This week in the feminist insane-o-sphere: Oxford teacher worried Oxford will find coronavirus vaccine

[repoman]

This is assuming a good vaccine can be made. Can one even be made on god mode?

 

[Jokodo]

Oh, I see. And Oxford successfully discovering a vaccine first will prevent this. And no country in the world does this already because?



Oh, I see. And Oxford successfully discovering a vaccine first will prevent this.

So reading comprehension failure it is. The point about the threat of hoarding is directly sourced to a nature feature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01063-8

Her argument is a non-starter. Some country must discover the vaccine first. Whoever discovers it first is completely irrelevant, unless that country keeps it a secret. Is she proposing Britain will keep it a secret?

She is worried that Britain will manufacture vaccines and then want to use them in Britain. The horror! Will this prevent other countries manufacturing vaccines?

What does she think? That Britain is uniquely evil in its desire to actually use the vaccines it manufactures? Or does she think any country that discovers this will hoard it, and she'd prefer some country other than Britain manufactures vaccines and hoards it for itself?

Your strawman is a non-starter. Assessing whether her actual argument also is requires a good faith attempt to understand her argument, something you've demonstrated yourself to be incapable of.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh, I see. And Oxford successfully discovering a vaccine first will prevent this. And no country in the world does this already because?



Oh, I see. And Oxford successfully discovering a vaccine first will prevent this.

So reading comprehension failure it is. The point about the threat of hoarding is directly sourced to a nature feature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01063-8

Her argument is a non-starter. Some country must discover the vaccine first. Whoever discovers it first is completely irrelevant, unless that country keeps it a secret. Is she proposing Britain will keep it a secret?

She is worried that Britain will manufacture vaccines and then want to use them in Britain. The horror! Will this prevent other countries manufacturing vaccines?

What does she think? That Britain is uniquely evil in its desire to actually use the vaccines it manufactures? Or does she think any country that discovers this will hoard it, and she'd prefer some country other than Britain manufactures vaccines and hoards it for itself?

Your strawman is a non-starter. Assessing whether hey argument is requires a good faith attempt to understand her argument, something you've demonstrated yourself to be incapable of.

Please, even you don't think her argument makes sense, because you haven't answered any of my questions.

If Britain discovers the vaccine first, do you believe that this means they will somehow have the power to exclusively manufacture it?

Whichever country discovers it first, will that country prevent other countries like Britain from manufacturing the vaccine?

Does she really think that if Oxford discovers the vaccine first, that it will not be immediately internationally peer-reviewed?

 

[Jokodo]

Your strawman is a non-starter. Assessing whether hey argument is requires a good faith attempt to understand her argument, something you've demonstrated yourself to be incapable of.

Please, even you don't think her argument makes sense, because you haven't answered any of my questions.

If Britain discovers the vaccine first, do you believe that this means they will somehow have the power to exclusively manufacture it?

Whichever country discovers it first, will that country prevent other countries like Britain from manufacturing the vaccine?

Does she really think that if Oxford discovers the vaccine first, that it will not be immediately internationally peer-reviewed?

None of that is what she's expressing concern about. As you'd know if you'd read her text in good faith.

 

[Metaphor]

Whether she is correct or not in her speculations will ultimately be a question of fact.
Once again, you confuse your opinion with fact, because there is no way for you to know.

She is deluded.

Given the tenor of your straw man driven hyperbolic OP, it is clear she is not alone in delusion.

She is deluded. Her thinking is strange or ignorant on almost every level.

But whether I agree with some of her strange ... values (that it would be better that the evil white men at Oxford didn't discover the vaccine but that someone, somewhere else in another country beat them to it, because then the discovery could not be parlayed into political opportunity), some of her notions are plain. fucking. factually. wrong. Like her implicit idea that Britain discovering the vaccine means Britain would be exclusively able to manufacture the vaccine.

Let's take that through to its logical conclusion. Let's say the country that discovers the vaccine does have the ability to manufacture it exclusively. Does she think Britain is uniquely evil in wanting to keep the vaccines it has manufactured for the benefit of her own people? Does she think other (non-British or US) countries will manufacture the vaccine and distribute it "equitably"?

 

[Metaphor]

Your strawman is a non-starter. Assessing whether hey argument is requires a good faith attempt to understand her argument, something you've demonstrated yourself to be incapable of.

Please, even you don't think her argument makes sense, because you haven't answered any of my questions.

If Britain discovers the vaccine first, do you believe that this means they will somehow have the power to exclusively manufacture it?

Whichever country discovers it first, will that country prevent other countries like Britain from manufacturing the vaccine?

Does she really think that if Oxford discovers the vaccine first, that it will not be immediately internationally peer-reviewed?

None of that is what she's expressing concern about. As you'd know if you'd read her text in good faith.

Of course she's concerned about it. It's right fucking there.

Let’s suppose that Oxford does develop the first vaccine. What happens next?

David Heymann, an infectious disease specialist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who heads a panel that advises the World Health Organization (WHO) on Coronavirus, says that there could be a production shortage. Researchers have also warned that this will lead to rich countries hoarding supplies. We were too late when it came to stockpiling PPE, but we won’t be caught out again. The vaccine, developed by our finest brains, is ours. And it will be Britons who are prioritised for protection.

She is saying that Britain discovering it first is somehow connected to Britain 'stockpiling' it. How? Does she mean "Britain will manufacture it once it is discovered and will keep what it manufactures"? Wouldn't that happen anyway, whether Britain discovered it first or not?

Does she believe that if another country discovers the vaccine, that Britain will manufacture it but then will freely give away what it has manufactured, because Britain can't claim the intellectual property on the vaccine?

Does she believe that if another country discovers the vaccine, that that country will not be as evil and selfish as she imagines Britain will be, but that's okay because other countries hoarding vaccines for itself is a-okay?

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, so, the administration of the US has already attempted to make early test systems US-only in the face of an international pandemic. Brittain is similarly going down a path of nationalistic exceptionalism.

It is not out of line to have concerns over such countries having initial control over vaccines, given their nationalistic exceptionalism.

I don't want the vaccine to be developed by a nation that may attempt to keep it out of the hands of the rest of the world either. That's why I'm cheering for Germany or Canada or even China in the development of this over the US or the UK. I don't want to see ignorant shitheads trying to exert control over something that needs widest possible dissemination.

I am of the opinion that all vaccines ought be seized for the commons under emminent domain not by any country, but by the UN, with development costs reimbursed by the UN.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just on a point of order, in case no one has brought it up so far. Oxford is a city, not a university. The writer of the article appears to oddly conflate the two.

In this case, 'I teach at Oxford' means, 'I teach at Oxford Brookes University' (ranked 64th in the UK) not, 'I teach at Oxford University' (ranked 2nd in the UK).

All the politicians she lists went to either the former, or in the case of the exception, The University of Cambridge (ranked 1st in the UK).

Also, as far as I know, the promising research she refers to is taking place at The University of Oxford, not Oxford Brookes.

 

[Jokodo]

Just on a point of order, in case no one has brought it up so far. Oxford is a city, not a university. The writer of the article appears to oddly conflate the two.


In this case, 'I teach at Oxford' means, 'I teach at Oxford Brookes University' (ranked 64th in the UK) not, 'I teach at Oxford University' (ranked 2nd in the UK).

Welcome to the Illiterates Anonymous programme, here's your colleague Metaphor, you two may have met before.

Her squib clearly says that she's a researcher st Oxford Brooke's but also teaches at Oxford University.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok. My bad. Humble pie and a side salad for me.

 

[laughing dog]

Whether she is correct or not in her speculations will ultimately be a question of fact.
Once again, you confuse your opinion with fact, because there is no way for you to know.

She is deluded.

Given the tenor of your straw man driven hyperbolic OP, it is clear she is not alone in delusion.

She is deluded. Her thinking is strange or ignorant on almost every level.

Why? Because you say so?

But whether I agree with some of her strange ... values (that it would be better that the evil white men at Oxford didn't discover the vaccine but that someone, somewhere else in another country beat them to it, because then the discovery could not be parlayed into political opportunity), some of her notions are plain. fucking. factually. wrong. Like her implicit idea that Britain discovering the vaccine means Britain would be exclusively able to manufacture the vaccine.

Prove it.

Let's take that through to its logical conclusion. Let's say the country that discovers the vaccine does have the ability to manufacture it exclusively. Does she think Britain is uniquely evil in wanting to keep the vaccines it has manufactured for the benefit of her own people? Does she think other (non-British or US) countries will manufacture the vaccine and distribute it "equitably"?

She us concerned about her country, so your wuestions are irrelevant.

 

[Jokodo]

None of that is what she's expressing concern about. As you'd know if you'd read her text in good faith.

Of course she's concerned about it. It's right fucking there.

Let’s suppose that Oxford does develop the first vaccine. What happens next?

David Heymann, an infectious disease specialist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who heads a panel that advises the World Health Organization (WHO) on Coronavirus, says that there could be a production shortage. Researchers have also warned that this will lead to rich countries hoarding supplies. We were too late when it came to stockpiling PPE, but we won’t be caught out again. The vaccine, developed by our finest brains, is ours. And it will be Britons who are prioritised for protection.

She is saying that Britain discovering it first is somehow connected to Britain 'stockpiling' it. How? Does she mean "Britain will manufacture it once it is discovered and will keep what it manufactures"? Wouldn't that happen anyway, whether Britain discovered it first or not?

Of course, to an extent that would happen anyway. But assuming a British-only consortium, or a Oxford-only research group, would develop the first vaccine, they'd have to build capacities to produce a smaller quantity of the vaccine for the testing phase before rolling it out for a broader population. Scaling up that existing infrastructure may be easier than starting from scratch.

Does she believe that if another country discovers the vaccine, that Britain will manufacture it but then will freely give away what it has manufactured, because Britain can't claim the intellectual property on the vaccine?

Does she believe that if another country discovers the vaccine, that that country will not be as evil and selfish as she imagines Britain will be, but that's okay because other countries hoarding vaccines for itself is a-okay?

You're presenting a false dilemma. She doesn't want another country to "win the race", she wants Britain and other countries to cooperate in funding an international consortium that will develop the vaccine. Which is actually closer to the natural modus operandi for scientists. If British politicians succeed in harnessing Oxford's expertise for a "British vaccine" instead of contributing it to a global effort, as would be most natural for the scientists themselves, that may actually delay the discovery of a vaccine.

She obviously knows more about how science works than you do.

 

[Metaphor]

Prove it.

Prove what? That Britain can't prevent other countries manufacturing vaccines?

Have you finally lost any semblance of coherence?

She us concerned about her country, so your wuestions are irrelevant.

Dodge noted.

 

[Jokodo]

So here's what I think the most relevant section of the article is, which nicely illustrates my point:

The developments made by researchers at Oxford have been enabled by international co-operation among the research community. Whilst China has faced lots of questions about it’s sharing of information politically, according to Laura Spinney: “The unprecedented speed of virus development so far is thanks in large part to early Chinese efforts to sequence the genetic material of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. China shared that sequence in early January, allowing research groups around the world to grow the live virus and study how it invades human cells and makes people sick.”


Dr Claas Kirchhelle, fellow of the Research and Policy Unit at the Oxford Martin School, confirms that “there has been a radical sharing of information and a very rapid sequencing of the pathogen’s genetic code.” It is clear, then, that international co-operation saves lives.

(...) Yet, rather than motivating the UK to take a proud role at the global stage, as leaders like Macron have urged, the UK is increasingly resorting to patriotism in response.

(...)

Whilst I’m hopeful that I will be able to visit my Dad soon, this must not overshadow the key lesson of coronavirus: international cooperation saves lives. The research community knows this. Let’s hope our politicians do too.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course, to an extent that would happen anyway. But assuming a British-only consortium, or a Oxford-only research group, would develop the first vaccine, they'd have to build capacities to produce a smaller quantity of the vaccine for the testing phase before rolling it out for a broader population. Scaling up that existing infrastructure may be easier than starting from scratch.

So...what? Britain increasing its own ability to manufacture vaccines does not impede anybody else's.

You're presenting a false dilemma. She doesn't want another country to "win the race", she wants Britain and other countries to cooperate in funding an international consortium that will develop the vaccine. Which is actually closer to the natural modus operandi for scientists. If British politicians succeed in harnessing Oxford's expertise for a "British vaccine" instead of contributing it to a global effort, as would be most natural for the scientists themselves, that may actually delay the discovery of a vaccine.

She obviously knows more about how science works than you do.

It's obvious there is no bad, unevidenced argument you won't defend, as long as it is somebody on your side.

But now you're making arguments she didn't even make. She does not mention an "international consortium". She does say:

The developments made by researchers at Oxford have been enabled by international co-operation among the research community. Whilst China has faced lots of questions about it’s sharing of information politically, according to Laura Spinney: “The unprecedented speed of virus development so far is thanks in large part to early Chinese efforts to sequence the genetic material of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. China shared that sequence in early January, allowing research groups around the world to grow the live virus and study how it invades human cells and makes people sick.”

Dr Claas Kirchhelle, fellow of the Research and Policy Unit at the Oxford Martin School, confirms that “there has been a radical sharing of information and a very rapid sequencing of the pathogen’s genetic code.” It is clear, then, that international co-operation saves lives.

Is she imagining that the research teams at Oxford are not sharing information? That other countries are all doing it, but Britain is uniquely positioned in not doing it?

 

[Jokodo]

So...what? Britain increasing its own ability to manufacture vaccines does not impede anybody else's.



It's obvious there is no bad, unevidenced argument you won't defend, as long as it is somebody on your side.

But now you're making arguments she didn't even make. She does not mention an "international consortium".

She does not in those words. She does however say that politicians should be "motivating the UK to take a proud role at the global stage" instead of resorting to patriotism in the face of a crisis that's best met through global cooperation.

She does say:

The developments made by researchers at Oxford have been enabled by international co-operation among the research community. Whilst China has faced lots of questions about it’s sharing of information politically, according to Laura Spinney: “The unprecedented speed of virus development so far is thanks in large part to early Chinese efforts to sequence the genetic material of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. China shared that sequence in early January, allowing research groups around the world to grow the live virus and study how it invades human cells and makes people sick.”

Dr Claas Kirchhelle, fellow of the Research and Policy Unit at the Oxford Martin School, confirms that “there has been a radical sharing of information and a very rapid sequencing of the pathogen’s genetic code.” It is clear, then, that international co-operation saves lives.

Is she imagining that the research teams at Oxford are not sharing information? That other countries are all doing it, but Britain is uniquely positioned in not doing it?

She's imagining that British scientists are being politically (and possibly financially) pressured to make this about developing a "British vaccine". Which is a reasonable concern given some of the noises coming out of British politicians' mouths. You are the one whose whole argument rests on the assumption that, if Britain doesn't develop the vaccine first, some other country will - as if vaccines were developed by countries rather than research networks, often international ones.

Clearly, she knows more about the ways scientists work than you do.

 

[Metaphor]

She's imagining that British scientists are being politically (and possibly financially) pressured to make this about developing a "British vaccine". Which is a reasonable concern given some of the noises coming out of British politicians' mouths. You are the one whose whole argument rests on the assumption that, if Britain doesn't develop the vaccine first, some other country will - as if vaccines were developed by countries rather than research networks, often international ones.

Then Cousens has nothing to worry about. "Britain" can't develop a vaccine because "countries" don't develop vaccines. (Incidentally, many vaccines have not only not been discovered by "international consortiums", but some by individual, evil, white, English men!)

Clearly, she knows more about the ways scientists work than you do.

Keep imagining that.

 

[Jokodo]

She's imagining that British scientists are being politically (and possibly financially) pressured to make this about developing a "British vaccine". Which is a reasonable concern given some of the noises coming out of British politicians' mouths. You are the one whose whole argument rests on the assumption that, if Britain doesn't develop the vaccine first, some other country will - as if vaccines were developed by countries rather than research networks, often international ones.

Then Cousens has nothing to worry about. "Britain" can't develop a vaccine because "countries" don't develop vaccines. (Incidentally, many vaccines have not only not been discovered by "international consortiums", but some by individual, evil, white, English men!)

Yes, in the 18th century. This is the 21st. And incidentally, Edward Jenner did not operate in a vacuum either, he was inspired by earlier practices that had been used in China, India, and parts of Africa for centuries and had more recently become established in Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation#China

Also, the "evil" is you speaking. Not me and not Cousens, or any other participant of this discussion actually existing outside of your imagination.

Clearly, she knows more about the ways scientists work than you do.

Keep imagining that.

You're demonstrating it with your every post.

 

[Jokodo]

Here's what might be the first English language mention of the practice of inoculation, as something the author has observed as being performed in "Contantinople" (i.e. Istanbul), where to his knowledge it had been introduced 40 years prior from the Caucasus region - in a 1713 letter to the Royal Philosophical Society https://books.google.at/books?id=iOg_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA88&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Voltaire in 1742 describes it as a practice performed since "time immemorial" by Circassian women and first introduced into England by a woman: https://www.bartleby.com/34/2/11.html

 

[Metaphor]

Here's what might be the first English language mention of the practice of inoculation, as something the author has observed as being performed in "Contantinople" (i.e. Istanbul), where to his knowledge it had been introduced 40 years prior from the Caucasus region - in a 1713 letter to the Royal Philosophical Society https://books.google.at/books?id=iOg_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA88&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Voltaire in 1742 describes it as a practice performed since "time immemorial" by Circassian women and first introduced into England by a woman: https://www.bartleby.com/34/2/11.html

Oh my goodness! Thank the stars these women were part of an international consortium of vaccine discovery and manufacture, because if they'd been at Oxford....heaven forfend!