The Final Shot

[clo]

20 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

Do you really believe this statement to be true?  Wow.  @clo - do you also believe this as you gave this comment a like?

 

You really do not like to be disagreed with, do you?

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Actually it is a little more complicated than that. Pfizer committed to creating a vaccine because the Trump administration agreed to purchase 100 million doses with an option for 500 million more. So knowing they have a buyer lined up gave them the confidence to pursue the vaccine. No funding came from Operation Warp Speed. Meanwhile the German government did give BioNTech $445 million to develop the RNA technology that Pfizer used to create the vaccine. While it is correct to say Operation Warp Speed did not fund the development of vaccines it did fund the production of vaccines should they pass the trials.

It's actually a little more complicated than that.  Pfizer is only a single company and does not reflect the totality of funded by Warp Speed.  Funds went to both development as well as manufacturing depending on the entity.  

 

Here is a summary of warp speed contracts compiled by Time from last December:

https://time.com/5921360/operation-warp-speed-vaccine-spending/

 

Time also speculated at the time that the US might be a poor performer (no love of the former admin from this news site!) due to limited purchase agreements in getting vaccines to it's population relative to Europe, Canada, UK, Australia and Chile: 

A Bloomberg analysis of 80 agreements between vaccine manufacturers and governments found that the U.S. ranked 32nd in per-capita vaccine reservations. (Canada, the U.K. and Australia are at the top of the list, followed by 27 European Union countries and Chile.) However, after that analysis, and on the same day that the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine, the U.S. government purchased 100 million doses from Moderna, doubling its initial commitment from August and bringing the Moderna total up to 200 million doses. (Moderna’s vaccine, like Pfizer’s, requires two doses per person.)

 

Let's look at the data.  It seems the US is doing OK given the diversity and size of the country.  Fortunately Australia has done a great job controlling the disease and doesn't have the same sense of urgency in obtaining the vaccine!

 

My personal favorite is Chile.  What a great effort by the Chileans!

[SelectSys]

Just now, clo said:

You really do not like to be disagreed with, do you?

I am ok with disagreement.  I am even more happy if someone provides good information and teaches me something new - even if it causes me to realize I was previously in error.

 

The statement by the other poster just seemed a bit outlandish to me.

[ldubs]

22 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

 

 

Do you really believe this statement to be true?  Wow.  @clo - do you also believe this as you gave this comment a like?

 

Here are some stories for you to consider-

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-operation-warp-speed-worked-11612222129

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/proud-vaccine-success-warp-speed-s-ex-science-head-talks-politics-presidents-and-future

 

Even Politico which is definitely left leaning acknowledges the success of vaccine development!

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/17/crash-landing-of-operation-warp-speed-459892

“Operation Warp Speed” — occupies a peculiar place in the annals of the administration’s ill-fated response to Covid-19: In many ways, it was successful, living up to the highest expectations of its architects. The Trump administration did help deliver a pair of working vaccines in 2020, with more shots on the way.

 

Sometimes the accepted slogan is more important than facts or even beliefs.   

[ilikeanswers]

26 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

It's actually a little more complicated than that.  Pfizer is only a single company and does not reflect the totality of funded by Warp Speed.  Funds went to both development as well as manufacturing depending on the entity.  

 

Here is a summary of warp speed contracts compiled by Time from last December:

https://time.com/5921360/operation-warp-speed-vaccine-spending/

 

I don't understand why there is a category for Development then Development/Manufacturing and one for Manufacturing? How can you separate the cost if there is a category combining the two? 

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I don't understand why there is a category for Development then Development/Manufacturing and one for Manufacturing? How can you separate the cost if there is a category combining the two? 

I found that somewhat confusing as well as the table wasn't defined well with a legend.  Perhaps it reflects a single contract covering both items?   Regardless the passage below seems relevant to the key point regarding funding of companies by the Warp Speed project team:

 

"The federal government has invested in a portfolio of six promising vaccine candidates through its Operation Warp Speed program, which is aiming to begin delivery of 300 million vaccine doses by next month. Moreover, there was no guarantee that the Pfizer vaccine, which is based on an experimental mRNA technique, would be approved, or that it would be as effective as studies have shown that it is.

 

Other pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Moderna (whose vaccine is currently being evaluated for FDA emergency use authorization) all received U.S. government money for vaccine development and entered into approval-based acquisition agreements like Pfizer’s. Neither Pfizer nor BioNTech took funds from the government to develop its vaccine, only to manufacture and distribute it when and if approved."

[ilikeanswers]

31 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 Neither Pfizer nor BioNTech took funds from the government to develop its vaccine, only to manufacture and distribute it when and if approved."

 

They should say not funds from the USA government. Makes it sound as if the Pfizer BioNTech was fully privately funded🙄. I know it is picky but in this world of Covid conspiracy theorists they will jump on every tiny sentence😜. Journalists really can't leave anything for inference. 

[Ride-The-Waves]

11 hours ago, SelectSys said:

 

 

 

Well, in CA a drivers license or utility bill aren't required to get a vaccine.  You have to realize that many of our local undocumented residents simply don't have local IDs or utility services.   You can get a DL as an undocumented, but they still have to pass the drivers test.  As such, tons of people are driving without valid licenses.

 

Not sure of the specific policies in Mexico, but they are also having more undocumented people living in the country.  This includes people from Africa, Central America and a large number of people from the US.  My plan would be to use a family member's address in Tijuana and see what happens.

 

Do you really believe this statement to be true?  Wow.  @clo - do you also believe this as you gave this comment a like?

 

Here are some stories for you to consider-

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-operation-warp-speed-worked-11612222129

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/proud-vaccine-success-warp-speed-s-ex-science-head-talks-politics-presidents-and-future

 

Even Politico which is definitely left leaning acknowledges the success of vaccine development!

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/17/crash-landing-of-operation-warp-speed-459892

“Operation Warp Speed” — occupies a peculiar place in the annals of the administration’s ill-fated response to Covid-19: In many ways, it was successful, living up to the highest expectations of its architects. The Trump administration did help deliver a pair of working vaccines in 2020, with more shots on the way.

Racism and bigotry on CC!  Who would have guessed?

 

[SelectSys]

11 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

They should say not funds from the USA government.

Many US news stories only cover from an internal perspective.  Same in education.  It's why many in my homeland have such a distorted view of the world and even their own country.

 

11 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

Journalists really can't leave anything for inference. 

Inference, innuendo and opinion seem to be hallmarks of modern journalism!

 

[lenquixote66]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

Many US news stories only cover from an internal perspective.  Same in education.  It's why many in my homeland have such a distorted view of the world and even their own country.

 

Inference, innuendo and opinion seem to be hallmarks of modern journalism!

 

Define modern.

 

I was a Journalist in an earlier life.

[SelectSys]

3 hours ago, lenquixote66 said:

Define modern.

 

I was a Journalist in an earlier life.

 

I will provide you with my opinion which is somewhat different than a definition.  I guess the most noticeable difference is what I perceive to be the evolution of fact-based journalism to advocacy-based journalism.  It seems that journalists of all stripes seem to be more interested in pushing a narrative rather than simply telling the story.  The front page and editorial page seem merged to me.  It's not that all the facts are missing from stories, it just seems that they are carefully curated and managed to support a position.

 

The one thing that's not clear to me if today's journalism is really all that new?  Propaganda and journalism seem closely related to me.  I would expect the origins of journalism are based more in propaganda rather than objective truth as kings and churches controlled the flow of information to their subjects and members.  I remember from high school that the pamphleteers who helped incite the American revolution certainly took an advocacy role in delivering a message shaped to a particular perspective.  Similarly politicians/publishers like William Randolph Hearst had no problem shaping stories to fit his preferred narrative.  I assume Jeff Bezos is at least tempted to put his thumb on the scales at the Washington Post.

 

The image of journalism that I had growing up was that it was fact-based and unbiased.  Whether this pure journalism ever existed doesn't matter as I believed it and devoured the product.  I remember waiting to read the newspaper every afternoon and watch the nightly national news.  This is no longer the case and I have dropped all subscriptions and services to major news outlets with the last being a 41 year subscription to the "Economist."

 

Local news where I live remains readable and watchable.  The cable "news" channels to me are unwatchable whether it was the Cuomo Brothers Comedy Hour or Sean Hannity doing his schtick.  It's simply all advocacy all the time.  I think eventually things will turn around and new sources of media will fill the void left by traditional media.

 

I am curious to know your opinion regarding the evolution of journalism and if you think anything has changed.

 

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

 

 

The cable "news" channels to me are unwatchable . . . 

 

I am curious to know your opinion regarding the evolution of journalism and if you think anything has changed.

 

 

News should be facts with perhaps points and counterpoints.  Those cable channels are not news.  They are talk shows aimed at specific audiences.    Shoot, some people shape their beliefs based on comedy central.    

 

Maybe I'm too harsh.  I also hope Lenny circles back around with his opinions on this.   

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

 

I will provide you with my opinion which is somewhat different than a definition.  I guess the most noticeable difference is what I perceive to be the evolution of fact-based journalism to advocacy-based journalism.  It seems that journalists of all stripes seem to be more interested in pushing a narrative rather than simply telling the story.  The front page and editorial page seem merged to me.  It's not that all the facts are missing from stories, it just seems that they are carefully curated and managed to support a position.

 

The one thing that's not clear to me if today's journalism is really all that new?  Propaganda and journalism seem closely related to me.  I would expect the origins of journalism are based more in propaganda rather than objective truth as kings and churches controlled the flow of information to their subjects and members.  I remember from high school that the pamphleteers who helped incite the American revolution certainly took an advocacy role in delivering a message shaped to a particular perspective.  Similarly politicians/publishers like William Randolph Hearst had no problem shaping stories to fit his preferred narrative.  I assume Jeff Bezos is at least tempted to put his thumb on the scales at the Washington Post.

 

The image of journalism that I had growing up was that it was fact-based and unbiased.  Whether this pure journalism ever existed doesn't matter as I believed it and devoured the product.  I remember waiting to read the newspaper every afternoon and watch the nightly national news.  This is no longer the case and I have dropped all subscriptions and services to major news outlets with the last being a 41 year subscription to the "Economist."

 

Local news where I live remains readable and watchable.  The cable "news" channels to me are unwatchable whether it was the Cuomo Brothers Comedy Hour or Sean Hannity doing his schtick.  It's simply all advocacy all the time.  I think eventually things will turn around and new sources of media will fill the void left by traditional media.

 

I am curious to know your opinion regarding the evolution of journalism and if you think anything has changed.

 

I saw a documentary a few years back about the history of journalism in USA and I think it was less fact base in the past than it is now😳. The articles from the 1800s to the early 20th century was pretty bad. There were newspapers that mounted campaigns against people and the bigotry that came through was no better than trolls on the internet. You could really see the evolution from this to cable news. For all the problems I would say journalism has improved though there does seem to be a backward slide to the early days of journalism as their financial model falls apart on the other hand I have found many smaller sites that do a great journalism and give detailed explanations on events far better than mainstream media. So maybe it is all a bit of give and take.

 

Personally I'm not a believer in objective journalism. I don't think any writer can be truly objective, it is the reader who I think needs to be more open minded. Too many people will read an article see one thing they disagree with and then that journalist becomes enemy number 1. I think this is why journalism gets dumbed down because if you look in depth into any thing it becomes contradictory and won't fit into a neatly defined boxes and with readers seeking echo chambers who is willing to inflame them with complicated explanations🙄. 

[cruisemom42]

13 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

Personally I'm not a believer in objective journalism. I don't think any writer can be truly objective, it is the reader who I think needs to be more open minded. Too many people will read an article see one thing they disagree with and then that journalist becomes enemy number 1. I think this is why journalism gets dumbed down because if you look in depth into any thing it becomes contradictory and won't fit into a neatly defined boxes and with readers seeking echo chambers who is willing to inflame them with complicated explanations🙄. 

 

I mostly agree with this. Journalism has always had an agenda of one sort or another (journalist here, by the way...). That's not to say that there are not individuals and a few institutions that do their best to provide facts and at least a decent effort at presenting both sides of a story. But bias is often unconscious and "unbiased" reporting also tends not to be very popular, despite people constantly saying that they want it -- they do not support it.

 

I think in the 1950s and early 1960s in the US there was a narrative that sold news (especially network TV news with their "serious" anchors) and certain very staid and traditional newspapers as being just the facts -- which is perhaps true, but also not true in the sense that we all select certain "facts" that we want to highlight and other "facts" that are just as true but don't fit into our narrative are ignored.

 

As an armchair historian, I also cannot resist adding that putting "spin" on a story is one of the oldest games in the book. Just look at the smear campaign (well researched) that Augustus Caesar waged against Marc Antony and Cleopatra to justify his power grab of the entire Roman empire. There are scads of contemporary accounts of Augustus painting Antony as having "gone rogue" no longer a "true Roman" and "unmanned" by his love for that Eastern you-know-what, Cleopatra. 

 

 

 

 

[lenquixote66]

3 hours ago, SelectSys said:

 

I will provide you with my opinion which is somewhat different than a definition.  I guess the most noticeable difference is what I perceive to be the evolution of fact-based journalism to advocacy-based journalism.  It seems that journalists of all stripes seem to be more interested in pushing a narrative rather than simply telling the story.  The front page and editorial page seem merged to me.  It's not that all the facts are missing from stories, it just seems that they are carefully curated and managed to support a position.

 

The one thing that's not clear to me if today's journalism is really all that new?  Propaganda and journalism seem closely related to me.  I would expect the origins of journalism are based more in propaganda rather than objective truth as kings and churches controlled the flow of information to their subjects and members.  I remember from high school that the pamphleteers who helped incite the American revolution certainly took an advocacy role in delivering a message shaped to a particular perspective.  Similarly politicians/publishers like William Randolph Hearst had no problem shaping stories to fit his preferred narrative.  I assume Jeff Bezos is at least tempted to put his thumb on the scales at the Washington Post.

 

The image of journalism that I had growing up was that it was fact-based and unbiased.  Whether this pure journalism ever existed doesn't matter as I believed it and devoured the product.  I remember waiting to read the newspaper every afternoon and watch the nightly national news.  This is no longer the case and I have dropped all subscriptions and services to major news outlets with the last being a 41 year subscription to the "Economist."

 

Local news where I live remains readable and watchable.  The cable "news" channels to me are unwatchable whether it was the Cuomo Brothers Comedy Hour or Sean Hannity doing his schtick.  It's simply all advocacy all the time.  I think eventually things will turn around and new sources of media will fill the void left by traditional media.

 

I am curious to know your opinion regarding the evolution of journalism and if you think anything has changed.

 

In my opinion print journalism is passé.I grew up in Brooklyn,NY.At one time there were 7 daily newspapers.Currently there are 3.I do not know anyone living in NYC who buys a newspaper daily.When I moved to the town I live in currently there were 2 weekly papers that were sold either in kiosks or by subscription.Now there is only 1 and by subscription only.

They literally give out free papers to residents be cause very few people buy them.The majority of the news is on the internet.One of my closest s friends from high school publishes an internet blog read in 72 countries.

He writes about politics,entertainment and history.I read the blog every week.I also read other on line news.

[ldubs]

6 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I saw a documentary a few years back about the history of journalism in USA and I think it was less fact base in the past than it is now😳. The articles from the 1800s to the early 20th century was pretty bad. There were newspapers that mounted campaigns against people and the bigotry that came through was no better than trolls on the internet. You could really see the evolution from this to cable news. For all the problems I would say journalism has improved though there does seem to be a backward slide to the early days of journalism as their financial model falls apart on the other hand I have found many smaller sites that do a great journalism and give detailed explanations on events far better than mainstream media. So maybe it is all a bit of give and take.

 

Personally I'm not a believer in objective journalism. I don't think any writer can be truly objective, it is the reader who I think needs to be more open minded. Too many people will read an article see one thing they disagree with and then that journalist becomes enemy number 1. I think this is why journalism gets dumbed down because if you look in depth into any thing it becomes contradictory and won't fit into a neatly defined boxes and with readers seeking echo chambers who is willing to inflame them with complicated explanations🙄. 

 

That last part of what you say -- kind of saying that the news is giving their target audience what they want to hear.  I think there is too much of that.    

 

 

[ilikeanswers]

20 minutes ago, ldubs said:

That last part of what you say -- kind of saying that the news is giving their target audience what they want to hear.  I think there is too much of that.    

 

But I think the problem comes from the audience. You can't reach somone if they hear one thing they don't like and switch off so inevitably news will give them what they want after all journalists have to get paid somehow. I personally think you need to instill in children to be critical thinkers and make it a habit to read through everything and not just skim to the bits they like as if they are scrolling a Facebook feed🙄. 

[ldubs]

9 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

But I think the problem comes from the audience. You can't reach somone if they hear one thing they don't like and switch off so inevitably news will give them what they want after all journalists have to get paid somehow. I personally think you need to instill in children to be critical thinkers and make it a habit to read through everything and not just skim to the bits they like as if they are scrolling a Facebook feed🙄. 

 

Maybe but the result is the same.  

 

Yeah, decisions should not be based on something read in FB.   Well, maybe except the secret of how to lose 55 lbs in two weeks. 😁

[lenquixote66]

1 hour ago, ldubs said:

 

Maybe but the result is the same.  

 

Yeah, decisions should not be based on something read in FB.   Well, maybe except the secret of how to lose 55 lbs in two weeks. 😁

I once lost 66 pounds in 5 weeks.

[ldubs]

Just now, lenquixote66 said:

I once lost 66 pounds in 5 weeks.

 

Wow.  On purpose?  

[lenquixote66]

1 minute ago, ldubs said:

 

Wow.  On purpose?  

I was on a diet and did not intend to lose that much .

[ldubs]

1 minute ago, lenquixote66 said:

I was on a diet and did not intend to lose that much .

 

I have to say you have more will power than me.  I don't think I could stick to a diet that would have that impact.  

 

I've been sidelined for a couple weeks due to a minor surgery.  Just getting back on my feet so to say.  So, now I'm logging off and hitting the treadmill.  Need to regain some "windage".  Haha.   

[lenquixote66]

2 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

I have to say you have more will power than me.  I don't think I could stick to a diet that would have that impact.  

 

I've been sidelined for a couple weeks due to a minor surgery.  Just getting back on my feet so to say.  So, now I'm logging off and hitting the treadmill.  Need to regain some "windage".  Haha.   

Feel better soon.

On my wedding day I weighed 239 pounds,all fat,no muscle.I made up my mind to lose 40 pounds. I was working for a company that had a Nurse on staff.She chose a diet for me but I overdid it .When I came to work weighing 173 pounds the nurse said you have to get back to normal eating . I have before and after pictures and made up my mind never to be fat again.I spent 25 years working for a company that was way ahead of its time.They had an exercise room and encouraged the workers to exercise.

If they chose to do that the morning and afternoon breaks were extended from 15 to 30 minutes.

[cruisemom42]

Please can we not let this veer off topic into a discussion of weight loss?

[Ride-The-Waves]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

Please can we not let this veer off topic into a discussion of weight loss?

Wow.  You want to go off topic from the off-topic discussion of slanted journalism back to returning to cruising?  What do you think this is, a website about cruising?