Moderna CEO: 400% Price Hike on COVID Vaccine 'Consistent With the Value' (arstechnica.com) 296
An anonymous reader shares a report: Moderna is considering raising the price of its COVID-19 vaccine by over 400 percent -- from $26 per dose to between $110 and $130 per dose -- according to a report by The Wall Street Journal. The plan, if realized, would match the previously announced price hike for Pfizer-BioNTech's rival COVID-19 vaccine. The Journal spoke with Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco Monday, who said of the 400 percent price hike: "I would think this type of pricing is consistent with the value."
Until now, the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have been purchased by the government and offered to Americans for free. In the latest federal contract from July, Moderna's updated booster shot cost the government $26 per dose, up from $15-$16 per dose in earlier supply contracts, the Journal notes. Similarly, the government paid a little over $30 per dose for Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine this past summer, up from $19.50 per dose in contracts from 2020. But now that the federal government is backing away from distributing the vaccines, their makers are moving to the commercial market -- with price adjustments. Financial analysts had previously anticipated Pfizer would set the commercial price for its vaccine at just $50 per dose but were taken aback in October when Pfizer announced plans of a price between $110 and $130. Analysts then anticipated that Pfizer's price would push Moderna and other vaccine makers to follow suit, which appears to be happening now.
Until now, the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have been purchased by the government and offered to Americans for free. In the latest federal contract from July, Moderna's updated booster shot cost the government $26 per dose, up from $15-$16 per dose in earlier supply contracts, the Journal notes. Similarly, the government paid a little over $30 per dose for Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine this past summer, up from $19.50 per dose in contracts from 2020. But now that the federal government is backing away from distributing the vaccines, their makers are moving to the commercial market -- with price adjustments. Financial analysts had previously anticipated Pfizer would set the commercial price for its vaccine at just $50 per dose but were taken aback in October when Pfizer announced plans of a price between $110 and $130. Analysts then anticipated that Pfizer's price would push Moderna and other vaccine makers to follow suit, which appears to be happening now.
In the interest of the public health (Score:5, Insightful)
It is time to end the free market wild west capitalism in the healthcare industry. Access to healthcare is a right. And a healthy nation is vital to the economy and to national security. As a bonus we can send the hundred thousand people working in health insurance to a better purpose, improving our nations GDP.
Re: (Score:2)
As a bonus we can send the hundred thousand people working in health insurance to a better purpose, improving our nations GDP.
While I agree it would be a good thing, it wouldn't improve GDP. GDP is not a measure of utility.
If I spend time helping the homeless I do not improve GDP. If I pay thousands of workers to work doing something completely useless, destroying it, and then building again, I increase the GDP a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
If you put those desk jockeys out to sea to drilling oil, you technically improve GDP. Not that it would be practical to do so in real life.
If you pay people to do something useless destroying it, then you don't directly increase GDP, you instead increase national debt. Which can hide what is going on. It's a broken window fallacy and it doesn't work in macroeconomics.
Re: (Score:2)
This, GDP is a terrible metric for not only utility, but even the general health of an economy, which is its intended and common purpose. Median household income would be a vastly better metric for general economic health.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a right. You don't have "rights" that require someone else to do something for you. I agree we need healthcare reform, including some form of sane single payer, but this "right" claim is bullshit.
your bullshit is bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a right. You have a right to your life, to your liberty, and to your property. If nobody is around to keep the thieves off you, then the right is kind of a meaningless exercise. So we pay taxes for cops, courts, and prisons. Those taxes represent you giving up some rights in order to protect other rights that you care about more. Call it the social contract if you want to. Or call it trying to function in a collective group in a productive way.
So yes. If one person can get insulin that they need to liv
Re:your bullshit is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it cool I never said mandatory care. I said you have a right to it. You have a right to access, regardless of personal wealth. If you need chemotherapy, you can't exactly work hard and save up for it can you. You either get it now or it's too late and you won't need it. But then if you died young, society gets to take care of your children, so we all pay either way. How do you want to do this, then. The easy way or the hard way?
I'm not sure which generation is the "entitlement generation". Given how my parents got free college and low down payment on their first home. And I paid for school out of pocket when I could, plus had student debt and spent 12 years saving up for my first home, I'm guessing I missed these entitlements by a few decades. Pity.
P.S. I do have a bias here. I was raised believing that America is not a class-based society. That we're all equal in the eyes of the law and in society itself. It's idealistic and doesn't really hold true right now, but I still believe it's a worthwhile goal that most other Americans share with me.
Let them see a real free market. (Score:2)
It is time to end the free market wild west capitalism in the healthcare industry.
Alternatively, perhaps the solution here is to really show these companies what "wild west capitalism" is like and remove the patent protection on products like this so we get to see a completely free market at work. Then we'll see the true value of the product not the value created by an artificial monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
You're also going to need to make some changes to the FDA certification process; that's a bigger hurdle than patents for a lot of stuff (e.g. insulin)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it's hard to find far-right quotes to offer a "fair and balanced" view when all they call for is squeezing my neck under their boot. Boo hoo.
This isn't a left-right issue. We can discuss this without identity politics. You chose to attack perceived political alliances rather than respond to a discussion in good faith. I assume you're not interested in any outcome and would rather score points "triggering the libs". Have fun with that.
Pity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are 4 Covid Vaccines in the USoA (Score:4, Insightful)
There are Moderna and Pfizer, and there are J&J and Novavax. All of them are WHO approved and very effective; Novavax 90% and 66% for J for comparison, the seassonal Flu-Shot is slightly above 50% effective.
If Moderna and Pfizer raised their prices so be it, use J&J or Novavax for your boosters, but GET THOSE DAMNED BOOSTERS. That's the beauty of having plentifull brands and alternatives, if you do not like one brand, or if that brand is too expensive, you go to another brand.
And count your blessings, in my country we only have Sinopharm and Sputnik-V, so there is that.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that they got sweet deals from various governments for billions of doses, and a strong built-in marketing campaign they didn't have to pay much for, and a fast-track through FDA approval, their patents should be invalidated if they raise the price. The public paid for the vaccines, the public should have a strong say in how it's priced. They aren't taking any kind of loss here.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when you look at real of anecdotal evidence, the benefits of the vaccine (added protection, even if not perfect) still far outweigh the costs (such as unwanted side effects of the vaccine).
If there was an effective and safe vaccine against cold, I'd also get it, wouldn't you? Do you like having cold so much?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because there is no vaccine against cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is there so much fake science on Slashdot?
Again, experts say otherwise.
The CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccine even if you have been infected. Some experts recommends one less vaccine dose per infection.
But there is no ground to recommend no dose to someone just because he's been infected once, especially if it were before the Omicron wave.
Re: (Score:2)
Covid vaccines are not that effective though, much more like flu shots which are always a gamble.
Both COVID-19 and flu shots are recommended by experts (including the CDC), because they are effective enough (especially COVID-19) and benefits far outweigh the costs.
I don't get flu shots either.
The CDC disagrees with your decision.
Re: (Score:2)
The Median IFR for 20-29 years old was more like 0.003%.
Overall 0.03% below 0-59 years old pre-vaccination.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The version of Covid going around now is no worse than a bad cold, so why is there a compelling reason to get a booster unless you know your own response to Covid is severe?
Because that's a complete lie, and you know it.
When I think "bad cold", I feel bad and mostly plop around the house for a few days, but I could function if I had to. The *recently boosted* people getting the current Covid strains are stuck in bed for a week. The people who've resisted vaccines are getting it far worse - I recently saw one person die, another hospitalized, and a couple others dealing with long term lung issues.
We're also seeing China let the current variants rip after they avoided the earlie
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad your cases were mild. I know several people whose cases were more severe, even without the co-morbidities you mention.
'Consistent With the Value' (Score:2)
"Canada set to waste $1 billion worth of COVID-19 vaccines"
https://nationalpost.com/news/... [nationalpost.com]
Their primary business model was taking government money. However, most people don't want it. Those that do can afford to pay more for an "every six months" dose.
Re:'Consistent With the Value' (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada ordered way too many doses, so of course a lot of them end up in the trash can.
But that was a very good decision. Back then, the government didn't know which vaccine would succeed. So they basically ordered them all, this way, as long as one ends up safe and effective, we would be covered.
They also didn't know how many idiots would refuse the shots, so they couldn't take any chance and needed enough for everybody.
1B$ is nothing, the cost of the pandemic was a that amount (one billion $CAD) PER DAY for the federal government during year 2021.
So you are complaining for 1/365 of that money? I say it was probably the most well spent of it all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the 1 billion spent on big pharma's shots was a far better investment than the 364 billion spent on lockdowns, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
You must be the type of person who say that if an ambulance is idle 50% of the time, its associated cost (including paramedic time) is a waste.
It was 1 billion spent on vaccine, from deals made months before, when we didn't know which vaccine would end up approved first and which would be delivered quickly.
That billion was a safety net. And if more people got booster doses as was recommended, it could have been much lower.
How many doses would you have ordered for Canada in spring 2020 if you are so much wi
People are not even getting it for free (Score:2)
so at $130/dose, I expect the number of sales to be very low, maybe 1% of the population. Now maybe if 50% of the population was getting it, the price could be reduced to $35, but it's not going to happen, at least not in the USA.
Jesus Christ. (Score:2, Flamebait)
This same thread is going on over at reddit and the literal clones of one another are all posting the exact same dreary bullshit. "But, but, muh tax dollars!". Those zoomers and millenials are all ranting about guillotines and windfall taxes and "get muh tax money back" when 90% of those fuckers pay like $100 in taxes a year anyway.
Here is the truth. We needed a vaccine fast, so we paid for it and we fucking got it. Success! Everyone was happy, and what we the taxpayers got for our money (keeping in mind, a
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of people who don't have an extra couple hundred dollars in the budget. People that are in bad health, have occupational exposure to diseases, etc. may still need the shots.
Copping out with "Insurance will pay for it" is the reason why insurance costs rise every year. Plenty of public health agencies are also providing the shots, so not only will your Aetna-issued tax go up, but also your government-issued taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Even at these higher prices, you can pay for a LOT of vaccine does with the money it takes to pay for one hospital stay. Vaccinating everyone that wants it works out a lot cheaper than restricting access and paying for the extra hospital stays.
And don't forget these aren't the prices insurance will actually pay, it's just the starting point for negotiations. The only people that pay list price for medications are people without insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of legitimate issues here:
1. We don't know if we're really out of the pandemic. China just suddenly quit its zero-covid policies, we could be in for another outbreak, possibly with a new variant. So it's very bad timing for one thing.
2. This reeks of collusion. Different companies multiplied the prices of already-profitable functionally equivalent products almost in lockstep. They're doing OPEC shit and should be investigated for it. This is what happened when companies colluded on LCD an
$130 for something we paid to develop (Score:2)
If companies want to be free to charge wha
We're operating based on value now? (Score:3)
Based on this asshole's value to the company and humanity that's more than generous.
We warned you about this. (Score:2, Funny)
Vaccines sold as 99% effective vaccine drops to 13% effective vaccine over-targets your immune system to past variants not current variant you now require boosters forever and ever to maintain any immunity at all, vs. natural immunity.
Having worked with the FDA for decades, and knowing my risk profile (eg. not fat), I wasn't stupid enough to get these injections, but I invested heavily in all the vaccine companies and was able to buy another ski condo with the proceeds. Get your boosters, suckers.
Really? Only a few hundred? (Score:2)
If, as the media has led us to believe, the vax is the difference between living and dying if/when you get Covid, I would expect it to be at least several thousands of dollars.
Why on earth would you sell that for less than $200? People spent that much on bottles of wine.
Remember when the government was able to buy vaccines at $1 per dose? I knew there was a catch - there was no way the company could have made money on that. Now that vaccines have been normalized, it's time for big pharma to reap the
Moderna's CEO must have attended... (Score:2)
Here in Brazil there's a law that forbids it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps with a condition? (Score:3)
My guess, is with that condition, they'll keep the price the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, USAers keep wondering why Europeans & other countries look at their Health Service as a bad joke.
You're under a misconception if you think we don't know why. Or, at least, know about this reason. There are a few of them.
Re: (Score:3)
It's extreme even for capitalism, though. Until they develop better vaccines, this is an annual shot at least. Influenza only has 1 wave per year to protect from, COVID thusfar is getting around two (they're planning to standardize on only one shot per year regardless, to be similar to flu shots). Yet flu shots are $20-50 while they want to charge $110-$130? Ridiculous. That'd be a reasonable price (even somewhat cheap) for a vaccine that provides lifelong protection, but not for something that is neede
Re:And the reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, it's the GREED of the companies toying with population health.
Like the headline almost said, it's consistent with their values.
Re:And the reason is... (Score:4)
Like the headline almost said, it's consistent with their values.
Capitalism underlying healthcare devolves into a pay up or die model quite quickly. Want to live? Fork it over, all of it. Also that wasn’t enough, we expect monthly payments to pay down your life debt. Oh? You say the research was publicly funded? Well our exclusive patent says otherwise, I’m sorry your insurance turned you down for your life saving medication, but if we had social safety nets you would be facing death panels.
Re:And the reason is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
... the source materials price has risen? Nope.
Then, it's the GREED of the companies toying with population health.
That and because private insurance is paying for it now, and they don't have the bargaining power to demand reasonable prices, unlike the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It boggles my mind how so many of my fellow Americans prefer the system where they pay twice as much to have a whole industry of profit-motivated middlemen deciding which of your doctor's recommendations are going to cost their company more money, while not going so far in denying care as to cause an outcome bad enough to involve the other industry of profit-motivated middlemen willing to plead your case in court.
Yup. Insurance companies are the root of all evil. Like my father's leg wound (not a bone injury; an infection) needs an MRI to determine whether there are pockets of infection internally that need to be removed, but they had to take an X-ray first, because insurance requires them to take an X-ray before they would authorize an MRI. And they won't cover certain wound care without debridement, even if it isn't actually needed. And so on. The number of unnecessary things doctors have to do just to satisf
Re: (Score:2)
Always has been.
Of course that doesn't make it right. But that's how it is.
Re:And the reason is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Companies are expected to be greedy, just as sharks are expected to be voracious. Its the job of government to build regulations / shark fences to protect the public. Its pointless to wish sharks or corporations were different.
Your statements are inconsistent and incompatible. If it is the job of governments to make laws that constrain the behaviour of individuals and corporations, why can't they change the laws of incorporation?
Back in the 18th century there were many huge corporate failures which cost many of the elite much, or all, of their money. So laws were passed allowing corporations to have limited liability. Unfortunately the laws gave corporations too much freedom and privilege.
It would be a simple matter to fix this e
Re: (Score:2)
So... looks like you answered your own question. Did you have a followup?
Re:And the reason is... [Why not one-and-done?] (Score:2)
But it's "enlightened" greed. And exactly what happens when you put money ahead of everything else.
I would have focused on the decisions about which lines of vaccine research to pursue. One line might lead to a cheap one-and-done vaccine like those we have for measles, smallpox, and polio. Another line of research leads to vaccines that have to be repeated frequently. But the BEST line of research (as the big drug companies see things) is the line of research that produces the most expensive vaccines that n
Health Insurance. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A major reason is the shots are now packed as single doeses vs 10 doses, and the uptake rate has dropped significantly.
Re:And the reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one in the US wonders why except the cadillac plan pieces of shit in congress, who don't seem to understand that our entire healthcare system, being based purely on profit, is screwing most of the country left-right-center and any other way it can while simultaneously holding us for ransom over our health, or just flat out saying, "You no longer deserve to live. Go ahead and die now. You ceased being profitable. K, Thnx." But any attempted conversation about it leads to people screaming about government death panels and Obama being Lucifer's second cousin or some shit. Anything to avoid the actual subject.
There are those of us in the US that have just flat out given up. I danced the dance for a while, but eventually realized twelve grand a year in tribute to some entity that claims to be insurance, then makes us pay out of pocket for anything less than bankruptcy levels of care, was no longer worth it. I can't justify that big of a hit on the bottom line for something I still can't afford to "use." So I pray I don't get anything severe happening to me, because that will bankrupt me. That's the way this country operates anyway. Why pay someone else to have the final say over what day that happens?
Re: (Score:3)
A little tip for you, you can negotiate with the hospital your bill, and offer to pay them X dollars a month. The bill is Zero interest and you don't take a hit on your credit.
I did that with a surprise 30k doc bill. I paid them 25$/month until it was paid off (yes, it took forever) and there were no issues on my credit, or with debt collectors. The hospital got their money and I got the monkey off my back (as in not having to choose between food and crushing hospital bills)
Re: And the reason is... (Score:2)
If they sell fewer they need to charge more per item to make the same amount of money overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And the reason is... (Score:5, Informative)
More than 787,000 Americans are projected to travel abroad for medical and dental treatments in 2022, topping the pre-pandemic 781,000 in 2019.
People living in the highest-income counties in the United States are, on average, more likely to die from a heart attack or cancer, during childbirth, or to lose an infant than people in 12 other industrialized countries, according to findings published online Dec. 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Survival rates for colon cancer and childhood cancers in the 5% highest-income U.S. counties lag behind most other developed nations.
According to TMR report, the global medical tourism market was valued at US$ 10.4 Bn in 2021 and is anticipated to reach US$ 72.8 Bn by the end of 2031.
Even people Like Ron Paul have left the country for cheaper and better quality medical care.
So maybe they are not going to the EU, but they are not getting the care in the US either.
Re: (Score:2)
So you just confirmed that healthcare in the USA is incredibly expensive compared to the rest of the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
People living in the highest-income counties in the United States are, on average, more likely to die from a heart attack or cancer, during childbirth, or to lose an infant than people in 12 other industrialized countries, according to findings published online Dec. 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Survival rates for colon cancer and childhood cancers in the 5% highest-income U.S. counties lag behind most other developed nations.
Probably not better, sorry to break it to you. Also https://www.healthsystemtracke. [healthsystemtracker.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Survival rates for colon cancer and childhood cancers in the 5% highest-income U.S. counties lag behind most other developed nations.
ROFL if you think looking at the county level will actually show you how the wealthy or even upper middle class live in the US. I live in one of the top 5% wealthiest counties in my state, and while we have the best public high school in our state we also have far more than half of the county making at best half the average income of the area I live in.
If you want to look at wealth in the US, divide it by school district, not by county. That is how the US segregates its people by wealth and class, not by co
Re: And the reason is... (Score:5, Informative)
"The study confirmed [harvard.edu] that the U.S. has substantially higher spending, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries."
Re: (Score:2)
One dimensional thinking.
You are discounting unhealthy lifestyles and unhealthy diet.
Re: And the reason is... (Score:4, Informative)
Yep. Unfettered capitalism is when things are made as badly and cheaply as possible and sold at the highest price possible. That is why healthcare must not be organized as unfettered capitalism, ever. To do so is massively immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
So nevermind the name calling, this graph has no labels, and is therefore meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Also this
https://www.oecd.org/health/He... [oecd.org]
We pay more money for same or worse outcomes (except for cancer. We pay more money, but get a little better ourcomes. USA! USA!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And the reason is... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Meanwhile ignore the fact that anything outside of emergency care has a ridiculously long wait time. I've had the displeasure of dealing with 6 month wait times for specialists. Wife had breast cancer and the UK's beloved NHS wanted us to wait 6 months for an oncologist.
The UK is not, and never has been, part of Europe. One reason why we voted for Brexit. Perhaps you don't notice the difference from so far away.
In France you would have had far quicker - and possibly better - treatment. That is also true of Russia.
Re: And the reason is... (Score:2)
"The United Kingdom, made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is an island nation in [b]northwestern Europe. [/B]"
Do us a favor and get the COVID vaccines. They're safe and effective!
Re: (Score:2)
Whats your point? The US has ridiculous wait times as well. So we have the displeasure of not only paying insane amounts for care, we also have to wait a long time to get it. And thats on top of unsafe nurse staffing levels, unnecessary procedures, insurance companies making health decisions on behalf of patients, etc.
Re: And the reason is... (Score:2)
Not my fault that you're poor and have a crappy HMO.
Get a PPO like a real adult.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a PPO with $10 co-pays and a $500 deductable. Yet, it takes 30 days for me to see a PCP in my area. I've been waiting 60 days to see the only good dermatologist in the area to check out what may be skin cancer on my back.
Availability of care is scarce in many areas of America. I can afford it, I can't find it.
Re: And the reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
From our viewpoint over here in the US, it's pretty damn clear that the UK is actively trying to sabotage the NHS so they can get rid of it, so that's not what we're looking at.
And the situation here is worse. My kid had an allergic reaction to something he ate, and it took us months to get an appointment with an allergist so we could get an epi-pen. And then it took several more months more to get testing done to figure out exactly what he was/wasn't allergic to. We get the shitty wait times and we get to pay a lot for it. And then the added fun of having to document all of this for tax purposes.
There is *nothing* redeeming about the healthcare situation in the US, we've got the worst of all options here.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people in the USA don't get to choose their health care provider. Their employer does. Of course, once they make their decision, you still have to pay for it.
Also, pray you don't have an on-the-job injury, because workers comp plans are usually separate, and they are 100% under the control of the employer. They also suck worse than the "regular" plans. Oh, how I got the runaround between two insurance companies and literally all of my treatment appointments were denied by both companies. My employ
Re: (Score:2)
Here's private healthcare!
Can't afford it? There's free healthcare, though you may have to wait
US.
Here's your only choice for healthcare!
Can't afford it? Then DIE you disgusting poor.
Re: And the reason is... (Score:2)
Wrong again. If you're ill and show up at a hospital they will render service. Then you'll get a bill.
What you idiots fail to acknowledge is there are self pay discounts where they will knock off 90% of the bill. You can either pay this out of pocket or be smart and sign up for a health sharing ministry where these costs are refunded to you through a very affordable cost each month was like IIRC $235 a month for their highest tier.
> T had no insurance but a healthcare ministry. Wife got pregnant and our
Re: (Score:3)
Only a publicly funded hospital. In my area that is one hospital about 40 minutes away. The private hospitals do not have emergency service for walk-ins and will only stabilize you enough to leave if you can't present insurance. The first question they asked my wife after getting off an ambulance from a motorcyle accident was for insurance information because "she was stable". I asked what would happen if we didn't have insurance. They told me they would have asked her to leave as "she was stable" and only
Re: And the reason is... (Score:2)
Reread my post ESL spantard. Emergency care is great. The UK is apart of Europe in the same way Iceland is. Unless you've actually had to deal with specialist services and the nightmare of it, kindly Vete a la mierda pendejo.
Re: (Score:3)
It was all the exact same arguments as every other healthcare discussion. Government buying in bulk is far more efficient than getting insurance companies in the mix.
The end result here is pretty much no one will pay the list price for the vaccines. Almost everyone without insurance will go without. The insurance companies will negotiate a "discounted" price per unit, and pay that. People with insurance will get the shots for no direct fee, but it'll be yet another variable factored into the cost of insuran
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Columbus did not discover America.
The islands he found were already discovered by native americans thousands of years before.
He wasn't even the first european here - that was Leif Ericsson
Re: And the reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Columbus did not discover America.
Columbus did discover America, he just wasn't the first one. The first humans who discovered the North American continent did so about 13,000 years ago. But that knowledge of the continents did not disseminate to Europe, Africa, and Asia. The same thing goes for when Leif Ericsson discovered North America.
Columbus's discovery is arguably the most impactful discovery of the Americas, as most (maybe all?) nations currently on these continents owe their founding to that discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
technically, that "period" should read "in most but not all english speaking communities and by absorbtion in a few other non-english speaking communities".
you should reckon that the name is very poorly chosen, it is ambiguous because it mixes a part with the whole. there are several americas and "america" is actually the whole continent, every inhabitant of north, central and south america can be rightfully called "an american", and they are called so in many cultural contexts. yet they are not american, t
Re: (Score:2)
America is a continent, depending on which model you are using. Some consider north and south americas to be two distinct continents, some don't. But in both cases, the grouping of the two can be called America. Just like the grouping of Europe and Asian can be called Eurasia whether you consider them to be distinct continents or not.
So just like it is not wrong to say that someone from China or Portugal is an Eurasian, it is not wrong to say that a Canadian or a Brazilian is an American.
The Portuguese is a
Re: And the reason is... (Score:4, Insightful)
fred6666, I think "Americans" for citizens of the USA is consistent with other nations and is quite defensible. Examples below give my logic:
"Estados Unidos Mexicanos" [United Mexican States] -> Mexicans
"The Dominion of Canada" -> Canadaians
"Republica Federativa do Brasil" -> Brazilians
"República de Colombia" -> Colombians
"República de Guatemala"->Guatemalans
"Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia"->Bolivians
In this context, I think the correct pattern is:
"United States of America"->Americans
I admit its confusing, as there are two (or one) continents (or regions) variously defined that also are called "America". It may also sound like people from the USA claiming some special eminence over the "New World" as the Europeans used to call it. But calling Americans "United Statsians" or similar makes as much sense as calling Canadians "Dominionites" or Brazilians "Federativales" . It also sound awful- Just one POV.
Re: (Score:2)
It is motherfuckers like you that put up with this ridiculous greed that led us to be stuck with a broken system.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. The development of this was absurdly expensive and rapid, even with the fed govt. footing the bill. It was cheap before because that's what the government negotiated. All those billions you lot whine about funding the research literally saved 10's or 100's of thousands of lives and is a dirt cheap expense.
We're now past the emergency, so the cost is going to more closely reflect what the market will bear. Most people not too worried about covid vaccines anymore anyway, so demand is going way do
Re:That pretty much drives the nail.... (Score:4)
I've got a family of 4. I'm fully expecting this to eventually settle into boosters every 6 months. I'm looking at this as an annual cost of $130 * 4 * 2 = $1040. That's not insignificant for most people who don't have health insurance.
All of that said, health insurance is required to cover this, so in the end that $130 figure is just a starting point for negotiations with the insurance companies. They'll negotiate some lower number, it gets factored into insurance rates. And ultimately regularly vaccinating people is going to be a lot cheaper than not vaccinating people and paying for more hospital visits. So in the end we wind up with insurance rates that are higher than 2019 levels but lower than they'd be without the vaccines. And people without insurance are screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It won't (Score:4)
If we had strict anti-trust enforcement that wouldn't be an issue. We don't. We don't have any anti-trust enforcement.
So it's not gonna happen. Capitalism is broken. We fired the referee. Unless and until we step up and stand up to these thugs by voting for pro-consumer, anti-corporate candidates (who are usually the most boring and annoying candidates on the ballot) they can raise prices as high as they want and we're just gonna have to suck it down.
Re:For the love of God (Score:5, Insightful)
...Especially when virtually all of the research for them was paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Bingo. Moderna got $1 billion just to develop the vaccine, then another $1.5 billion in guaranteed orders.
Which means that, if they raise the price of the vaccine, then I believe Uncle Sam should invoice them for a fair share of the profits. US Taxpayers handed Moderna a golden goose; that doesn't mean they get to keep all the eggs.
Re:For the love of God (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was paid for with tax dollars then it should be owned by the people.
Zero patent protection, completely open research.
That is the ONLY way I will accept tax-payer funded research, but then I am not a politician. I actually have principles and I live in the real world with a real job.
Re:What about others? (Score:4, Insightful)
J&J had far more severe side effects and wasn't nearly as effective, so demand dropped fast on that after a while. I know they stopped making it for a while. Did they ever start back up?
Novamax came out recently and their whole marketing angle is basically "If you don't want the good vaccines and you don't want the bad ones, we're somewhere in the middle!" I don't think they ever had a government bulk purchasing deal tho, so I think they just set their pricing with what they thought they could get away with. They've got a *very* narrow target audience, so I'm not sure if they can get away with trying to extract a lot per dose from the insurance companies.
Overall it's going to be a tough sell on the traditional vaccines - they're more expensive to make, less effective, and have more side effects. And most importantly, the manufacturing time is much longer, so they're always going to be targeting older strains. The mRNA vaccines can target much newer strains.
Re: (Score:2)
According the the Death-O-Meter on the NYT, Covid is killing over 500/day. Now go to your local hospital and explain to the patient in the ICU suffering from Covid that it is "extremely mild". I'm sure they'll welcome that message from a ghoul like you.