The economist Garett Jones recently opined that Trump’s scuttled hopes to release a COVID-19 vaccine a few weeks earlier “likely would have saved at least 100,000 American lives.”
Why the fuck are ECONOMISTS commenting on drug viability and safety testing?
Are they having such a hard time finding a virologist who wants to publicly admit that they want less safety testing that they have turned to trusting economists on issues they have zero education and knowledge about?
Economics has a lot of math in a good program so there’s a chance he could’ve been involved in some kind of like disease modeling. There’s probably zero chance they wouldn’t have worked it into the article of that was the case though
Former college econ major here. Can confirm. At its core, economics is a study of human interactions, with the emphasis on trade. As long as there is decent data, economists could theorize a model for all kinds of things and try to find relationships (or in this case, extrapolate a bit). Of course, since we're still under the narrative that 5 trillion people actually died OF COVID, the "lives saved" projection is going to be a touch high.
Its especially egregious since there's ample evidence (compiled by Steve Sailer and others) that Pfizer colluded with democrats and went AGAINST Trump to hold back the vaccine in order to hurt his election. Not that I approve of the vaccine; Trump's poor handling of covid was ultimately his undoing, and while the democrats sabotaged him at every turn he still believes the vaxx was this great achievement.
Part of the backlash against the craziest anti-vaccine rhetoric ("vaccines cause EVERY mental disorder/allergies/nickelback!") is the ridiculous pro-vaccine rhetoric that was promoted to counter it. Vaccines are now the ONLY source of disease prevention, with ZERO side effects and if you don't agree you are a deranged lunatic who believes in witch doctors (but no offense to actual Africans who believe in witch doctors and eat penises to cure AIDS or whatever.).
So in an alternate timeline where they didn't test the vaccine at all, and it killed billions of people, is the Atlantic happy that there was no delay?
Why the fuck are ECONOMISTS commenting on drug viability and safety testing?
Are they having such a hard time finding a virologist who wants to publicly admit that they want less safety testing that they have turned to trusting economists on issues they have zero education and knowledge about?
I didn't even catch that. How strange. It's almost like they had a conclusion they wanted to bring, but couldn't find anyone credible to say it.
As you said - nobody in that field would publicly admit that they want less safety testing.
Why does Lauren Jobs want less? Probably something Melinda asked her to push for.
Economics has a lot of math in a good program so there’s a chance he could’ve been involved in some kind of like disease modeling. There’s probably zero chance they wouldn’t have worked it into the article of that was the case though
Former college econ major here. Can confirm. At its core, economics is a study of human interactions, with the emphasis on trade. As long as there is decent data, economists could theorize a model for all kinds of things and try to find relationships (or in this case, extrapolate a bit). Of course, since we're still under the narrative that 5 trillion people actually died OF COVID, the "lives saved" projection is going to be a touch high.
Its especially egregious since there's ample evidence (compiled by Steve Sailer and others) that Pfizer colluded with democrats and went AGAINST Trump to hold back the vaccine in order to hurt his election. Not that I approve of the vaccine; Trump's poor handling of covid was ultimately his undoing, and while the democrats sabotaged him at every turn he still believes the vaxx was this great achievement.
I mean, that and the stolen election.
Here's an idea: let's test every new drug on journos first.
Feminists too and I'll back it.
And Congress.
You're just repeating what I said.
Part of the backlash against the craziest anti-vaccine rhetoric ("vaccines cause EVERY mental disorder/allergies/nickelback!") is the ridiculous pro-vaccine rhetoric that was promoted to counter it. Vaccines are now the ONLY source of disease prevention, with ZERO side effects and if you don't agree you are a deranged lunatic who believes in witch doctors (but no offense to actual Africans who believe in witch doctors and eat penises to cure AIDS or whatever.).
All part of the new science religion.
I want Donald Trump to tell them that rat poison is terrible for the digestive tract.
The Atlantic is directly attacking the Vicar of Science.
Owned by Steve Jobs' ex-wife, a known feminist.
I used to have an archive link about the bid, but I lost it.
Her name is Laurene Powell Jobs. And she also happens to be close with Jeffery Epstein cohort Ghislaine Maxwell.
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/re4o8n/ghislane_maxwell_enjoying_some_summer_time_with/
Wayback Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20211211174039/https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/re4o8n/ghislane_maxwell_enjoying_some_summer_time_with/
Archive Today: https://archive.fo/n52Dx
Wait, that's not Hillary on the left? I always thought it was.
I guess I'll add this to my list of reasons I fucking hate The Atlantic : The owner is a pedophile who probably raped and killed many little boys.
So in an alternate timeline where they didn't test the vaccine at all, and it killed billions of people, is the Atlantic happy that there was no delay?
Claiming this "safe and effective vaccine" needs testing for safety or efficacy is heresy to these clowns.
They agree with me! All boosters should be shot directly into the sternocleidomastoid (neck).