Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie
More assumptions that a  additional research is being funded by this, b that the amounts they are receiving are in line with the costs used to develop it and a reasonable profit margin for a product that we still don't know how effective it is, that is almost being required for every person.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/pfi...?id=D000000138
Profits for companies and shareholders aren't an issue within a normal business model, but when need, supply & demand are manipulated to artificially inflate costs and profits, that I have issue with. |
I agree that we don't know for a fact how effective it is now, but not for the reasons you might think. We DO know how effective it was up until 5 months ago against strains that people in the trial my gut have been exposed to. Those strains are still out there, and continue to mutate. So by vaccinating specifically against those strains, we make progress to reduce the rate of mutation into strains that we have no artificial defense against, and clearly are somewhat effective at combating our natural defenses. Right now, there are strains that the vaccine(s) has clearly not prepared us for, and those take time to catalogue and study.
Basically this is a war of attrition. Just because somebody survives one strain, doesn't mean the next won't be worse. So we need to deny the virus the resources it needs to multiply and adapt. Getting vaccinated is by far the least inconvenient way to do that.
I don't see how political contributions are relevant here, especially since it seems that company has contributed more money in recent times to the party with which anti vaxers typically align.