Injury/Covid infection Update Thread 20/21

[Crimson Dynasty]

Trumpy had claimed a vaccine was going to be ready by the end of the year, often fact checked as false/lies.
Wonder how the withholding of this data till after the election will go down with his supporters ? Seems in the current environment that choice made cannot escape politicisiation despite the rationalisation.

I'd suggest the stock markets are reacting as they have done with regard to us election results as
1) they know Biden will not deliver a Sanders manifesto, 2 dnc primaires know with scandals to keep him out
2) they like seeing what most seem to think will be a division of power - house of reps less of a dem majority, Senate expected to hold a rep majority, president more likely Biden. State legislatures, Senates, Governors iirc, trifectas rep majority nationally.
3) Biden it seems will be more friendly with China in terms of tariffs and in not seeking a decoupling, so that is a positive for a good few stocks that are invested in China, while his historical record would be welcome to Raytheon etc being more of an interventionist.

I'm fairly certain he was making that claim in reference to the vaccine trials that are part of his administration's 'Operation Warpspeed' initiative.
Pfizer was not part of that initiative and therefore can't be held to whatever political promise he may have made regarding them. (it's actually a large part of the reason why they declined to be a part of it).

Secondly regardless of whether it's Pfizer or any of the other companies that were part of that operation warpspeed, any company that was likely to have a vaccine announcement ready for the end of the year was always going to come with the caveat that it STILL won't be available for majority of the public before early next year.
With the Pfizer vaccine, their results have to be peer-reviewed by the rest of the medical community, as well as certified by the FDA - a process which could take anywhere between a few weeks to a couple of months - before they can be allowed to start distribution and sales.
The same would likely be true for any other company that had (or will have) their vaccines ready before the end of the year.
You - Joe Average - are likely not going to get your hands on it before probably sometime in mid-summer or fall of next year (assuming you're not a First responder, Medical Frontline worker or a Pensioner)

So at the end of the day it was a hollow campaign political promise, lacking any actual meaning or significance whatsoever.
In other words, it might as well have been a lie.

Sort of like a '...building a wall on your land and having your neighbour pay for it' - type meaningless and hollow promise.

As for the stock markets, they are merely reacting to the prospect of stability and lack of chaos in what would be a prospective Biden administration.
That's about all that that is.

As much as they might have loved Trump's tax cuts, the markets generally don't like uncertainty and instability, and Trump brought a whole lot of that with him to bear (Tarrif wars with China, trashing America's relationships with the EU and other traditional allies/partners, NATO etc...).

It should have been telling that despite the fact that they know that Biden will likely increase their corporate taxes again and get rid of some of Trump's tax cuts, no less than JP Morgan themselves released a report a couple of weeks ago predicting that the Economy would likely fare better under a Biden presidency and with Biden policies than it would with another 4 years of Trump.
So even his own primary constituency (rich corporate fat cats in Wall Street and billionaires) who've likely benefitted the most from his presidency, didn't think he'd be good for the Economy going forward.

[Crimson Dynasty]

It was speculated by conspiracy theorists that the narrative and media info around covid would change after an election should biden win many months ago.
https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/music/germany-coronavirus-safe-concerts
November 3rd 2020 ^^

BLM protests reduced the spread of covid, lockdown protests spread it and trump rallies killed 700-800 people iirc headlines.
Funny old virus that way

This is nonsense.

The "narrative" hasn't changed since the election.
Or rather the only way it was changed is that the pandemic spread has gotten much worse all over the world with infections climbing out of control - including in the US itself which had the WORST days with most infections per day since the pandmeic began, on consecutive days LAST week.
This was expected and predicted.

And even now Medical officials are STILL predicting it will still get much worse before we start to see an improvement.

According to the "narrative" (spread by none other than "SuperSpreader-in-Chief" himself at the White House) all the media reporting on COVID was supposed to die off the day after the election (ostensibly after a Biden win).

Well, it's still being talked about, so there goes that silly narrative.

And of course to make matters worse for 'Conspiracy-Theorist-in-Chief' himself, his own White House has become yet another SuperSpreader hotspot with another spate of infections for the second time in just the last three weeks with several high ranking officials (including his own chief of staff and his Housing Secretary) testing positive.

Even if the notion was that everyone was going to "forget" about COVID after the election (presumably because it was an 'Election' ploy by the 'Deep State' to defeat him), him and his minions sure seem like they're going above and beyond the call of duty to keep it in the media spotlight.

We still don't know yet what the effect of the Trump rallies (or the Biden victory celebrations we saw last weekend) will be, in terms of increasing infections. Likely, neither of them will help and will make it worse, and are both likely the reason most scientists think things will only get much worse over the next several weeks before we see any change - regardless of who's in the White House and what they do.

[CCTV]

This is nonsense.

The "narrative" hasn't changed since the election.
Or rather the only way it was changed is that the pandemic spread has gotten much worse all over the world with infections climbing out of control - including in the US itself which had the WORST days with most infections per day since the pandmeic began, on consecutive days LAST week.
This was expected and predicted.

And even now Medical officials are STILL predicting it will still get much worse before we start to see an improvement.

According to the "narrative" (spread by none other than "SuperSpreader-in-Chief" himself at the White House) all the media reporting on COVID was supposed to die off the day after the election (ostensibly after a Biden win).

Well, it's still being talked about, so there goes that silly narrative.

And of course to make matters worse for 'Conspiracy-Theorist-in-Chief' himself, his own White House has become yet another SuperSpreader hotspot with another spate of infections for the second time in just the last three weeks with several high ranking officials (including his own chief of staff and his Housing Secretary) testing positive.

Even if the notion was that everyone was going to "forget" about COVID after the election (presumably because it was an 'Election' ploy by the 'Deep State' to defeat him), him and his minions sure seem like they're going above and beyond the call of duty to keep it in the media spotlight.

We still don't know yet what the effect of the Trump rallies (or the Biden victory celebrations we saw last weekend) will be, in terms of increasing infections. Likely, neither of them will help and will make it worse, and are both likely the reason most scientists think things will only get much worse over the next several weeks before we see any change - regardless of who's in the White House and what they do.

From news articles
1) on BLM
Stanford epidemiologist Yvonne Maldonado has come to the same conclusion. "I was worried that the protests could be super-spreader events,” she said. "It turns out, the bottom line is it doesn't look like that happens.”

Kirsten Bibbons-Domingo, chair of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department at UCSF, says the rise in coronavirus cases and hospitalizations in California “has as much to do with just reopening the economy as it does with any discrete events like the protests.”

2) on trump rallies
A new Stanford study concludes that Trump rallies resulted in more than 30,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19, and likely caused more than 700 deaths among attendees and their close contacts.

“The communities in which Trump rallies took place paid a high price in terms of disease and death,” concludes the research, conducted by economists from the university’s Institute for Economic Policy Research.

In the uk you can find swinging reports in terms of BLM & Anti-lockdown protests.
One week its killing grandma, next it was validating protests.

[CCTV]

This is nonsense.

The "narrative" hasn't changed since the election.
Or rather the only way it was changed is that the pandemic spread has gotten much worse all over the world with infections climbing out of control - including in the US itself which had the WORST days with most infections per day since the pandmeic began, on consecutive days LAST week.
This was expected and predicted.

And even now Medical officials are STILL predicting it will still get much worse before we start to see an improvement.

According to the "narrative" (spread by none other than "SuperSpreader-in-Chief" himself at the White House) all the media reporting on COVID was supposed to die off the day after the election (ostensibly after a Biden win).

Well, it's still being talked about, so there goes that silly narrative.

And of course to make matters worse for 'Conspiracy-Theorist-in-Chief' himself, his own White House has become yet another SuperSpreader hotspot with another spate of infections for the second time in just the last three weeks with several high ranking officials (including his own chief of staff and his Housing Secretary) testing positive.

Even if the notion was that everyone was going to "forget" about COVID after the election (presumably because it was an 'Election' ploy by the 'Deep State' to defeat him), him and his minions sure seem like they're going above and beyond the call of duty to keep it in the media spotlight.

We still don't know yet what the effect of the Trump rallies (or the Biden victory celebrations we saw last weekend) will be, in terms of increasing infections. Likely, neither of them will help and will make it worse, and are both likely the reason most scientists think things will only get much worse over the next several weeks before we see any change - regardless of who's in the White House and what they do.

90% protection from vaccine and publishing Concerts can come back days after the election.
We can see biases within science routinely and more importantly in how the media treats their findings.
You've stated that Pfizer didn't want to partake in his scheme to give him any credit and that they didn't release the news until after the election to avoid politicising the vaccine.
To say these in any serious manner is rather bold imo.
I doubt that's how the other half would perceive it.

[CCTV]

On markets it well known they would not like a bernie presidency, nor would the dems. Though I'm not sure she had the follow through.

In terms of a divide of power that is preferential for markets as it has been before, as less change is possible and therefore it's more stable. This would be the most pressing impact from the us elections results imo.

Chinas market rallied and dipped around the projected outcomes.
The us markets have done well enough under Trump.
There are several multinationals who will be happy to continue their relations with China and the decoupling could well be slowed or stopped entirely.

[Steveo]

]It is clear that the day after the declaration the world can celebrate the Great win by “science” - which will become a gigantic cash cow for big pharma in the west

CC you are completely correct.

We might finally have found a way out of the Covid Nightmare.. who would have guessed.?

Life will start returning to normal by spring, says government adviser after vaccine news


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b1719683.html


Well aren’t we just so very lucky...?

[Crimson Dynasty]

90% protection from vaccine and publishing Concerts can come back days after the election.
We can see biases within science routinely and more importantly in how the media treats their findings.
You've stated that Pfizer didn't want to partake in his scheme to give him any credit and that they didn't release the news until after the election to avoid politicising the vaccine.
To say these in any serious manner is rather bold imo.
I doubt that's how the other half would perceive it.

I did not say that.

I specifically said that the Pfizer CEO ( Albert Bourla) said (in an interview on CNN, that sadly is not available on their site and therefore I can't link to, but also in a memo to employees linked below) that he did not want the vaccine nor its development by their company politicised.
By either side.

That's not the same as saying he did not want Trump to get the credit. These are two separate and different things.
The inference that Trump would try to claim credit if they released the news before the election goes without saying and is backed by what he's done in the past with other issues.

Whether or not he specifically wanted to avoid that particular outcome (Trump claiming credit for it) by doing so, is up for speculation as it's not what he said -....directly or specifically - nor did I suggest it was.

The logic for why should be obvious.
Politicising this (or any) vaccine runs the risk of undermining public confidence in it wherein half the population (or thereabouts) that love the president would gladly take it while the other half that hates him wouldn't trust it enough to take it, thus undermining its efficacy since that depends on as many people in the population taking the vaccine to achieve some level of herd immunity.

I did speculate and guess (and clearly stated I was doing so) that the release was timed for after the election to avoid tying it to Trump (who has been promising a vaccine before the election all along) to avoid thus unintentionally politicizing it whether or not they believed he deserved any credit for it, or that the perception that he does would be
mistakenly inferred by the public.
Again, you risk undermining the efficacy of the vaccine if it's tied (in the eyes of the public) to a clearly polarising figure such as Trump with stark credibility and trust issues.


Links:-

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/pfizer-ceo-criticizes-us-politicizing-coronavirus-vaccine-processsays-us-presidential-debate-was-disappointing-in-memo-to-employees-that-.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99a7T6--cVc&ab_channel=CNBCTelevision
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-10-01/pfizer-ceo-pushes-back-against-trump-claim-on-vaccine-timing
https://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/industrynews/2020/pfizer-ceo-expresses-frustration-with-vaccine-politicization/

[Crimson Dynasty]

From news articles
1) on BLM
Stanford epidemiologist Yvonne Maldonado has come to the same conclusion. "I was worried that the protests could be super-spreader events,” she said. "It turns out, the bottom line is it doesn't look like that happens.”

Kirsten Bibbons-Domingo, chair of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department at UCSF, says the rise in coronavirus cases and hospitalizations in California “has as much to do with just reopening the economy as it does with any discrete events like the protests.”

2) on trump rallies
A new Stanford study concludes that Trump rallies resulted in more than 30,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19, and likely caused more than 700 deaths among attendees and their close contacts.

“The communities in which Trump rallies took place paid a high price in terms of disease and death,” concludes the research, conducted by economists from the university’s Institute for Economic Policy Research.

In the uk you can find swinging reports in terms of BLM & Anti-lockdown protests.
One week its killing grandma, next it was validating protests.

At this stage, it's something of a moot point whether either (Trump rallies or BLM protests) played any role in making the spread worse and/or increasing deaths.

On the one hand, some of the hardest hit areas in the US in recent weeks and have seen the biggest increases in infections actually saw MORE support for Trump at the elections and in the final vote tally - and not less.
Which would imply that his supporters simply didn't care whether or not the pandemic was having the effect it was claimed to be having nor if it was getting worse).

On the other hand, areas that saw a lot of the BLM protests (i.e. urban areas and the larger dense cities) are typified by the kind of demographics that wouldn't have supported Trump regardless of which way the pendulum swung in terms of how bad the virus infections were getting or if they was improvement.


And most importantly of course,....the virus simply doesn't, and didn't care.
Whether you're a Trump supporter or not.
Or whether you're an adherent of the Church of the Great Spaghetti Monster in the Sky.

[CCTV]

You said

"1I can totally see a scenario whereby they had the information last week (or at least access to it), but then they made the deliberate choice to wait to release it AFTER the election.1
2Imagine what Trump would have done with a news release like that going into the election.2

3There's also the other fact that Pfizer were not part of the Trump administration's Project 'Warpspeed' (<=insert major eyeroll here) that's supposed to help facilitate the search for a vaccine, and as a result took no government funds to develop their vaccine.3 4Which would also underline the notion that any credit that Trump or his administration tried to take for it (and will still try) would be totally undeserved4."

To which I'm and was replying that to the other half there would be a different interpretation.

1) exactly like your imagination, they retained it till after the election to impair Trumps re-election.
2) imagine what a news release like that would have done the week before the election
3) not really something I was addressing too much but heres a link which suggests that Pfizer took 1.95billion dollars from warpspeed but not for research ,but for distribution.

Title - A COVID-19 Vaccine Looks Promising — & Trump Had Nothing To Do With it
"But as they’ve made clear, Pfizer not did not accept money to help with the development or testing of the vaccine candidate. The $1.95 billion contract the pharmaceutical company signed with the federal government was specifically regarding distributing the vaccine. Once they had a working vaccine approved, Pfizer would use the money to provide 100 million doses to Americans, helping to support Operation Warp Speed’s ultimate goal of producing and delivering “300 million doses of safe and effective vaccines with the initial doses available by January 2021.” So while Pence is right that there is a partnership, the arrangement between Operation Warp Speed and Pfizer didn’t have anything to do with the trial’s early success."
If we are looking at roughly the same news broadcast, I searched for your claims, then in this piece the only tacit claim around Trumpy saying shit is ...
It didn’t take long for President Donald Trump to weigh in on the promising (though not conclusive) analysis. “STOCK MARKET UP BIG, VACCINE COMING SOON. REPORT 90% EFFECTIVE. SUCH GREAT NEWS!”...
So I'm not sure I've seen this trump taking credit that you have on your CNN link, or wherever.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/a-covid-19-vaccine-looks-promising-%E2%80%94-and-trump-had-nothing-to-do-with-it/ar-BB1aQzcp

4) fair enough, I mean you could argue that by putting money in a pot for research he along with every other such acting person spurred on competition for a victory in getting the prize.

Overall my point is that if this is how you see it, imagine theyd see it differently but similarly. This vaccine and info release by its nature I would contend is now politicised and perhaps the desire was unattainable.

[CCTV]

From earlier iirc for you, I know snopes has a terrible name as the pro-trump propaganda arm
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-promise-vaccine-election-day/