Trump admin neglected to order more Pfizer vaccine

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
9,452
12,988
146
But I am not convinced the other side would not "cull the herd" to relieve the money burden on the government.
Shut the fuck up, clown.
To be clear you're saying that Democrats are or would deliberately kill or kill through neglect, mass numbers of Americans to balance the budget?
This is insane. What possible basis do you have for this?
Because it is what the republicans tried or at least wanted to do, so obviously the democrats are the same shitty humans? Right? RIGHT?!? :rolleyes:

Another clown joins the tiny car ride.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
It is possible that our other arrangements meet this requirement and so then yes, it would be the right call. I haven't seen evidence that shows that, but I hope it's true.

AFAIK the US has not triggered the Moderna options either. Have got no idea what they've been waiting for.
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,897
2,716
136
To be clear you're saying that Democrats are or would deliberately kill or kill through neglect, mass numbers of Americans to balance the budget?

This is insane. What possible basis do you have for this?
They would just like any government agents incentivized to do so.

The budget is the end-all be-all of government because in shortfall, it will cease to function. In an inverse population pyramid, the old become a burden, and the more entitlements they are entitled to, the greater the incentive to...find ways to have them drop like flies without raising ethics alarms. It is an impersonal entity with an life its own.

The difference between a private corporation and government is that government can obtain loans that private corporations cannot(or print money as a last resort), and the populace are legally bound to preserve the government's funding stream of property taxes or else lose the equity eventually via foreclosure.

Government will kill, it's just the way they cover it up that has become more creative, as race theories and other "cold" theories have fallen out of favor in the intelligentsia. The Republicans have their corporate masters to please, the Democrats moreso behaving that there is an imminent collective Malthusian crisis is so great that individuals will have to "sacrifice" things including their lives or that potential lives cannot be allowed into being.

The whole Trump pulling funding from the WHO was a load of grandstanding to benefit both sides public appearances. Trump is more than willing to put on the bad guy persona to cover for the other bad guys who screwed up the response. Trump screwed things up, but the most overt, showy way possible so no attention is paid to the ways the other guys also screwed up.

No emphasis was given at all to the shutdown in domestic travel in China back in January. If there was a moment to spread fear legitimately, that was the time. But no one did. Not Fox News nor the mainstream media. Everyone was "reactive" despite a century of established knowledge in how infections work.

Environment preservation and the formation of a great welfare state are actually contradictory aims. To fund more and more programs, there needs to more heads to tax in order to fund programs, and a sufficiently healthy business enfironment to have more businesses and workers to tax.

Whereas, environmental protection requires taking one of the collective and accepting a dampening effect in economic and population growth. Stopping development of currently rural areas,

I'm not sure why you imply there is something innately good about Democrats. Baltimore is a city that will never, ever have any Republican presence but Freddie Gray was murdered there, and they have had a corrupt line of mayors recently.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
They would just like any government agents incentivized to do so.

The budget is the end-all be-all of government because in shortfall, it will cease to function. In an inverse population pyramid, the old become a burden, and the more entitlements they are entitled to, the greater the incentive to...find ways to have them drop like flies without raising ethics alarms. It is an impersonal entity with an life its own.

The difference between a private corporation and government is that government can obtain loans that private corporations cannot(or print money as a last resort), and the populace are legally bound to preserve the government's funding stream of property taxes or else lose the equity eventually via foreclosure.

Government will kill, it's just the way they cover it up that has become more creative, as race theories and other "cold" theories have fallen out of favor in the intelligentsia. The Republicans have their corporate masters to please, the Democrats moreso behaving that there is an imminent collective Malthusian crisis is so great that individuals will have to "sacrifice" things including their lives or that potential lives cannot be allowed into being.

The whole Trump pulling funding from the WHO was a load of grandstanding to benefit both sides public appearances. Trump is more than willing to put on the bad guy persona to cover for the other bad guys who screwed up the response. Trump screwed things up, but the most overt, showy way possible so no attention is paid to the ways the other guys also screwed up.

No emphasis was given at all to the shutdown in domestic travel in China back in January. If there was a moment to spread fear legitimately, that was the time. But no one did. Not Fox News nor the mainstream media. Everyone was "reactive" despite a century of established knowledge in how infections work.

Environment preservation and the formation of a great welfare state are actually contradictory aims. To fund more and more programs, there needs to more heads to tax in order to fund programs, and a sufficiently healthy business enfironment to have more businesses and workers to tax.

Whereas, environmental protection requires taking one of the collective and accepting a dampening effect in economic and population growth. Stopping development of currently rural areas,

By this logic nations with larger entitlement programs should see lower life expectancy because governments are incentivized to kill off their older, less productive citizens. In reality however we see the opposite, and dramatically so in most cases.

Considering the factual record strongly contradicts your claim will you retract or reconsider it?

I'm not sure why you imply there is something innately good about Democrats. Baltimore is a city that will never, ever have any Republican presence but Freddie Gray was murdered there, and they have had a corrupt line of mayors recently.
I didn't imply anything, I simply said your argument was insane and without factual basis, which it still is, haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and Pohemi

uallas5

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2005
1,479
1,658
136
In the initial contract, Pfizer only agreed to the pre-sale on the condition that the vaccine would be given out for free by the US gov't. Perhaps that was also a condition of a second order and the admin balked?

Since with the second sale, like the first, efficacy and safety were conditional to money being exchanged for doses, I would have no problem if the US had reserved more vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thump553

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Do you really believe your comments are rational?
Apparently the logic is:

1) government creates program to extend the life of old people. (Medicare)

2) government is successful at extending the life of old people, thereby increasing Medicare costs.

3) government then attempts to secretly kill off old people to rebalance the budget in the wake of this success.

You would really think governments just wouldn’t try to help old people and save themselves the bother.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,648
26,746
136
Apparently the logic is:

1) government creates program to extend the life of old people. (Medicare)

2) government is successful at extending the life of old people, thereby increasing Medicare costs.

3) government then attempts to secretly kill off old people to rebalance the budget in the wake of this success.

You would really think governments just wouldn’t try to help old people and save themselves the bother.
I would like to know when torn mind’s mind was torn. His name seems to be as appropriate as mindless1’s
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Sounds like the EO being signed today is more of a statement of principle than anything else plus a threat to use the DPA. Since Pfizer won't likely complete their contracted delivery to us until the end of March not sure what good that does. We're already supposed to receive the full output of Kalamazoo plus some shipments from Europe to fulfill it. Kinda doubt Biden is going to rip off other people's doses.
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,566
899
126
Having a delay of 6 months for the availability of the vaccine should only result in a few tens of thousands more dead. So what's the problem. Trump and his administration have had a perfect response to Covid. You don't even have to ask about it because Trump will tell you every damn day. I think he is on TV right now speaking about how the Trump vaccine will magically make the virus disappear and again about the administration's perfect response. So much winning.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Lonza supposedly has more capacity that could be brought to bear making Moderna's vaccine. I would not be surprised if the incoming admin gives them an indication that we'd order whatever required to turn that up ASAP. Biden could take the wall money to pay for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
Lonza supposedly has more capacity that could be brought to bear making Moderna's vaccine. I would not be surprised if the incoming admin gives them an indication that we'd order whatever required to turn that up ASAP. Biden could take the wall money to pay for it.
These are the things that the transition period is supposed to be used for. Thanks to the Incredible Sulk, very little real useful information is being transferred.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Lonza supposedly has more capacity that could be brought to bear making Moderna's vaccine. I would not be surprised if the incoming admin gives them an indication that we'd order whatever required to turn that up ASAP. Biden could take the wall money to pay for it.
According to how things work now apparently Biden can redirect money from any program or department he sees fit and spend it how he wants by just saying there's an emergency or national security reason.

In this case there actually IS an emergency/national security reason but really the president can now rewrite the federal budget at will.
 

manly

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
11,849
2,806
136
Apparently the logic is:

1) government creates program to extend the life of old people. (Medicare)

2) government is successful at extending the life of old people, thereby increasing Medicare costs.

3) government then attempts to secretly kill off old people to rebalance the budget in the wake of this success.

You would really think governments just wouldn’t try to help old people and save themselves the bother.
And his smoking gun evidence was that his mom's SS benefit went from $895 to $894 when it changed to direct deposit. :tearsofjoy:
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
Lonza supposedly has more capacity that could be brought to bear making Moderna's vaccine. I would not be surprised if the incoming admin gives them an indication that we'd order whatever required to turn that up ASAP. Biden could take the wall money to pay for it.
I'm hoping that's true.

I don't know anything about how you actually manufacture mRNA, but considering how new it is, I'd think most of the manufacturing capacity would have be developed from scratch. Something NPA should've been used to assist.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,208
28,910
136
Apparently the logic is:

1) government creates program to extend the life of old people. (Medicare)

2) government is successful at extending the life of old people, thereby increasing Medicare costs.

3) government then attempts to secretly kill off old people to rebalance the budget in the wake of this success.

You would really think governments just wouldn’t try to help old people and save themselves the bother.
I think Torn Mind likes to believe that "government" is an entity that exists independent of the consent of the governed. We're not there yet.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
I'm hoping that's true.

I don't know anything about how you actually manufacture mRNA, but considering how new it is, I'd think most of the manufacturing capacity would have be developed from scratch. Something NPA should've been used to assist.

Yeah, they had mentioned it before. Even if it takes a 2-3 months to bring them online that's ok since we'll still be taking delivery of what's under contract thru the end of March at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136

Negotiations between the government and pharmaceutical companies were happening back during the spring and summer, when there was no guarantee that a vaccine would come any time soon at all, let alone one that could be so effective. Did it make sense for the government to wait and see what it was getting?

Pfizer was trying to get the government to gamble that the company would be the first to produce a vaccine. What the administration did instead was spread out the odds by making deals with six manufacturers, two of which, Pfizer and Moderna, have produced promising vaccines.

What functionally is the difference in risk to the government between a purchase agreement for 100M doses of safe, effective, and approved vaccine with payment on delivery as opposed to the same terms but for 200M doses?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
What functionally is the difference in risk to the government between a purchase agreement for 100M doses of safe, effective, and approved vaccine with payment on delivery as opposed to the same terms but for 200M doses?

What if the manufacturer cuts back on its original promise?

"Pfizer has struggled to meet initial expectations," the report finally gets around to admitting. "This summer, the company predicted that it would have 100 million doses by the end of the year, but in November, it said manufacturing challenges forced the company to scale that back to 50 million." It also notes that "vaccine manufacturing is notoriously unpredictable and any number of factors... could cause further setbacks."