General / Off-Topic The Covid vaccine must be mandatory ?

Concerning the Pfizer vaccine, the High Authority for Health in France judges that "vaccination against Covid-19 should not be compulsory, neither for the general population, nor for health professionals".

"Indeed, within the framework of a schedule not well known of delivery of vaccine doses, and at this time of the lack of perspective on future vaccines as well as their ability to limit the contagion of the virus, this would not be justified ".

🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 😷
 
Yeah, and there have been a bunch of trials of human ones. But there's why everyone's rightly concerned about this one, because we've tested a whole bunch extensively, and that's, as my Neurologist put it not too long ago when learning which drug I was given in an epilepsy trial I participated in a decade ago, "how we found out they don't work".
I believe I mixed up the vaccines. Thought the Russians were doing mRNA instead of Pfizer. My bad.
They did recombinant RNA in an adenovirus, this is what happens when you're reading multiple tabs. Do you know if any mRNA ones have been used in animals directly?

There are just too many of them in development for me to keep straight. 🤪

Here's a bit about the Pfizer one.
That euphoria is now being diluted by the realization that no currently used vaccine has ever been made from the messenger RNA technology deployed in Pfizer’s shot, which instructs the human body to produce proteins that then develop protective antibodies.
 
Here's a bit about the Pfizer one.

"That euphoria is now being diluted by the realization that no currently used vaccine has ever been made from the messenger RNA technology deployed in Pfizer’s shot, which instructs the human body to produce proteins that then develop protective antibodies"
There are people who are very fond of novelties, new technologies.

Let them test these new features for the benefit of the community. :p

🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 😷
 
If you work from home due to COVID they want to TAX you more, because reasons 🤷
That's not quite what the article states.

Deutsche Bank is arguing that those who voluntarily work from home are saving money that would otherwise contribute to the economy and infrastructure, and are proposing a 5% tax (on employers who use remote labor, with no provisions for these workers to come in in person, or on workers directly that can report in person, but do not) to replace lost revenue and subsidize those who must work in person.

The proposed tax isn't for those working from home because they have been advised to during a pandemic.

 
That's not quite what the article states.

Deutsche Bank is arguing that those who voluntarily work from home are saving money that would otherwise contribute to the economy and infrastructure, and are proposing a 5% tax (on employers who use remote labor, with no provisions for these workers to come in in person, or on workers directly that can report in person, but do not) to replace lost revenue and subsidize those who must work in person.

The proposed tax isn't for those working from home because they have been advised to during a pandemic.

The telework when it is possible at home is the future.

Excellent for the planet and human constraints (daily travel, stress, diseases, pollution, accidents etc ...).

🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 😷
 
That's not quite what the article states.

Deutsche Bank is arguing that those who voluntarily work from home are saving money that would otherwise contribute to the economy and infrastructure, and are proposing a 5% tax (on employers who use remote labor, with no provisions for these workers to come in in person, or on workers directly that can report in person, but do not) to replace lost revenue and subsidize those who must work in person.

The proposed tax isn't for those working from home because they have been advised to during a pandemic.

Ahh C'mon man! here is the deal, they want to TAX people who works from home, period! my answer kick rocks!
 
That's not quite what the article states.

Deutsche Bank is arguing that those who voluntarily work from home are saving money that would otherwise contribute to the economy and infrastructure, and are proposing a 5% tax (on employers who use remote labor, with no provisions for these workers to come in in person, or on workers directly that can report in person, but do not) to replace lost revenue and subsidize those who must work in person.

The proposed tax isn't for those working from home because they have been advised to during a pandemic.

No pandemic profiteers tax then?

Deutsch Bank 3rd Quarter profits. Approximately 309 million euros.
https://www.db.com/ir/en/download/Release_Q3_2020_results.pdf

"..and subsidize those who cannot work from home." Of course they will. OK, Germany handles it people a little differently, to the UK. But if that was told to the UK public, to soften the new tax blow; it would just be spin.
 
Last edited:
No pandemic profiteers tax then?

Deutsch Bank 3rd Quarter profits. Approximately 309 million euros.
https://www.db.com/ir/en/download/Release_Q3_2020_results.pdf

"..and subsidize those who must work from home." Of course they will. OK, Germany handles it people a little differently, to the UK. But if that was told to the UK public, to soften the new tax blow; it would just be spin.
"...those who can't work from home"*

Deutsch Bank wouldn't be a direct beneficiary of this tax. Indeed, they'd likely be footing a proportionally larger bill if something like it were implemented. This would cost them in the short to mid-term.

The Deutsch Bank proposal is what they say it is...a plan to keep "democratic capitalism" (a rather euphemistic phrase) afloat by discouraging a massive progressive shift toward policies that would threaten their long term business goals. They want governments to tax those who can afford to pay, without stepping on the toes of those who can afford to not pay, to try to appease those who cannot afford to pay.

And yes, it a load of spin, but it's more farsighted than you imply and it has little to do with the pandemic itself. COVID-19 has simply made longstanding problems with the current status quo that much more apparent. Those who profit off that status quo will need to address these to continue to profit in the long term. No rich banker wants a labor revolt or socialist revolution.
 
"...those who can't work from home"*

Deutsch Bank wouldn't be a direct beneficiary of this tax. Indeed, they'd likely be footing a proportionally larger bill if something like it were implemented. This would cost them in the short to mid-term.

The Deutsch Bank proposal is what they say it is...a plan to keep "democratic capitalism" (a rather euphemistic phrase) afloat by discouraging a massive progressive shift toward policies that would threaten their long term business goals. They want governments to tax those who can afford to pay, without stepping on the toes of those who can afford to not pay, to try to appease those who cannot afford to pay.

And yes, it a load of spin, but it's more farsighted than you imply and it has little to do with the pandemic itself. COVID-19 has simply made longstanding problems with the current status quo that much more apparent. Those who profit off that status quo will need to address these to continue to profit in the long term. No rich banker wants a labor revolt or socialist revolution.
Corrected. My bad.

If you didn't catch it before, I feel that a one off pandemic profiteers tax, should be issued to help pay for all of this. Most of the population, has lost money during this crises and a few, have vastly profited because of the current situation. Yet, the bill, when it comes, will fall on the masses, those that have already suffered, financially and in many other ways. Major companies are laying off thousands of staff, not because they 'have to', but because it reduces the outgoings and makes for a better bottom line, for their investors.
 
Corrected. My bad.

If you didn't catch it before, I feel that a one off pandemic profiteers tax, should be issued to help pay for all of this. Most of the population, has lost money during this crises and a few, have vastly profited because of the current situation. Yet, the bill, when it comes, will fall on the masses, those that have already suffered, financially and in many other ways. Major companies are laying off thousands of staff, not because they 'have to', but because it reduces the outgoings and makes for a better bottom line, for their investors.
Something like that probably isn't going to fly because the current system--that "democratic capitalism" (i.e. privatized gains, socialized losses, with just enough concessions to a welfare state to keep the peasants from revolting) Deutsch Bank mentions in their concept paper--has been built by, and for the benefit of, those profiteers. Nor do I think a one off tax would correct any underlying issues with the system, even if it could be implemented.

I don't think there is any easy way out of this.
 
Here is an account from a Pfizer trial volunteer.

Looks like some rough side effects for a couple days. That second dose is going to have some dropout.

Edit:
Just want to note the excellence of humanity in the ones that volunteer.
 
Last edited:
Here is an account from a Pfizer trial volunteer.

Looks like some rough side effects for a couple days. That second dose is going to have some dropout.

Edit:
Just want to note the excellence of humanity in the ones that volunteer.
These people have a great dedication to society.

For my part, I don't like the people enough to do the same.

Which makes me say that these people who "sacrifice themselves" for the others, do it with a little egocentrism and seeking gratification for themselves.

🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 😷
 
These people have a great dedication to society.

For my part, I don't like the people enough to do the same.

Which makes me say that these people who "sacrifice themselves" for the others, do it with a little egocentrism and seeking gratification for themselves.

🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 🦠 😷
Volunteers are certainly needed for these things, and we all ultimately benefit from them, but these people are compensated for their time and trials like these aren't particularly risky. Hell, being part of a trial where one only has a 50% chance of getting an unproven vaccine still means they have better odds than the general populace.
 
Top Bottom