Yes, but at least they would have paid for it 
2 Likes
Maybe if it costed like 1% of their NW I might start to like the idea. 
Anyway, the Lombard âauthoritiesâ were thinking that their people should get the vaccine first because they âalready paidâ by producing more GDP and therefore taxes in the past.
Absolutely barbaric. A similar logic would be to give priority to people with higher income. Iâm sure that wouldnât be popularâŠ
On the other hand I think that it would be better to vaccinate people close to retirement that still have to work before people retired that can isolate more easily.
3 Likes
Already happening : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-09/rich-book-covid-19-jabs-abroad-to-skip-u-k-wait-telegraph-says
So they spend their money abroad an not locally, not ideal right? And all those who are not extravagantly rich or not bothered enough to fly to Dubai for a jab?
1 Like
Since youâve asked: any proposition that allows richer people/regions to get vaccinated before vulnerable people or health care workers elsewhere highly dents my view of humanity.
Once that is done, and as long as vaccination remains available for the general public for free/at a cheap price, I donât have qualms with people being able to buy their ticket to the front of the line. While these vaccines are an essential part of our ability to beat the virus, theyâre still using recent technology and have been developed on an accelerated timeframe. The people who get the vaccine are basically beta testers, I say let the wealthy do it before the general public if theyâre willing to pay for it (provided that money gets taxed/is paid to an institution that can use it to further the general wellbeing of the population - I count most democratic governments among them).
2 Likes
Were you not for opening the gyms with disregard for the elderly? You decided now to score some forum points? 
I think with free market, the price would start high, maybe $1000 per shot, but quickly go down. And with a price of under $100, you couldnât argue that someone for whom this vaccine is crucial cannot afford $100.
1 Like
Nothing wrong with having two systems run in parralel.
-
Vacinaccion program with priority groups.
-
Auction system with a limited number of vaccines per week for the highest bidders. The proceeds could and should be used for good (social) causes.
3 Likes
Just because its the first approved mRNA vaccine does not mean itâs unsafe. Its kind has been in development for yearsâŠ
Iâm not saying itâs unsafe, Iâm saying we havenât yet had the opportunity to thoroughly test its long term effects. If we always waited for new technology to be long term vetted before using it, we would not have made any technological progress. Vaccinating against Covid is good, Iâm sorry if Iâve sounded like I thought the opposite.
1 Like
The vaccine went through all phases like any other vaccine, nothing was rushed. Usually there are a lot of funding and buroctatic issues with every phase of the development, which delays the whole thing by years. Now we had unlimited funding and no burocratic problems. Vaccine was developed within 1.5 months and tested on over 30k people and now millions.
2 Likes
Another issue usually involves that you canât easily be exposed to a virus for which a vaccine is created and therefore test how effective it is.
4 Likes
Some (awaited it seems) updates on the vacc process in CH:
1 Like
My grandmother got the vaccine yesterday, so it does exist and they give it the elderly first.
1 Like
Well, thatâs market forces in action.
What you advocated for.
2 Likes
Nope. They fly far, because their local market is non-existent or heavily regulated. Donât see the point of your post.
Youâre of course correct here. Yes, they have done their own testing involving a lot of people. But not enough third party testing has been done and like you said, we do not know the long term effects yet since their own tests were just for a shorter amount of time.
So if anyone wants to jump in head first and become a test person for the completely new method of mRNA vaccine, go ahead, all the best to you. But it is completely rational to not be rushing in to the hospital for a mRNA jab.
I think the probability of the virus being worse than the vaccine is high.
1 Like
mRNA based drugs isnât novel: The story of mRNA: From a loose idea to a tool that may help curb Covid
Itâs mostly that they pivoted to vaccine because itâs actually way more promising (the issue with regular mRNA drug is that it tend to trigger too strong a reaction, but itâs fine for a vaccine since thereâs only two shots).
Iâm not sure what you expect in long term side effect, we know how mRNA works and once itâs âusedâ to produce the proteins itâs gone from the body. Sounds safer to me than many other more âclassicâ vaccines.
3 Likes
The main issue here is still that there has been a lack of peer reviewing and the time that they themselves has put into reviewing their own vaccines is limited(2 months). Hopefully the mRNA works well and solves all problems. HopefullyâŠ
But since there are many out there who believes that the mRNA vaccine will without a doubt work and without any long term side effects what so ever, then both camps of this matter will be happy. The believers will get the jab first and thereby become the long term side effect test bunnies and the more skeptical ones who wantâs to give the tests some more time can await and see what happens.