chinese ones might be approved this year but then we have to wait for international approval, and again brexit may push the UK towards the back of the queue.
Re: (Score:2)
Da fuq?
This has to be sarcasm.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
"Our core function is to direct and coordinate international health work through collaboration. WHO partners with countries, the United Nations system, international organisations, civil society, foundations, academia, and research institutions."
So now it's us against the world on this one. We're about to get owned by our fucking hubris and ignorance....
AGAIN.
Re: (Score:2)
I like our chances.
Re: It's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
I like our chances.
Why take them? Joining the global effort means that if anyone, anywhere gets a good vaccine, we benefit. Refusing means we're restricted only to our own resources. Those are substantial, of course, but less than the rest of the world.
And, of course, even if we manage to come out all right in terms of getting a good vaccine quickly, it will still damage the rest of the world's willingness and interest in working with us in the future, when we might want/need that.
It's just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
The specialists at who are far from being extra special, some do not even have applicable qaulifications, many appointees being purely political.
Neither does Trump and most of his appointees. The ones that did have qualifications he has long since fired for not being sycophantic yes-men and replaced them with sycophantic yes-men. Pot, meet kettle ... I'ts always amusing to watch the supposedly incompetent being derided for incompetence by the manifestly incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
Which of those 170 nation partners is bringing anything to the table other than a desire to piggy-back on our investment and effort? Maybe 5 other countries, that's it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The WHO provides coordination and dissemination. The US Federal government "response" has made very clear how important that is, by showing how fucked up things get when member states have to go it alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you happen to be Taiwan. Watch the WHO head director choose to keep quiet when asked about Taiwan, so as not to upset his Chinese bosses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you happen to be Taiwan. Watch the WHO head director choose to keep quiet when asked about Taiwan, so as not to upset his Chinese bosses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
He has to work with China on fighting the pandemic. Pissing China off to earn brownie points with US ultra conservatives like you who get off on hating China is way lower of his list of priorities than fighting the Pandemic. Especially because wide swaths of US ultra conservative community believe the pandemic is a Chinese conspiracy against them and refuse to take precautions making them major factors in spreading the disease even farther and thus they are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think I'm ultra conservative? This guy can't even mention the name of an entire country for fear of backlash. That right there tanks his credibility. I'm the one here posting links to medical facts about the virus to combat all the supposed "nerds" who think it's a runny nose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that right there is the problem. If everyone stopped pussy footing around getting China upset what would they do? Stop doing business with the entire world?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are very confused, an agency of the UN has the UN's agenda. the information they compile and spread may be true or false as history has shown.
WHO does NOT develop cures, administer cures, care for people.
We don't need them. The USA administers cures, does research, helps other people including billions of dollars of such to other countries with another agency. Guess again. It's not the WHO that is important.
Re:It's Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
There was no such claim. You are simply bad in english, and in science: "there's no evidence of human to human infectivity"
This sentence doe not claim there is no transmission from humans to humans: it clearly says: we do not know, if there is, as we have NO eVIDeNCe!!!
And I know no one but you who concluded it would be a) a claim and b) no transmission from human to human.
It is a respiratory sickness, so obviously it is with 99% likelihood transmittable from human to human, at that time they simply had no evidence! It is really so hard to grasp the difference?
Re:It's Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, luckyo is a liar. That clears it up.
Re: (Score:2)
The alleged president will do worse than that, he'll order the CDC to start distributing some vaccine, any will do, 2 weeks before the election and claim he was the one responsible for it. That is until the medical problems arise because of an inadequately tested vaccine, then he'll claim Pence was behind it and fire some CDC scientists claiming they are part of a Democrat plot to make him look bad. As if he needed that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or not.
Imagine if Trump fought with scientists about when vaccine was proven safe & effective, mightn't that get reported?
If you blame Trump for virus, why shouldn't he get credit for vaccine developed and tested under his administration? Who should get (political) credit if not the President that proactively bought and manufactured 300 million doses and authorized a massively parallel drug approval process to shorten the time to market by years?
If the vaccine isn't approved for use until February, 2021
USA is quickly becoming of no consequence... (Score:3, Insightful)
...But the United States will not participate, in part because the White House does not want to work with the WHO, which President Trump has criticized over what he characterized as its "China-centric" response to the pandemic...
This administration forgets that decisions taken under the auspices of the WHO will affect it whether the USA likes it or not.
I sometimes feel sorry for officials that work for this administration. Have they asked themselves why the [mighty] USA hasn't done well as compared with more "needy" countries?
The administration just does not get it. Like the saying goes, “The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.”
Re: (Score:3)
why do you think that? Do you imagine the WHO has laboratories that develop vaccines? They push buttons and paper, they are office workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Introspection is not allowed in the alleged administration. It brings up too many questions concerning capability.
Disgusting (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This article is little more than a complaint that we aren't going through the WHO to do what we are already doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...it is rather telling that counter the GP you go immediately to something peculiar about the female anatomy.
There is no winning the "vaccine race" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's likely that this is really about money: if the US doesn't sign on to something which amounts to a cross-licensing agreement, then they can extort the rest of the world for access to the vaccine. This probably won't work. Under the circumstances, I'd expect most of the rest of the world to just ignore any relevant pharmaceutical patent treaties.
Then you have to wonder what the US will do if a vaccine is developed elsewhere first. Those patent treaties are almost always pushed by the US, it's the US who cares about them. Though the US does have a history of ignoring treaties whenever it feels like it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd expect most of the rest of the world to just ignore any relevant pharmaceutical patent treaties.
I'll double down on that, and say that in such a situation, I'd fully expect some scientist somewhere to just go ahead and leak the entire manufacturing process involved.
Re: (Score:2)
The two leaders in this race, China and the UK, may well decide to give it away for free anyway. China will enjoy the publicity and the UK desperately needs some goodwill as it flounders post-brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely that this is really about money: if the US doesn't sign on to something which amounts to a cross-licensing agreement, then they can extort the rest of the world for access to the vaccine.
Extort? The US will gladly spend billions of taxpayers money to buy the vaccine. You think pharma corps won't be eager to sell a license for 10x the cost in other countries?
Re: (Score:2)
In most "other countries", prices for medicals are regulated ... you can not sell a $4 vaccine for $40 or $400 er shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only competitors in the vaccine race are 1: humans, and 2: the virus.
You went to the wrong show and are now wondering where the animals are.
No, the only competitors are: Those who make money vs. those who are going to end up paying for the vaccine. Either by buying it, or by paying for it with their tax money.
This is a huge business opportunity. Whoever can mass-manufacture the first vaccine that has all the papers signed and permissions given will make billions.
Trump can not leave fast enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I am hopeful that Americans will not vote a Russian Asset in again.
Trump is an illiterate nonscientific idiot (Score:2)
I don't know how many times it needs to be said because the point has been made so many times.
Trump says stupid shit, nothing is based on science, his understanding of "politics" is only "petty retribution" (like "Chy-nuh") and he's Putin's lapdog.
He's the stupidest president we've ever had the pieces of shit in the senate who support him and the house who won't call him out on it are complicit in leading our country into disaster.
E
Casinos? (Score:2)
He is betting too much that the U.S. can stand alone. Whether the U.S. agrees with the WTO or not, the WTO has taken the initiative which maybe he should have to establish a coalition that should be above politics to do what is right.
He may not realize that if he were to attempt to form a separate coalition, not all countries involved will agree to be members of yet another coalition.
He seems to believe America can do this alone. And this is a big gamb
Re:Casinos? (Score:5, Insightful)
The alleged president has been a gambler all his life, and a bad one at that. Gambler is also putting lipstick on that pig. In business, he stiffed small companies which provided him services whenever he could get away with it. When American banks figured him out, he found new marks in Deutsche Bank and Russia. He's always been able find new marks to fund his "operations". Now as alleged president, he found new marks in the Republican Party, after he cleansed it of the ones who had any conservative principles. The Christian Right fell right over for him because they are some of the biggest rubes on the planet and had no principles to hold dear.
With the Covid issue, he continually looks for new marks to pin the blame. However, as Thomas Friedman pointed out, you cannot fool Mother Nature, she always wins and has no pity. Currently, to attempt to solve his political problems of his own making, he's throwing Hail Mary passes every which way hoping one of them scores a touchdown. However, he has no depth perception, that would entail he develop a strategy that could meet the problems on their own terms. He's never been able to do that about anything, he cannot learn, and he cannot think beyond a toddler's "I like, I want".
Re: (Score:2)
How many countries would form a coalition with Trump? He has never kept his word in the past. Why would they expect him to do so in the future? The sensible plan is to wait until after the election, and either
Disclaimer: America looks differe
Re: (Score:2)
huge numbers of people are homeless and dying from lack of medical care
Simply not true.
Hospitals provide emergency care no matter a patients ability to pay (insurance), they only need to get to the hospital. Anyone that chooses death because they fear a medical bill is a victim of their own decision.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So, since we're already doing what is right, why should we get tied up in the WHO's politics?
Re: (Score:2)
So that 170 countries can "share" in our stockpile because they feel they deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not alone, we have our partners Chinese, French, English, others - we'll somehow have to muddle through without Angola & Cameroon's contributions...
It's not the US (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same folks that "fixed" healthcare in America in 2010? They started with a blank piece of paper, wrote a 1,500 page bill, declared the problem solved and then struggled with a website rollout for a year. Along the way they re-defined the work week to 30 hours and stretched the definition of "affordability" and transformed "fines" into "taxes".
Yeah, it'll be awesome.
Are they promising any "shovel-ready" solutions?
Re: (Score:2)
Next, single payer!
Didn't we already secure access? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Plus another 100m Johnson and Johnson doses.
No, the WHO did not lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, China was a problem. But you know what would have helped? Having a bunch of US scientists on the ground keeping China honest.
Funny story, we had that until somebody shut down the program. I can't remember is name. Started with a D. Don Something...
When you abdicate leadership on the global stage there are consequences. In 2020 isolationism doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>Having a bunch of US scientists on the ground keeping China honest.
I guess you've conveniently forgotten that China blocked access to the international team of scientists from the WHO until they agreed to undisclosed political terms, and even then they weren't allowed into Wuhan?
Feb
Re:No, the WHO did not lie (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither of the articles you linked to say anything about that.
Re: (Score:2)
This one does: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/he... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
There is an overview of the history being published by Philippe Lemoine here .
https://quillette.com/2020/08/... [quillette.com]
and it is much better than your bullshit.
China did a good job handling the virus. Good does not mean perfect, or not even excellent. You will always succeed at the task of scrutinizing their actions , finding their actual mistakes and declare them as the signs of a major coverup.
It becomes easier if you start pulling in CYA quotes and blowing up the importance of mistakes
There are two reasons every
Re: (Score:2)
Okay so the WHO was not allowed to gather its own data, not that it ever does that because that's not what the WHO does, and you conclude that it's somehow the WHO's fault for using the information available to them?
Do you understand that the WHO is not the Medical Police, their job is not to go and investigate stuff. They are to remain strictly neutral and a-political.
You should be blaming the CIA for not doing their job, not the WHO.
Re:No, the WHO did not lie (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the CIA did its job, POTUS was briefed about the dangers of a potential pandemic, and decided to ignore the briefings because they did not align with his agenda at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
So they tried to get more information out of them by praising them and that was not politically aligned with Trump's policy. So USA should not benefit from joint ventures in an attempt to do good in the world. And that is judicious. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything I said was known to people looking at leaked information on social media at the time.
Can you imagine the shitstorm if the WHO started citing leaked information on social media as its sources?
"But they had a blue tick, that means it's not fake!"
Um... that's not how science works (Score:2)
They would have gone off of what the Chinese doctors and government were giving them because that should have been the best information. If the US had kept it's people there it would have been the best information.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm telling you you can't shut yourself out of the WHO. I am taking it for granted that you want to do that since you're openly attacking them using the talking points from our
Re: No, the WHO did not lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This statement comes up time and time again. It also applies to governments and agencies who deal with China on other matters. Time and time again China has show the world that it lies and is only interested in China. Once someone new is caught in the lies, this statement comes out. China doesn't release facts officially. There was mounting evidence coming out of China that spoke otherwise. To absolve the WHO for repeating and spreading China's lies doesn't do justice to those that are caught in China's lie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd start with having an actual medical doctor run the organization, rather than a political hack like now..
Re: (Score:3)
The main problem with the WHO is that it does need to play politics, or rather carefully avoid anything that might be considered a political position which means someone familiar with politics needs to head it up.
But what is the alternative? Lots of different organizations, each with its own political affiliation? And to be fair to the WHO the Chinese have been getting more open and honest with them, far from perfect but then again the US government currently seems to be trying to sabotage COVID-19 data col
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Sure, China was a problem. But you know what would have helped? Having a bunch of US scientists on the ground keeping China honest."
Uh huh, but the Chinese wouldn't let our people in...
Re:No, the WHO did not lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh huh, but the Chinese wouldn't let our people in...
Up until mid-2019 the US actually had resident scientists officially working inside the Chinese CDC. Trump fired them, with timing being almost perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, China was a problem. But you know what would have helped? Having a bunch of US scientists on the ground keeping China honest.
There were US scientists in China. There were US scientists in the Wuhan infectious disease lab. They didn't raise an alarm. How many scientists would we need stationed in China to do effective surveillance?
Re: (Score:2)
they had misinformation and corrected it when better information was available. You know. Like science.
It is quite fascinating how hard it is for religionists to understand that. In their world everything is chiselled in stone, unchangeable and unquestionably true because ... scripture. They just can't wrap their head around an iterative process of steadily improving knowledge and understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, China was a problem. But you know what would have helped? Having a bunch of US scientists on the ground keeping China honest.
Reminder - China refused US scientists in China researching COVID-19. Simple fact that you apparently reject because, you know "Orange Man Bad"
From Jan. 28, you know, when Trump Admin denied it was a problem:
Amid its outbreak of coronavirus that has killed over 100 people and sickened more than 4,500, China refused two direct offers from the US to send infectious disease experts to help fight the virus's spread, and a third made via the World Health Organization.
It was only as US Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Alex Azar was disclosing this information to reporters in a Tuesday press conference the China at last acquiesced, telling the WHO it would welcome foreign assistance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/he... [dailymail.co.uk]
China refused help for the first two months after the first identified case on Dec. 9, 2019, Trump Admin tried to help, why is it so important for you to lie and mis-represent the facts?
A month after that, Nancy Pelosi was telling people to crowd int SF Chinatown, no wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The WHO is responsible for blithly repeating Chinese party state propoganda to the rest of the world, Ingoring Taiwan and Hong Kongs offered data on the pandemic because China doesn't think they are real countries, and telling the world China was great and handling the pandemic wonderfully when their sole source of information for that was the Chinese communist party. Who were at the time refusing anyone access to see how they were handling the pandemic.
There's playing nice and theres being in the pocket of
Re: (Score:2)
The argument that the WHO is really nothing more than a press agency for various nation's health departments is not sufficient reason to fund it to the tune of $400M/year by the US taxpayer.
If they merely repeat what other nations tell them, what's the value?
This reminds me of scene in Office Space - "I talk to the customers":
https://youtu.be/hNuu9CpdjIo [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet the WHO and China are far more trustworthy that Trumpistan, led by a corrupt incompetent senile moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Sorry boys (Score:2, Interesting)
What many people do not understand is that a "whole virus" vaccine is actually dangerous and the vaccine needs to be genetically engineered a specific way so the vaccine does not hurt the body. Which most of the prominent American drug makers are doing.
The other thing is that we're literally spending billions of American's tax payer dollars on the development and manufacture of the vaccine. Therefore I have zero problem with putting American's first in line for the vaccine over the demands any other country
Re: Sorry boys (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing is that we're literally spending billions of American's tax payer dollars on the development and manufacture of the vaccine. Therefore I have zero problem with putting American's first in line for the vaccine over the demands any other country.
Yes, because pulling stupid shenanigans like this in case of something that easily crosses country borders is a brilliant idea. Look at the big brain on you!
Re: Sorry boys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
What many people do not understand is that a "whole virus" vaccine is actually dangerous and the vaccine needs to be genetically engineered a specific way so the vaccine does not hurt the body. Which most of the prominent American drug makers are doing.
The other thing is that we're literally spending billions of American's tax payer dollars on the development and manufacture of the vaccine. Therefore I have zero problem with putting American's first in line for the vaccine over the demands any other country. It would be horrible to have to ration something because of binding foreign interests. Though I do think that production will be ramped up quickly to meet worldwide demand.
It's also very difficult to trust the W.H.O because of their duplicitous past with China. Why exactly should Americans hand over their welfare (or security) to other third parties who do not really have Americans interest at heart?
This is a very sound and solid decision for more than one reason. Beyond the fact that it will help to have parallel scientific research anyway.
Sources?
And yes American's have spent billions to develop this rushed vaccine that rewrites DNA. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. And at only $4000 an american taxpayer subsidized dose. (not what we already spent - what we or our insurance will pay) - trump 2020
Re: Sorry boys (Score:3, Insightful)
Source is Nature magazine covering Sars-Cov-2 mRNA vaccine development over the past few months. And *any* vaccine by the end of the year is going to be *rushed*. Rather we do it or the WHO consortium does. But it definitely is limiting our exposure to problems by having control over our own product.
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is that we're literally spending billions of American's tax payer dollars on the development and manufacture of the vaccine. Therefore I have zero problem with putting American's first in line for the vaccine over the demands any other country.
Yes, taxpayer money. Meaning the vaccine should cost less than $10 per person. But will it? Oh no. The drug companies, having used those billions of taxpayer dollars, will charge hundreds of dollars per shot so they can make their money back.
And by
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore I have zero problem with putting American's first in line for the vaccine over the demands any other country.
I hope you are equally fine being at the back of the line if, god forbid, the US isn't the first to develop a vaccine then.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you would find that most countries that are capable of researching vaccines are researching it, usually with government funding.
Attitudes like yours make me wonder why we licensed the polio vaccine to you for a dollar and gave you the formula for insulin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a HIGH probability that the inoculation isn't going to do what people want.
A HIGH probability? How exactly are you calculating that?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He was HIGH when he reached DEEP into his rectum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of the 170 nations that have teamed up have nothing to offer, they merely want a seat at the table when the French, German, Italian, Chinese, American, etc. nations figure out a solution.
What do the 170 nations offer the US that we don't already have? Are we somehow prevented from sharing our success by not participating in this 170 nation group?