>>I think blaming Big Pharma on Covid/Corona matters should be avoided, even in half joking manner. The tendency to run off with memes and conspirancies proven like child sex slaves in pizza parlors curbed even some of my sarcastic tendencies. If you consider the price of vaccination, developer/manufacturers (YES, reimbursre the uncertain IP research cost!) should be times ten or even more and still be cheaper that continued lockdown or medical cost down the line.
>>I think as soon as free vacc shots are available, cost of COVID treatment should remain with those finding reasons not to vacc themselves - but here this might be seen as trending to "compulsory vacc" which is MUCH worse than giving politicians the option to enforce lockdowns in the nae of "solidarity" even with those deciding against it.
>
>First of all the pharmaceutical industry have been ripping off consumers for decades. Secondly, they have been found guilty of law-breaking time and time again but paying a few million in fines is nothing compared to the staggering profits to be made. They are up to their eyeballs in scandal, the opioid crisis in the US being just the latest.

No claim here that they all are angels. Throw the (check) book at them for ripping off and growing opioid consumer base. But do not close your eyes to things they should be praised for at the moment, my cynic brain parts estimate a recurring Corona vacc need and those early cheap treatments marketing-in-situ...
>
>In respect of the vaccine- these are not fully tested for long-term effects for the simple reason that the long-term has not yet happened. There is a reason why vaccines take many years to get approval, sometimes decades. The mRNA vaccines have never ever been used before so no one can claim what the long-term effects might be. Hopefully none but no one can say for sure.

Not discussing the IMO sham of EU normal approval vs. emergency approval elsewhere. But if a plane is on fire and with high probability of crash taking parachutes not packed and verified yourself makes sense. Current data and science points to less risk of (vacc + chance of Covid infection) vs. chance of Covid infection, esp. for people in last half or third of expected stay here.

>
>To suggest that people who do not take the untested vaccine should pay for their own health care in the event they get C19 is wrong. Since heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US I suggest that anyone drinking alcohol, smoking, eating meat, being overweight, or not exercising at least 3 times per week for 1 hour should pay for their own healthcare in the event of any related diseases. How does that sound for you? Works for me perfectly.

Since correlation there is weaker, I totally sympathyze with health insurance costing less for health conscious individuals. Alcohol and Tobacco already taxed to curb use - in Covid matters I could easily argue avoiding overcrowded hospitals on exponential infection rate, so it is not only chenging/reducing personal riscs. I am NOT argueing dampened transmission risc (even if latest claim on AZ of transmission probability of being dampened substantially was larger than effect envisioned here).

I am not arguing forced vaccination - only not to saddle cost of decision not to vacc on those already addled with the risk of long term effects.

>And no, I'm not anti-vaxx having been vaccinated myself and my wife and my children with all the usual, well-known and well-tested vaccines.

Talking to offspring on Covid vacc I made certain they understand that risc/reward ratio for them is quite different from mine and they are protected on most of the voluntary vectors as well.