Vaccine

whatithink said:
No, costs of production increased, so prices increased, but the latter increased more (greater margin), hence greater profits, because they could. The price increases are driving inflation, and the higher the increase the higher the inflation number.

Just limiting it to demand/supply is simplistic. That is true in some cases, i.e. my car example driven by a shortage of chips apparently or production plants closed down in Asia or whatever, but that's not true in every case and not even necessarily true in most cases.
Click to expand...
ie Freight costs.
 
Grace T. said:
Again that’s economic illiteracy at its best. The price is driven by supply and demand outside of a handful of outside interventions like the value of money, exchange rate, government policies and monopolies.

profit is a different calculation. The profit is the equilibrium price minus the cost to produce. If the cost to produce exceeds the equilibrium price, that particular manufacturer will cease to produce, supply contracts, equilibrium price rises. If the equilibrium rises it increases supply in turn which means you can produce more. The production costs are already built into the supply curve.

These are basic basic basic principles for how markets operate. High school level stuff. One of the biggest problems in the country, particularly the left, is the dearth of an economics education. It should be a required course in high school.
Click to expand...
It doesn't dispute the specifics I said or the points I made. Nice text book stuff though, finishing with labels & insults is consistent of you too. I hope that always makes you feel better, it would be a bit sad otherwise.
 
whatithink said:
It doesn't dispute the specifics I said or the points I made. Nice text book stuff though, finishing with labels & insults is consistent of you too. I hope that always makes you feel better, it would be a bit sad otherwise.
Click to expand...
1. I never critiqued you. Only your argument. Again espola has shown us that it is ok to demean an argument. It’s the same as when dad4 critiques mathematical ignorance. No difference.
2. you said the price wasn’t about supply and demand. That’s false. It’s always about it. That’s the very definition as to how the price is set. Cost of production is built into the supply curve and how it shifts.
 
Grace T. said:
1. I never critiqued you. Only your argument. Again espola has shown us that it is ok to demean an argument. It’s the same as when dad4 critiques mathematical ignorance. No difference.
2. you said the price wasn’t about supply and demand. That’s false. It’s always about it. That’s the very definition as to how the price is set. Cost of production is built into the supply curve and how it shifts.
Click to expand...
3. Here’s another way to think about it. For every good there’s a little auction taking place. If the cost of production is too high the seller might take it at a loss or he might just stop producing or he might do stuff like cut cost corners. But that has to do with the supply of the good. In the auction the seller is going to take the highest price. He isn’t tacking on a little more for profit…that’s not how the auction works. He just wants the highest price the bidding will produce. What you don’t like is that: a) the seller doesn’t stop at some point and let it go for a lower price (because enough is enough) and b) that as the price goes higher only the well off can keep bidding. But that’s capitalism. Now add a government that tries to help by handing out free money to the bidders…the result remains the same but the price can go higher because of the free money….that’s inflation. Now reproduce this across society. That’s a market.
 
Why people want to rush out and boost (and why certain politicians want you to) before knowing if it is wise is not good policy. This also ties in with mandates.


European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune response and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency. Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season

--

Boosters “can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly,” Marco Cavaleri, the EMA head of biological health threats and vaccines strategy, said at a press briefing on Tuesday. “We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.”

Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says
Copyright © BloombergQuint
 
Desert Hound said:
Why people want to rush out and boost (and why certain politicians want you to) before knowing if it is wise ((or safe for kids)) is not good policy.
Click to expand...
I know why they rush out to get jabbed and a boostered and obey mask rules. For many it's to be able to keep their job and stay out of politics at work and stay in good standing with the boss. Some teenagers get the jab so they can play for YNT or in college. Pros have to get jab or no pro. I have empathy for everyone who got played and lied to by a snake oil salesman who say's he's a Doc.
 
Everyone supporting Democrats/Rhinos/Criminals who are promoting/FORCING this
EVIL being unleashed...especially on this forum better wake up.....

The shits about to get real REAL !!!!!!

Laugh all you want Adam Espola Schiff, but you have been one of the
primary supporters/promoters of this crap.

Get your ducks in a row...!
 
Grace T. said:
It's increasingly looking like if they didn't outright try and suppress the lab leak theory, at a minimum certain experts deliberately ostriched it.
www.spiked-online.com

Why did scientists suppress the lab-leak theory?

In private, they said it was plausible. In public, they called it a conspiracy theory.
www.spiked-online.com www.spiked-online.com
Click to expand...

Stuff like this is all pretty breezy, good for a click and that's about it. In the absence of proof, either scenario remains plausible. Like omicron for instance-did it come from ping-pong tranmission with a zoonotic rodent population? Maybe. Wanna prove it? Gotta go out and identify that population. At any event, it turns out the furin cleavage site, which is typically front and center in the CoV-2 origin controversy, is broadly found in natural coronavirus populations. Again, doesn't prove one model vs another, but does serve to illustrate how nature is a much better genetic engineer than we are.

www.sciencedirect.com

Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses

The spike protein is a focused target of COVID-19, a pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. A 12-nt insertion at S1/S2 in the spike coding sequence yields a f…
www.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com
 
Interesting things on the preprint server. Study out of Geneva, where they decided to compare/contrast an old school virology approach with QPCR assessments of Delta break-though infections. Highlights: 1) No meaningful correlation between viral RNA genome copies as quantified by QPCR and the actual number of infectious copies of CoV-2, ie even QPCR is at best a +/- assay for infection but does not say much about infectivity. 2) For delta, vaxx gives ~7X reduction in infectious viral units compared to unvaxxed, although PCR assessment would imply more similar viral loads. So vaxx is doing some sort of viral clearance not apparent by PCR. 3) Finally, omicron vs delta infections yield similar viral titers, so increased burst size does not explain increased transmission with omicron.

 
A nice study out of the Barclay lab in the UK (along with a flurry of similar studies) shows that while part of the increased transmisibility of omicron is due to immune escape, it also reflects rapid evolution of how omicron infects and replicates in cells. Highlights: 1) Unlike previous Cov-2 variants, omicron does not require TMPRSS2 cleavage of S to initiate infection. Instead it can exploit uptake by endocytosis, and does so in a way that makes this route of cell entry much more efficient. 2) Because of this omicron can infect upper respiratory tracts cells (which, unlike aveolar cells, do not express TMPRSS2) very efficiently. This is likely a big part of why omicron is so much less virulent than delta- it doesn't need to get into lungs to establish a productive infection. 3) Omicron does not produce more viral genomes per infection than delta, but it really gets out of the gate fast, with 10-100X more viral replication in the first 24 hours post infection.

So, wherever omicron came from, a take away is that it was still likely selected due mostly to increased infectivity rather than escape from immune suveillance.


 
Finally, I've been scanning through stuff on "where is Cov-2 going". Most of these are pretty much boiler plate and emphasize an outcome where the current sequence of variants settles down, and CoV-2 becomes another endemic seasonal C-virus. So its just a question of how many variants emerge and have their wave before we get to that point (with any subsequent waves hopefully not being more virulent). That will almost certainly be part of what happens, but it may not be the whole story.

The linked report from the UK is more comprehensive in terms of outcomes, and, unfortunately is somewhat more technical. However it one is interested in a more complete range of scenarios it is worth a look. It was written before omicron and it is in some senses good to see that omicron fits within their likely scenarios. The report emphasizes several points re the view I've been trying to represent regarding long term (ie decades long) cell mediated insurance polices through vaccination.

4. (snip) SARS-CoV-2 undergoes a reverse zoonotic event into an animal reservoir(s). This virus is then on a separate evolutionary trajectory because the virus animals is subject to different selection processes than in humans. The SARS-CoV-2 decedents then re-emerge into humans at a later time....
Likelihood: Realistic possibility.

50. (snip) Zoonotic reservoirs could lead to a large, expanded population of the virus with the potential for future dramatic variant change in the virus through recombination with another coronavirus already prevalent in that animal species....(cue badgers)

52. The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 involves multiple mechanisms, including innate defences, antibodies, T cells, and B cells. While virus-neutralising antibodies are usually against specific sites exposed on the surface of virus proteins (ie the short term humoral immune component), T cells recognise peptide fragments from a wider range of viral proteins that may be conserved between viral variants, reducing the likelihood that immune escape will emerge.

www.gov.uk

Long term evolution of SARS-CoV-2, 26 July 2021

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top