What Cobalt says. ^
There are innumerable examples of censorship for expressing the “wrong” views. Here is probably the most famous, removed from all the mainstream social media channels. I could give examples of many more.
flybymike wrote:
There are innumerable examples of censorship for expressing the “wrong” views. Here is probably the most famous, removed from all the mainstream social media channels. I could give examples of many more.
Sorry, I’m not going to spend 46 minutes listening to a video. But I did spend 5 minutes reading about the video and my impression is that it was not removed because of “wrong views” but because it gave potentially dangerous medical advise.
LeSving wrote:
Most of it is pure symbolism IMO, like masks. Norway has one of the lowest infection rates, and no masks are worn.
There is much you say with which we can agree, however, I think this detracts from the discussion.
I made a number of points earlier regarding the contribution of central Government in times such as these and they stand. The extent and support for the development of a vaccine would not have existed were it not for the intervention of Governments, it is unlikely we would have seen the urgent and disciplined approach to developing other treatments, nor would the measures to control the spread of the virus have been co-ordinated (whether you agree with them or not) in the way we have seen. These measures all require the intervention of Governments. On the whole their response at this level is supported by all our populations – we all want a vaccine, we all want effective and SAFE treatments, and most of us support measures to prevent the collapse of public health services.
I dont follow your argument (if I have understood) that Government has no business involving itself in these matters? How else would these things be happening?
BTW this is quite a good summary of the major reputable players;
It requires the expertise of the major players in the major democracies to stand a chance (you dont see smaller and/or less affluent countries having the drug companies within their borders) to mount this research, and they have all benefited from State aid.
Would any of them have gone out on a limb without Government support funding the research from their own resources – I doubt it.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
It requires the expertise of the major players in the major democracies to stand a chance (you dont see smaller and/or less affluent countries having the drug companies within their borders) to mount this research, and they have all benefited from State aid.Would any of them have gone out on a limb without Government support funding the research from their own resources – I doubt it.
The major incentive is the known market for the product. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be confident that if/when they have a viable product then governments around the world will immediately buy enough to vaccinate their populations and the approach will be a money-no-object one.
Clinical research is my area of employment and the company I work for is running more than one of the trials listed in that link, as well as a number of others. In bids and tenders (my part of the business) we see new requests for quotes on Covid-19 trials daily, both vaccines and treatments.
In every other part of clinical research a major concern for the IP owner is even if they turn it into a viable product will anyone want to prescribe it and more importantly pay for it. This just doesn’t apply for a Covid-19 vaccine.
Graham wrote:
This just doesn’t apply for a Covid-19 vaccine.
I bet!
Sorry, I’m not going to spend 46 minutes listening to a video. But I did spend 5 minutes reading about the video and my impression is that it was not removed because of “wrong views” but because it gave potentially dangerous medical advise.
I make no comment on the quality of the advice given, except that it was given by highly qualified medical epidemiologists and virologists working “at the coal face” on a daily basis.
No idea about the qualifications of those who thought the advice was dangerous. Presumably it must have been equally qualified, or would have been considered invalid criticism.
But then Professionals often disagree on the most appropriate course of action.
That marketwatch article posted above is from May 2020. I wonder how valid is still is.
The fascinating bits are the share price movements 
Somebody is making a lot of $$$ for sure.
Political posts not related to CV19 moved to politics thread.
Changing tack two scenarios might be interesting to discuss as they came up around the dinner table tongiht.
1. Considering a worse state scenario and this is rubbling on into next year, what are your thoughts on a really severe depression following? Companies like BA are already saying it may not be possible to save the airline in anything like the terms we know in this scenario. Each of our countries will have burnt through enormous amounts of cash. Possibly some countries will committ far more than others, which may mean they surface with very different economies. Australia may be a good example of one economy which, although already in recession, are substantially dependedent on mining and farming with a low population, so could well recover quickly, whereas the UK might suffer to a greater extent. Thoughts?
2. Hypothetically if the pandemic were a lot more serious (it is bad enough) with a mortality of say 20% across the agre range (and it could happen), so 160 million dead over say 18 months what would the world look like? It wouldnt constitute close to a serious threat to the human species, I think that is a given, but what would the consequences be short of that I wonder? To place it in perspective at the rate we are going there may well be up to 4 million dead if it rumbles on and of course with the majority in the older age range so arguably of less consequence to society. This scenario would be worse by a factor of 40. 85 million died in WW2, so it would be double that number, albeit perhaps in a shorter period of time. As a percentage of the world population perhaps a similiar scenario. Each one of us that survived would know several people who would not.
I think within a year vaccines are already widespread. Here we will be discussing why we will/will not take the vaccine 
