Cruise without a vaccine

[Hlitner]

On 11/12/2020 at 6:44 PM, broberts said:

 

The stock market is zero sum.

This a bit off topic, but I think you Statement makes zero sense :).  If by zero sum you mean that for every winner there is a loser that is actually far from the truth.  Investing (as opposed to speculating) involves various strategies, some complex and some quite simple.  But it is anything but zero sum.   But if you want a very simplistic explanation, in a market that trends upwards (sometimes for multiple years) everyone can win.  If a market is trending down, there could be many losers but even selling in a downward market can be very profitable.  

 

In the case of some key pharmacy corp executives (especially at Pfizer and Moderna) the market has been win win win.  Just release a statement that your vaccine is doing well in trials, the value of your stockholdings immediately go up...and you sell for a huge profit (this is exactly what has been happening).  In such a situation there is no offset loser in the market.

 

Hank

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 11/13/2020 at 2:32 PM, cruising cockroach said:

 

Martha Stewart had a U.S. broker's licence so she would have had to pass SEC exams, which would have dealt with insider trading.  What's more, she was a director on the board of the New York Stock Exchange at the time she committed the offence.  Yep, unsophisticated.

 

Her "offense" wasn't even insider trading.  And even if it had been this is completely different than company insiders doing inside trading, since she wasn't even part of that company.  Martha just fell into a government 'perjury' trap. 

I'm an empirical guy and I see company executive insiders getting far richer than any reasonable performance value would justify.  So the insider 'rules' don't seem to be effective.  Hardly surprising, since the 'rules' that permit it were written by and lobbied for by the very people they enrich.

[evandbob]

20 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Her "offense" wasn't even insider trading.  And even if it had been this is completely different than company insiders doing inside trading, since she wasn't even part of that company.  Martha just fell into a government 'perjury' trap. 

I'm an empirical guy and I see company executive insiders getting far richer than any reasonable performance value would justify.  So the insider 'rules' don't seem to be effective.  Hardly surprising, since the 'rules' that permit it were written by and lobbied for by the very people they enrich.

The attitude and rules have been minimized in the last 4 years.   Martha would not have even been charged in the outgoing administration.

[SelectSys]

On 11/12/2020 at 5:00 PM, broberts said:

 

I was suggesting that " ... intelligently maximizing one’s own interest without damaging others ..." is an oxymoron when it comes to the stock market.

 

WOW - this is an incredible statement!  Non coercive transactions between willing parties are not damaging.  Each side of the transaction is getting something in return.  Informed buying of a stock (or derivative is no different than buying a car, insurance, food, etc...

 

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

 

WOW - this is an incredible statement!  Non coercive transactions between willing parties are not damaging.  Each side of the transaction is getting something in return.  Informed buying of a stock (or derivative is no different than buying a car, insurance, food, etc...

 

Exactly.  In many ways the stock market is nearly a perfect market in that you have have buyers, sellers, and the price is determined by the market place.  Nobody is forced to make a sale/buy.  The market has various facets including individual investors, programmed traders, speculators, investors, etc.  Another aspect the stock market is that it gives companies access to capital which allows them to expand their business, create jobs, share the wealth with investors, etc.  Many here on CC have done quite well (over many years) with investments in CCL and RCI.   My return on those two stocks has been terrific....especially when I factor in the many thousands we have received in On Board Credits which has been icing on the cake of owning those stocks.  The recent stock plunge is simply what the market is all about (risk vs reward) and not such a big deal for long term investors..

 

Speaking of investments, our original purchase of 100 shares of CCL cost us less then $700 back in the 80s.  That investment got us over $11,000 in On Board Credits, stock dividends, and even now at its awful COVID pricing it is worth about 3 times what we paid.  In terms of Return on Investment (ROI) it has been a stellar performer :).  I have always been surprised at the number of frequent cruisers we have met who never thought about buying stock to get those stockholder on board credits.

 

Hank

[Hlitner]

On 11/11/2020 at 11:27 PM, broberts said:

 

Sure some companies are not going to recoup their investments. But the reason almost 100 companies jumped into the hunt for covid-19 vaccines was the potential profit. Probably the largest drug sale ever.

 

At $15 a dose that Moderna is getting for 100 million US doses The company would have to be run by monkeys to lose money on the project.

Interesting.  So why don't you simply go down in your basement and create a vaccine (if a monkey can do it certainly so can you).  What you fail to understand is that there is amazing risk in developing drugs/vaccines.  The overwhelming majority of projects result in failure.  In fact, Moderna has NEVER successfully brought any drug to market in its 10 year history.  The company was founded by scientists who gambled on a new type of drug technology and it has been a pretty long road.  Now, all the principles will make a fortune (even before having any drug/vaccine approved) because of the stock activity.  While I have some issues with how pharm companies can simply "talk up" their stock, I also give them a lot of credit for being pioneers willing to risk a lot for a potential payoff.  Many fail...but it does appear that Moderna may have found their golden goose.  

 

What makes our system work is that some folks are willing to take risk for potential profit.  Without risk takers we would likely still be in the stone age.   I should add that without risk takers there would be no cruise ships, no airplanes, no world travel, etc.  That car you drive would not exist and you would be feeding your horse.    Most who criticize entrepreneurs are simply folks who do not have the guts or smarts to do it themselves.   

 

Hank

[broberts]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

Interesting.  So why don't you simply go down in your basement and create a vaccine (if a monkey can do it certainly so can you).  What you fail to understand is that there is amazing risk in developing drugs/vaccines.  The overwhelming majority of projects result in failure.  In fact, Moderna has NEVER successfully brought any drug to market in its 10 year history.  The company was founded by scientists who gambled on a new type of drug technology and it has been a pretty long road.  Now, all the principles will make a fortune (even before having any drug/vaccine approved) because of the stock activity.  While I have some issues with how pharm companies can simply "talk up" their stock, I also give them a lot of credit for being pioneers willing to risk a lot for a potential payoff.  Many fail...but it does appear that Moderna may have found their golden goose.  

 

What makes our system work is that some folks are willing to take risk for potential profit.  Without risk takers we would likely still be in the stone age.   I should add that without risk takers there would be no cruise ships, no airplanes, no world travel, etc.  That car you drive would not exist and you would be feeding your horse.    Most who criticize entrepreneurs are simply folks who do not have the guts or smarts to do it themselves.   

 

Hank

 

I was responding to a comment that companies were not going to profit from developing a vacine. That the only reason a company would undertake such an unprofitable endeavour was prestige. 

 

I simply pointed out the fallacy of such an argument. So I don't understand your generally negative comment on my post. A post that agreed with your contention that profit is the essential element in driving advancements in pharma and all other tech.

 

Not sure how my post gave you the idea that I thought vaccine development was trivial or that anyone could do it. I'm not even sure I understand how mRNA works, so I surely don't think using the tech is trivial.

[evandbob]

Getting back to the question of the OP re vax:  Today, Dr Fauci stated that we will need 80 to 85% of Americans to get vaccinated before we gain control of the virus and begin to mitigate its effects.  He's optimistic about the 2 vaccines that are being developed but with many people anti vax to begin with, others who will take a wait and see approach, and folks who still believe COVID is a hoax, is his target % realistic?

 

If we don't get there, the USA (and cruise ships) may remain an unsafe environment .  

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, evandbob said:

Getting back to the question of the OP re vax:  Today, Dr Fauci stated that we will need 80 to 85% of Americans to get vaccinated before we gain control of the virus and begin to mitigate its effects.  He's optimistic about the 2 vaccines that are being developed but with many people anti vax to begin with, others who will take a wait and see approach, and folks who still believe COVID is a hoax, is his target % realistic?

 

If we don't get there, the USA (and cruise ships) may remain an unsafe environment .  

Perhaps if enough of the people who do still not think COVID is real will die of it, the situation may improve.

[SelectSys]

6 hours ago, evandbob said:

Getting back to the question of the OP re vax:  Today, Dr Fauci stated that we will need 80 to 85% of Americans to get vaccinated before we gain control of the virus and begin to mitigate its effects.  He's optimistic about the 2 vaccines that are being developed but with many people anti vax to begin with, others who will take a wait and see approach, and folks who still believe COVID is a hoax, is his target % realistic?

 

If we don't get there, the USA (and cruise ships) may remain an unsafe environment .  

 

I am confused by what will make a material impact in terms of vaccination and your post reminded me of it again.  If I get a vaccination, don't I become reasonably safe and have made a small dent in mitigating the virus effects?  Assume maybe a vaccine is 90% effective, then don't I only have a 10% chance of being infected by the virus as opposed to a 100% vulnerability?  Multiple my 90% immunity  millions of times over and the impact should be significant.  If there were no benefits until an 85% vaccination rate was achieved, why prioritize health care workers and first responders?

 

As a thought exercise, assume 1/2 of Americans get vaccinated, then  about 175 million rather than 350 million have 90% immunity.  It makes no sense that we wouldn't be better off if 175 * .9 = 157 million weren't getting sick rather than having the whole 350 million people in the US vulnerable - excluding those previously sick.  Case loads with half the population immunized would most certainly be lower, resource demands would be lower, etc.  Perhaps in your reference Dr Fauci was referring to control as completely or nearly completely eliminating the virus entirely?

 

To your other point, I think that very few people think COVID is a hoax but maybe I am wrong. They may make news because it makes for a good story, but to I would bet the numbers really aren't all that high.  I looked on line and couldn't find anything definitive.

 

The story I saw was that 35% of Americans are going to take a wait and see look at the vaccine. This indicates that many more will eventually get the immunization.  I think the herd mentality will take over and just about everyone will eventually rush in.  Of course in California, our governor wants to run a separate process which may delay vaccine availability here.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by SelectSys

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Perhaps if enough of the people who do still not think COVID is real will die of it, the situation may improve.

That's rather cynical. What if they get it, survive, and then become mass spreaders.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

That's rather cynical. What if they get it, survive, and then become mass spreaders.

On the contrary: it is idealistic to think that the people who contribute to the spread of COVID will die first;  and cynical to think that the innocent will die while the malignant survive.  

[navybankerteacher]

10 hours ago, SelectSys said:

 

...

 

To your other point, I think that very few people think COVID is a hoax but maybe I am wrong. They may make news because it makes for a good story, but to I would bet the numbers really aren't all that high.  I looked on line and couldn't find anything definitive.

 

...

 

 

It may be that “...very few people think COVID is a hoax...” but there still are very many who do not wear masks and who get together in large groups.  I guess many of them must be betting on their own superior natural resistance.  

 

Either way, whatever their attitude, they are contributing to the spread.

[Mary229]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

That's rather cynical. What if they get it, survive, and then become mass spreaders.

Not only cynical, a weeeeeee bit hateful.  So we are supposed to stay home (which I have no problem with personally) to save lives but on the other hand hope others die.  Come on, please take that back @navybankerteacher   You are usually a voice of reason.  You must have had a bad moment.

[sverigecruiser]

25 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

Not only cynical, a weeeeeee bit hateful.  So we are supposed to stay home (which I have no problem with personally) to save lives but on the other hand hope others die.  Come on, please take that back @navybankerteacher   You are usually a voice of reason.  You must have had a bad moment.

 

Sometimes navybankerteacher is a voice of reason and sometimes not, I think.

 

In this case I agree with navybankerteacher. Maybe it will improve the situation if people who don't take it serious die. That doesn't mean that we want people to die. 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Sometimes navybankerteacher is a voice of reason and sometimes not, I think.

 

In this case I agree with navybankerteacher. Maybe it will improve the situation if people who don't take it serious die. That doesn't mean that we want people to die. 

The problem with that is they probably will spread it to others before they die. They could even be like the drunk driver who survives the crash but all the others die.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Sometimes navybankerteacher is a voice of reason and sometimes not, I think.

 

In this case I agree with navybankerteacher. Maybe it will improve the situation if people who don't take it serious die. That doesn't mean that we want people to die. 

Nobody wants people to die - but if some are going to, why wouldn’t it be better if it were people who would spread it to others rather than those who behaved responsibly?

[donaldsc]

15 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Perhaps if enough of the people who do still not think COVID is real will die of it, the situation may improve.

 

If they die - no great loss.  It just improves the gene pool.  That is Darwin at work.

 

DON

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Sometimes navybankerteacher is a voice of reason and sometimes not, I think.

 

In this case I agree with navybankerteacher. Maybe it will improve the situation if people who don't take it serious die. That doesn't mean that we want people to die. 

If only life/death were that simple.  When I worked for PA Medical Assistance (we had about 1.2 million clients) the flu was a major financial problem.  With fewer then 50% getting flu shots (even thought they were free) we paid out a lot of money to treat folks with the flu.  The overwhelming majority who were hospitalized (at great expense) with the flu had not gotten flu shots.  Those anit-vaxers cost the taxpayers a lot of money (the flu vaccine not only prevents many cases but also reduces the severity of cases of those who do get the flu).   Most insurance companies have finally (it took too long) realized that vaccines are an excellent investment and save those insurance companies a lot of money.  So more and more insurers are paying for most vaccines or making it very affordable.  

 

A friend of mine once made a joke out of the idea that it would be a lot cheaper if the anti-vaxers just dies from the flu rather then getting sick.  That poor lady was reprimanded for expressing that idea which not everyone found humorous.   My own thought was that folks who refused to get vaccines (without a valid reason) should pay more (or all) of the cost for treatment if they do get the disease.  In simple terms I thought it made sense for the to bear some or all the cost of their anti-vax decision.  But in the USA we do not penalize folks for bad decision making when it comes to healthcare.

 

Hank

[sverigecruiser]

51 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

The problem with that is they probably will spread it to others before they die. They could even be like the drunk driver who survives the crash but all the others die.

 

But they will stop spreading it when they die.

[sverigecruiser]

43 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Nobody wants people to die - but if some are going to, why wouldn’t it be better if it were people who would spread it to others rather than those who behaved responsibly?

 

I agree with that.

 

 

[sverigecruiser]

23 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

 

A friend of mine once made a joke out of the idea that it would be a lot cheaper if the anti-vaxers just dies from the flu rather then getting sick.  That poor lady was reprimanded for expressing that idea which not everyone found humorous.  

 

Maybe not good as a joke but still true. 

[sverigecruiser]

26 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

 My own thought was that folks who refused to get vaccines (without a valid reason) should pay more (or all) of the cost for treatment if they do get the disease.  In simple terms I thought it made sense for the to bear some or all the cost of their anti-vax decision.  But in the USA we do not penalize folks for bad decision making when it comes to healthcare.

 

 

For me it should be okay if people refusing vaccines should pay more of the cost for treatment. But then smokers, drinkers, people eating too much, people exercising too little etc. shall also pay more of the cost for treatments related to their bad decisions.    

[navybankerteacher]

33 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

...

 

...My own thought was that folks who refused to get vaccines (without a valid reason) should pay more (or all) of the cost for treatment if they do get the disease.  In simple terms I thought it made sense for the to bear some or all the cost of their anti-vax decision.  But in the USA we do not penalize folks for bad decision making when it comes to healthcare.

 

Hank

Perhaps, once a COVID vaccine is generally available, everyone getting the shot should be given a card. Then, any of the 5 or so percent not protected and still contracting COVID showing up at a hospital should show the card - so their insurance would cover the costs of their treatment in full.  Those without the card should be expected to cover their costs.

[Hlitner]

4 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

For me it should be okay if people refusing vaccines should pay more of the cost for treatment. But then smokers, drinkers, people eating too much, people exercising too little etc. shall also pay more of the cost for treatments related to their bad decisions.    

Exactly.  I was involved in running HIV/Aids programs and would sometimes speak to groups at various functions about HIV programs.  It was not uncommon for somebody in the audience to question why the government was paying for programs targeted at a preventable disease.  A common answer to such as question was to mention Ryan White, but I found another approach.  i would simply ask everyone in the audience who smoked to raise their hand.  I would then ask everyone in the audience who was overweight to raise their hand.  and finally I would ask everyone who did not exercise on a routine basis to raise their hand.  That was enough to make my point.   But anti vaxers are different because not only do they jeopardize their own health but they also adversely impact plenty of others who may contract a preventable disease from them.   The concept of herd immunity is a real and proven concept (smallpox being the best example) but is nearly impossible to achieve without a high vaccine compliance rate.

 

Hank