Have you considered the consequences of delivering a faulty and especially a dangerous vaccine? No doctor will want to prescribe anything by them any more and no patient will want to get it either, their stonks will collapse, and that's even if they manage to completely avoid any legal repercussions, which under these circumstances is not to be taken for granted.
They make unfathomable amounts of money, and the C suite squirrels away enough of it to set them up for a thousand lifetimes. When problems emerge, they're years down the road and there's a concerted effort to muddy the waters by pointing to other preexisting conditions. You also see corporate propaganda campaigns to paint the problems as "it was the best we could do" and "it was better than nothing," despite cut corners, buried red flags, and a profit-driven rush to market. The stock price takes a dip on the initial news but quickly recovers as we live in a country where corporations get away with crimes this big all the time.
I thought you were making a statement that when problems emerge, they are usually years down the road, which isn't true in general. Sometimes it happens, but there is little you can do for that, even if production wasn't accelerated, if problems showed up after 10 years you wouldn't catch them. Like, yeah, such products exist, but it's rare (and usually has to do with long term exposure, not a one off thing like a vaccine, there has never been a vaccine the negative effects of which took years to show up) and it's definitely not the standard we should be operating on in general because then we'd be fucked.
I agree. It's unlikely they'd intentionally release a bad product.
I think I'm more of the mind that it'll be more of a pump up the stock with hype situation, like this one, and we'll be stuck hearing about new breakthroughs for another year before anything actually happens.
Yes, I do think there is gonna be plenty of false hype. But I don't think whatever comes out will be untrustworthy. It is in no one's interests (no one who matters here at least). And I don't think we should be casting doubt because there's gonna be a serious wave of antivaxxers when it comes out and it's gonna fucking wreck us.
Sputnik V seems to be slightly easier to store and administer en masse so far. It still requires like -20 degrees and two doses, but I would guess that's better than - 70 degrees and two doses, plus they seem to have managed to vaccinate a lot of people already. I'm pretty pissed about how the EU and Western media in general are trying to cast doubt on it as if it is any riskier than the western alternatives could be. Eventually there is gonna be a one dose, room temperature vaccine but until then, I hope the people who are most in need do end up doing Sputnik V or whichever it's gonna be and our countries don't get shitty about it.
Have you considered the consequences of delivering a faulty and especially a dangerous vaccine? No doctor will want to prescribe anything by them any more and no patient will want to get it either, their stonks will collapse, and that's even if they manage to completely avoid any legal repercussions, which under these circumstances is not to be taken for granted.
Or:
They make unfathomable amounts of money, and the C suite squirrels away enough of it to set them up for a thousand lifetimes. When problems emerge, they're years down the road and there's a concerted effort to muddy the waters by pointing to other preexisting conditions. You also see corporate propaganda campaigns to paint the problems as "it was the best we could do" and "it was better than nothing," despite cut corners, buried red flags, and a profit-driven rush to market. The stock price takes a dip on the initial news but quickly recovers as we live in a country where corporations get away with crimes this big all the time.
Not true.
Not true? I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario. "Not true" makes no sense.
There are plenty of dangerous products where problems crop up years in the future, anyway.
I thought you were making a statement that when problems emerge, they are usually years down the road, which isn't true in general. Sometimes it happens, but there is little you can do for that, even if production wasn't accelerated, if problems showed up after 10 years you wouldn't catch them. Like, yeah, such products exist, but it's rare (and usually has to do with long term exposure, not a one off thing like a vaccine, there has never been a vaccine the negative effects of which took years to show up) and it's definitely not the standard we should be operating on in general because then we'd be fucked.
I agree. It's unlikely they'd intentionally release a bad product.
I think I'm more of the mind that it'll be more of a pump up the stock with hype situation, like this one, and we'll be stuck hearing about new breakthroughs for another year before anything actually happens.
Yes, I do think there is gonna be plenty of false hype. But I don't think whatever comes out will be untrustworthy. It is in no one's interests (no one who matters here at least). And I don't think we should be casting doubt because there's gonna be a serious wave of antivaxxers when it comes out and it's gonna fucking wreck us.
Sputnik V seems to be slightly easier to store and administer en masse so far. It still requires like -20 degrees and two doses, but I would guess that's better than - 70 degrees and two doses, plus they seem to have managed to vaccinate a lot of people already. I'm pretty pissed about how the EU and Western media in general are trying to cast doubt on it as if it is any riskier than the western alternatives could be. Eventually there is gonna be a one dose, room temperature vaccine but until then, I hope the people who are most in need do end up doing Sputnik V or whichever it's gonna be and our countries don't get shitty about it.