Coronavirus vaccine with 90% protection was just announced.

[tstorm823]

Oh my gosh. Almost every candidate in US political history has said something along the lines of, "we're on track to win!", "we're going to win!", etc. There's nothing notable about that. Similarly, before the election was called, Donald Trump also said he was on track to win, and... the media didn't preface it's reports with the disclaimer that it's "without evidence"!

No, actually they just outright called the claim false.

Joe Biden says he's gonna win PA and win the election, they call him patient and hopeful.
Trump says he's currently winning and getting ready to win, they furiously report that he falsely claimed victory.

 

[Silvanus]

No, actually they just outright called the claim false.

Yes, that's the default and rational position for baseless conspiracy theories. Paying it credence would be an abdication of responsibility.

Joe Biden says he's gonna win PA and win the election, they call him patient and hopeful.
Trump says he's currently winning and getting ready to win, they furiously report that he falsely claimed victory.

...but Trump did claim victory, not that he's "currently winning". He didn't say he was going to win, he said "we won this election", which was a lie.

Again, you want the media to do the job of the President's press team.

 

[Iron]

You gave me multiple speculations and insinuations. You gave me absolutely nothing solid, no actual evidence. And yes, for an enormous conspiracy, you need a shred of evidence.



Oh my gosh. Almost every candidate in US political history has said something along the lines of, "we're on track to win!", "we're going to win!", etc. There's nothing notable about that. Similarly, before the election was called, Donald Trump also said he was on track to win, and... the media didn't preface it's reports with the disclaimer that it's "without evidence"!

Because it's fucking obvious.

If you don't see the difference between saying you reckon you'll win an election that's still going on (which is plausible), and claiming a massive conspiracy exists to cost you your job, then that's on you. The media obviously has different duties to those two stories.

The MSM is irresponsible af

NYT corrects tweet claiming news media declares election winner

'The role of declaring the winner of a presidential election in the U.S. falls to the news media. The broadcast networks and cable news outlets have vowed to be prudent,' the Times tweeted.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[MrCalavera]

ITT We go from blaiming The Media for political biases in reporting, to complaining about showing unfiltered stuff as it is.

Ouch oof, my cope bone.

 

[Shadyside]

'Milestone' vaccine offers 90% Covid protection - BBC News

The vaccine is a "significant step" forward for getting life back to normal, but challenges remain.

www.bbc.co.uk

We are still not out of the woods yet and we don't know when it's going to be finished. I've heard anything between the third week of November to the beginning of 2021 but this is great news.

Will it give you autism? lol.

 

[Silvanus]

The MSM is irresponsible af

Yep, that's irresponsible and incorrect, though less so than the Trump campaign themselves, who've claimed victory for the defeated candidate in the election.

The point I made to tstorm-- that they were correct in saying Trump's claim of electoral victory was outright false-- still stands. It was.

 

[Agema]

The MSM is irresponsible af

NYT corrects tweet claiming news media declares election winner

'The role of declaring the winner of a presidential election in the U.S. falls to the news media. The broadcast networks and cable news outlets have vowed to be prudent,' the Times tweeted.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is bullshit. Sorry, but it is the most utter, fucking, semantic bullshit imaginable.

The act of officially making someone president would be that they are chosen, or elected, or appointed, or whatever else. The media most certainly does not choose, elect or appoint the president, it is true. But they are, now as ever, free to declare whatever they choose, as is anyone else. I can. You can. Donald Trump can (and has). Congress can. Declarations are as easy and widely permitted as any free speech. For presidential cycle after presidential cycle, there has not been any problem with the concept of the media declaring someone president, and understanding that it was not the formal act of someone passing the necessary steps to become president.

Not a problem, at least, until a bunch of dipshits started petty points scoring for oblique political ends.

 

[tstorm823]

The point I made to tstorm-- that they were correct in saying Trump's claim of electoral victory was outright false-- still stands. It was.

And if it turns out Pfizer did withhold the announcement until after the election on purpose, you're gonna say "yeah, good thing they reported on it so very, very accurately."

 

[Silvanus]

And if it turns out Pfizer did withhold the announcement until after the election on purpose, you're gonna say "yeah, good thing they reported on it so very, very accurately."

If actual evidence comes up, I'll re-evaluate my position. Until then, feel free to make whatever uncharitable speculations about me you like.

 

[Dalisclock]

If actual evidence comes up, I'll re-evaluate my position. Until then, feel free to make whatever uncharitable speculations about me you like.

In the immortal words of Lionel Hutz.

"We have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence"

 

[Satinavian]

And if it turns out Pfizer did withhold the announcement until after the election on purpose, you're gonna say "yeah, good thing they reported on it so very, very accurately."

Unlikely.
This is not a Pfizer thing done in the US.

It is a BioNtech/Pfizer German/US collaboration with clinical tests in various other countries and supply agreements with more countries that want to get it as soon as permissable. It is also competing with dozens of other products with early availability as really important argument to drive sales.

Do you actually think they would delay it just for some insignificant influence in some election ? And yes, delaying publication of test results would delay the drug itself. Also he various clinical tests in all the different countries would involve various national organisations for overseeing clinical trials. They all collaborated and kept the result secret and their own countries out of vaccine for longer just to influence the US election a tiny bit ? And no one talked ?

 

[Agema]

Do you actually think they would delay it just for some insignificant influence in some election ?

Actually, I can believe they would delay it a few days due to the election - but more likely so that it was not seen as interfering.

Pfizer might have taken the decision that an announcement just before the election could be used as a political football, which could bring a fair bit of heat down on the company, and potentially even harm sales. A week would be neither here nor there to them.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr., without evidence, accuse Pfizer of deliberately waiting until after Election Day to release its COVID-19 vaccine trial results

President Donald Trump baselessly speculated on Twitter that the Food and Drug Administration "didn't want to have me get a Vaccine WIN."

www.businessinsider.com.au

Lmao... I wonder if anyone's would fall for that. Well ig given Trump followers god I wonder who's gonna fall for that

A bit more background on that -

One doctor’s campaign to stop a covid-19 vaccine being rushed through before Election Day

How heart doctor Eric Topol used his social-media account to kill off Trump’s October surprise.

www.technologyreview.com

A week later, on Friday, October 16, Pfizer—citing the FDA recommendations—finally said it would not seek an EUA until after the election, even if the company thought its vaccine was working.

Doesn’t seem too far fetched to be politically motivated one way or the other.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

A bit more background on that -

One doctor’s campaign to stop a covid-19 vaccine being rushed through before Election Day

How heart doctor Eric Topol used his social-media account to kill off Trump’s October surprise.

www.technologyreview.com

A week later, on Friday, October 16, Pfizer—citing the FDA recommendations—finally said it would not seek an EUA until after the election, even if the company thought its vaccine was working.

Doesn’t seem too far fetched to be politically motivated one way or the other.

Suggesting that was a political maneuver requires an addition of saying the FDA put those in there specifically to slow it down without it being based on trying to make sure it's safe.

 

[Agema]

I did a bit more reading on this, and there's a significant problem with the Pfizer virus.

Apparently as a novel mRNA-based vaccine, it needs to be stored exceptionally cold. Like, -80C freezer cold. It's fair to say that an awful lot of surgeries won't have one, as they cost about ten times what a conventional -20C freezer does (and with considerably higher running costs). This makes it significantly harder to roll out, verging on all but useless in countries with less developed health systems.

It should get some decent use particularly early on whilst there are so few options, but in the long run we might be using other ones for mass vaccination.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Suggesting that was a political maneuver requires an addition of saying the FDA put those in there specifically to slow it down without it being based on trying to make sure it's safe.

It’s a grey area that’s tough to substantiate, but would it have been gone about identically it say, Biden was up for re-election is the bigger question. Also we’ll have to wait and see how cautiously they continue to move forward now that it’s over.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It’s a grey area that’s tough to substantiate, but would it have been gone about identically it say, Biden was up for re-election is the bigger question. Also we’ll have to wait and see how cautiously they continue to move forward now that it’s over.

That's a rather hard question because you have to factor in Trump pushing, not budging isn't some political move.

And even then, what you brought up doesn't really actually have much to suggest Pfizer did some political move to delay it instead of heeding reasonable recommendations.

 

[Agema]

That's a rather hard question because you have to factor in Trump pushing, not budging isn't some political move.

And even then, what you brought up doesn't really actually have much to suggest Pfizer did some political move to delay it instead of heeding reasonable recommendations.

Bluntly, if Pfizer did delay it for the election, it would be because the issue of vaccines had been heavily politicised - most notably by Trump, but let's not forget or excuse other politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, either, and the general milieu of Republican and Democratic contention.

This puts Pfizer in a unpleasant position. Pfizer has literally nothing to gain and potentially plenty to lose from being sucked into the all-consuming maelstrom of partisan US politics, and I do not blame Pfizer in the slightest if it deliberately sat on the results for a while to separate itself from the worst of the election shitshow.

Honestly I do not generally like defending unscrupulous, self-interested megacorps, but that's what I've come to, the US political scene being so toxic.

 

[happyninja42]

If I have to take a guess, by the time either of you even can have access to it, it will already had been tried out on hundreds of thousands of people for weeks or months: doctors, nurses, seniors and people with chronic illness. I doubt either of you can pre-order or get day-one access to it even if you wanted to.

I know right? It's almost like there's this thing...called medical trials or something, and they do it in stages to test the efficacy and lethality of a medication before they send it out.

Now, to be fair, this one IS being accelerated a lot, so there is always a chance of long term, unforeseen complications down the road. But, similar to the cocktail of drugs they gave US military being deployed to the middle east, to protect them against things like anthrax and the like, they weren't really sure what it might do to someone say, 10+ years later. But they weren't worried about that, as they needed it NOW, to give to troops NOW. That's why most regular trials take years, to try and account for long term complications, that don't manifest right away.

But, they have to weigh the pros and cons of "give a drug with the potential for long term complications (but also with the potential to NOT have any) to stop a plague now? Or hold off and do more long term studies to insure no long term problems...and let people die now." It's not an easy question to answer, or at least, it's not one with a great answer either way.

We could end up with something similar to agent orange in 20+ years, where people start having widespread, long term problems, that nobody knows about until decades later. Or, we might not.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And if it turns out Pfizer did withhold the announcement until after the election on purpose, you're gonna say "yeah, good thing they reported on it so very, very accurately."

And if the vaccine announcement could have been a few days earlier or even a month earlier, how does that change how bad Trump did with regards to the pandemic? It's not like the vaccine was ready months ago and being stored until after the election just so Trump would lose.