Carlton Supporters Club

^^  follow moderna's share price and that will give you a better answer.

ANTI-VAXX PROTESTER: Do you see all of these homeless people around. Are they dead in the street with COVID? Hell no. Why?

HOMELESS PERSON (walking by): Because I’m vaccinated you dumb fu#k.

A lot of the share price stuff is driven by very short term players, the long game is very different, it's hard to detangle.

I think AZ was quite clever, by sub-licensing manufacturing to many governments they basically had a bunch of AZ compatible facilities built around the globe at someone else's expense, but the product those facilities make is licensed. Now if AZ invent some new drug or treatment for whatever disease or treatment, those locations are already invested in AZ technology will be unlikely to look at alternatives, they'll just license the next AZ product by default. They already have the kit, they already have the skilled staff, they already have most of the know how, they just need the license and they are up and away!

I think it is smarter than the Moderna / Pfizer closed shop approach, to scale up manufacture those two have to build new facilities at their own risk. So what do they do when something like GSK or Merck put that investment at risk, how do they fight back?

By contrast AZ doesn't have to, they didn't foot the bill, the only risk is a short term royalty for a massive long term benefit!

The detractors are really only looking at the short term, and not the long game. The Pfizer/Moderna approach looks more profitable in the short term as long as the existing established product is not undercut. So they have to undermine all the alternatives and keep investing in their own capacity.

Might be a short selling opportunity in there somewhere?

Dont believe the noise you hear on social media. 

Love it! An anti-vaxxer was walking down Hollywood Boulevard using a bullhorn to spread her nonsense about Covid being a hoax. But she learned a valuable lesson: don't ask a question to which you don't know the answer, even if (or especially when) the question is a rhetorical one:

Man Demolishes Vaccine Opponent's Argument About Homeless People In Just 6 Words, Huffpost.

I wonder if an average student was offered tuition that would guarantee 90% in an exam, would s/he say, “No thanks, that isn’t 100% so it’s no good”.

In a binary world, I guess that would be the way. If you don’t get 100%, you must have got 0%. There’s nothing in between.

I can see now why you think Ivermectin can compete with vaccines. Ivermectin's 0% success rate is the same as the 90% effectiveness of the vaccines as neither is 100%. It makes sense, I guess.

possible health risks/side effects that won’t be known for 5 plus years if you take that

So, if vaccines (these current cv19 ones) are so effective, why the hate and heat on the unvaxxed to get jabbed?

So, if vaccines (these current cv19 ones) are so effective, why the hate and heat on the unvaxxed to get jabbed?

You're safe as houses right?

Where did you get that 5 years?

Your analogy is a little skewed.

Rather then comparing  a pear to pineapple you need to confirm first if the tuition which ensures a 90% mark comes completely risk free. Or is there like the vaccine some chance of unknown and possible health risks/side effects that won’t be known for 5 plus years if you take that tuition?

That changes the question somewhat don’t you think but thats a fairer analogy.

Plucked a figure in saying 5 - I’m sure you know I was implying the long term side effects are unknown.

I hope you can tell me I’m wrong in all honesty like most  I would be very relieved to know it has no long term health effects for all age groups but doubtful you can provide that evidence.

Can you show me evidence of long term side effects from any other vaccine?