imutual.co.uk

macliam wrote: ↑

Fri May 01 2020 12:27pm

Chadwick wrote: ↑

Fri May 01 2020 10:25am

AAAlphaThunder wrote: ↑

Fri May 01 2020 7:33am

Very unlikely - it's not a sustainable model of business.

Do you think they'll not bother working on it if there's no immediate profit?

"Immediate" profits are not the thing..... nor is working on a "cost" basis in the first instance. What Astra-Zeneca want is the license..... then they can add all kinds of intangibles into the "cost base" to create a market for the vaccine worldwide. Once the first flush at "cost" is over, they can go back to their normal bloodsucking ways and extort the maximum for the rest of the lincense period..... after all, this virus is expected to be endemic........

Call me cynical....... or look what big pharma do with cancer treatments.

To be fair to "big pharma" it is very costly to bring a new drug to market that has passed all of the safety criteria and been awarded a license. IMHO, it's only fair they make the money back + profit.

Those cancer patients are alive - thanks to the Astra-Zeneca drug - there is no price too high to pay to save a life.

AAAlphaThunder wrote: ↑

Fri May 01 2020 5:11pm

macliam wrote: ↑

Fri May 01 2020 12:27pm

Chadwick wrote: ↑

Fri May 01 2020 10:25am

Do you think they'll not bother working on it if there's no immediate profit?

"Immediate" profits are not the thing..... nor is working on a "cost" basis in the first instance. What Astra-Zeneca want is the license..... then they can add all kinds of intangibles into the "cost base" to create a market for the vaccine worldwide. Once the first flush at "cost" is over, they can go back to their normal bloodsucking ways and extort the maximum for the rest of the lincense period..... after all, this virus is expected to be endemic........

Call me cynical....... or look what big pharma do with cancer treatments.

To be fair to "big pharma" it is very costly to bring a new drug to market that has passed all of the safety criteria and been awarded a license. IMHO, it's only fair they make the money back + profit.

Those cancer patients are alive - thanks to the Astra-Zeneca drug - there is no price too high to pay to save a life.

I do agree that the cost of successfully bringing to market a new drug is extremely costly. So many drugs fail after seeming promising.

And saving a life is not always what the phenomenally expensive cancer drugs do, they often give the patient months or hopefully a few years extra life. But NICE has to put the cost of say an extra year of life for patient A against the life changing hip replacement operation for X number of patients.

Remember when you demand extra money for the NHS means higher taxes or other things they can cut other things you think are equally important. The Govt. is like a household, they have a budget just like Mr and Mrs Bloggs. If the Bloggs want that new kitchen badly enough they can cut spending elsewhere or take out a loan. If you take out a loan then you have less to spend each month as some of your income is spent on servicing the loan.

Not saying any Government or Council always spends their budget well or always makes the correct decisions but it is never easy for them when they decide how to allocate their funds the following year.

The question is .....when ARE the pubs reopening?

Getting thirsty.

AAAlphaThunder wrote: ↑

Fri May 01 2020 5:11pm

To be fair to "big pharma" it is very costly to bring a new drug to market that has passed all of the safety criteria and been awarded a license. IMHO, it's only fair they make the money back + profit.

Those cancer patients are alive - thanks to the Astra-Zeneca drug - there is no price too high to pay to save a life.

That is complete tosh..... evidenced by the complaints from the USA about the differential pricing charged by drug companies. A drug that here costs tens of pounds to the NHS is charged out at seveal hundred dollars in the land of the free. If this was just a recovery+ pricing model, that would not be the case.... nor is it that the NHS is subsidised, it is just the "lure" of bulk sales and a steady income. The patients in the USA are clearly being soaked.

macliam wrote: ↑

Sat May 02 2020 7:52pm

AAAlphaThunder wrote: ↑

Fri May 01 2020 5:11pm

To be fair to "big pharma" it is very costly to bring a new drug to market that has passed all of the safety criteria and been awarded a license. IMHO, it's only fair they make the money back + profit.

Those cancer patients are alive - thanks to the Astra-Zeneca drug - there is no price too high to pay to save a life.

That is complete tosh..... evidenced by the complaints from the USA about the differential pricing charged by drug companies. A drug that here costs tens of pounds to the NHS is charged out at seveal hundred dollars in the land of the free. If this was just a recovery+ pricing model, that would not be the case.... nor is it that the NHS is subsidised, it is just the "lure" of bulk sales and a steady income. The patients in the USA are clearly being soaked.

They get away with it because of the health insurance in the USA. But it is hit an miss insurance. My neighbour's nephew is married to an American and has lived there for many years. He uses his wife's work related medical insurance. But he needed a knee operation that the insurance would not cover a it was too expensive. So he came back here to get it on the NHS. Apparently the insurance would cover only part of the cost and he was not prepared to pay his part despite easily being able to afford the the cost. Same as when his daughter got pregnant, bought her back here where she had the baby and a Council House until she went back to the USA.

Never worked out how such a lovely lady could have such a nasty sister and an even nastier nephew. My jaw has dropped many times when I hear the things the Mother and Son have done or said.

Whilst Sweden places its bet on the Herd Immunity approach France has decided to extend a "state of health emergency" imposed to fight the coronavirus pandemic for two months until July 24th ...!!!

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2020 ... 2463152530

Being a guinea pig at a time when NO immunity has been proven, even partial or temporary, is not something I'd applaud. The figures to date suggest that Sweden miscalculated badly... and the population are payiing. On the other hand, lockdown will not stop the spread of the virus, just stop it spreading so quickly.... so it could be that sweden are ahead of the game.

However, if we prove to have no ignificant immunity, it's going to be a very costly game.

Certainly "thinking outside of the box" from the Swedes. Only time will tell if Sweden's approach gave them an advantage in the long-run.

Belarus President has a different take on and to fight the virus and wonder who is making the most dangerous statements: him or Trump.

Lukashenko has told his people if they drink more vodka and take saunas they will be fine.

And it is the place to go if you really want to see live football.

Luke_PieStalker wrote: ↑

Sat May 02 2020 3:53pm

The question is .....when ARE the pubs reopening?

Getting thirsty.

Sorry but I think they will be the last places to open back up

Bumpred into Boris Jelly at the Brown Johnstone club last night
He was telling me, though a mouthful of swan vol-au-vent that they were gonna to stsart by opening up places with the least visitors, so Middlesbrough jobcentre and the Riverside stadium on Saturday afternoons.