Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "Yahoo Finance" channel.

  1. It's probably not multiple infections. For those who have the symptoms return (like I did) the second time is usually far less severe and doesn't last anywhere near as long. It's most likely the result of some sort of dormancy of the original infection. If that ends up being the case, a vaccine will work.
    4
  2.  @mailarrives  Most other companies received some amount of government funding. Pfizer was one of the minority that covered it completely in house.
    4
  3.  @John-iv2xy  Our deaths per case percentage is actually well below the worldwide average. It's just that our infection rate is well above average.
    3
  4. In the long run, their profiting benefits public health far more than their not doing so would.
    2
  5. To be fair, prior to ~2016, they were focusing on using the tech they'd developed on protein therapies to treat cancers and other diseases. When it comes to the business side of things, vaccines generally aren't seen as being as lucrative as other uses since the number of doses needed per patient is usually going to be much lower for vaccines than for the long term repetitive use for other therapies. Their shareholders weren't thrilled when the company decided to move toward vaccines (~2016). However, developing a vaccine via their method is actually much easier and the risk of severe side effects much lower than with other uses. Also, while they had no other commercial products out when covid hit, they had 20+ phase 1 trials active for other projects and were one of the few companies putting significant effort and resources into R&D on such mRNA based treatments. I'm not saying their vaccine is safe, just that they're not as unqualified for such contracts as they may seem at first glance.
    2
  6. Without US pharmaceutical companies subsidizing the socialized healthcare systems of the world by selling to them below cost and making up for the losses through a little corruption and price hikes for US consumers, said systems would choke and die. It isn't pretty, but if people want anything resembling decent healthcare, it's a necessary evil. The alternatives simply can't function when applied at such large scales.
    1
  7. Just a guess, but they may be using the relatively new approach to vaccine development which uses mRNA to mimic the antigen sequence of a virus's code to trigger the body's immune response (as opposed to actual viral material.) It's a fully synthetic process which makes it quicker than having to purify material from the actual virus. It's also much easier to manufacture in bulk if such a successfull vaccine is found. Most of the common vaccines in use were developed before this approach was available. I think there have been a couple of successful vaccines for some less common viruses developed this way in the last few years. Edit: The testing process is also faster since they produce samples much faster with this method.
    1
  8. Texas' covid 19 data from Jan. to Oct. of last year showed that the unvaccinated were far more likely to catch/die/be hospitalized than the vaccinated (~10 to ~30 times more to catch it depending on the variant with similar ratios for death/hospitalizations.)
    1
  9. I'll wait until the info behind it's development is published to make up my mind.
    1
  10.  @yumri4  If the vaccine was developed using the somewhat new mRNA method, those times might be lessened quite a bit. The process is entirely synthetic and can be produced much faster and cheaper than those which require viral material.
    1
  11. They're a publicly traded business required to make profit projections and quarterly reports to shareholders etc. Even if their board were the most compassionate caring people on the planet, they would still have to do their jobs. People are blowing this way out of proportion. If nothing else, at least Pfizer chose not to accept government funding for their vaccine R&D. Businesswise that was a huge risk. Those that opted to accept funding took no risk and in the long run will profit off the American people far more than those who refused government funding.
    1
  12. Grow up.
    1
  13. AI can't draw a clock showing the requested time... Quit farting around with your toys and official government website that requires an X account to actually get info from and do your job Elon... or gtfo
    1
  14. Unless you want to regress back to snake oil salesmen, mystical nonsense, homeopathy, and faith "healing", it really doesn't matter where the money comes from. It only matters that it's there. If US pharmaceutical companies ever decide that the field isn't profitable enough to bother with, healthcare returns to the dark ages. It ain't pretty and there's definitely some corruption, but it's the only system capable of meeting the world's demand. If socialized healthcare systems had to fund their own medical R&D and manufacturing instead of buying from US companies below cost and leaving the difference to be covered by the US consumer, they would choke and die...
    1
  15.  @redscorpion7243  If not for US pharmaceutical companies subsidizing the world's socialized healthcare systems by selling medications to them below cost and passing the difference on to US consumers, those systems would be unable to offer anything even resembling an acceptable and affordable level of care to their people. Capitalism isn't always pretty, but it's the only thing simple and effective enough to work at large scales.
    1
  16. Grow up and look at the big picture.
    1