How 'Socialism' Gave us Coronavirus Vaccines and Saved the World From a Worse Pandemic - By Bernard Starr

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

The author lauds government involvement in the development of the vaccine, but somehow never mentions Trump or operation Warp Speed. 

The author alternately accepts then denies the desirability of government money given to the private sector. 

He doesn't know what socialism is. He doesn't know what capitalism is. 

This article is a muddled mess.

--------------------
Republicans call all government programs socialism. (This is false. Republicans call government wealth redistribution programs socialism.)

Many Republican congressional candidates have used that charge to attack democratic candidates' support of government-sponsored programs, such as the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, pre-school education, subsidies for child care, and other safety nets for the middle-class, working-class, and poor families. (This is true. And Republicans are correct. Any government-enacted wealth redistribution program is necessarily founded upon socialist principles.)

Max Boot, journalist and fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, reminds us that Republicans have been "crying wolf about Democratic Socialism for 90 years." (Meanwhile, over the past 90 years socialistic ideas and initiatives have made inroads into our system of government, as well as into society and the opinions of people. Here's a Gallup poll, which shows the increasing popularity of Socialism:

The author lies to us, for there is no crying "wolf" when the problem is real. This is what socialists do, they deny their socialism, and they deny that things are socialist. Then they claim that we have socialism already, and then they claim it's wonderful. Then they deny certain programs are socialist. 

All the while, the keep pushing their socialist agenda.)

It was evident at the 2020 Republican National Convention when Trump campaign advisor, Kimberly Guilfoyle scared Republican delegates with the warning: "Biden, Harris and the rest of the socialists will fundamentally change the nation." (This charge is true.)

In his rallies, Donald Trump has added to the charge of socialism a more damning label: "communists." (Trump was right as always.)

During the 2020 Georgia runoff senatorial races, Trump warned Georgia Republicans, "If you don't vote, the socialists and the communists win." (Another true statement.)

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has added his incendiary voice, calling the entire Democratic agenda socialism. (That is correct.)

These scare strategies (The author never bothers to refute these Republicans, but simply labels them and moves on.)

deliberately ignore the fact that the market model of "leave it to the initiative and competition of private companies and corporations" can't do everything. (After mocking the idea that socialism is on the rise, suddenly the author reverses course and makes a socialist claim, requiring socialist "solutions." So the author wants socialism.

It may not be obvious to the author, but corporations aren't capitalism. What they are able to do or not do is not an indictment of capitalism. Corporations that receive government money does not mean capitalism is impugned.

The author persists in misdirection. This is classic agitprop.)

There are some things that only governments can accomplish. (This is true. Government has constitutionally-mandated duties, for which The People have delegated their power. Like national defense; apprehending, prosecuting, and jailing lawbreakers; and ensuring a consistent legal environment that allows The People to peaceably pursue their private interests.

We now hope to see what the author thinks governments should accomplish...)

A prime example is the development of vaccines. Few companies will undertake the capital-intensive task unless they are funded by a government. (What the private sector is willing to do does not come to bear on what government should do. And it is simply false that the private sector does not invest in R and D. Finally, government funding for developing a vaccine is not socialistic.)

It's just too risky for a private company or public corporation to invest the vast sums required for vaccine development. That's why Dr. Peter Hotez, an expert on vaccines and infectious diseases, backed off from further development of a promising coronavirus vaccine four years before the current pandemic. In 2016 his team at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston developed a vaccine against SARS, a deadly strain of coronavirus similar to COVID-19. (Waaait. Previously the author was discussing private enterprise being unwilling to spend on R and D. But the University of Texas is a publicly-funded educational institution!)

But he couldn't get funding to test it on humans. (That is, he couldn't obtain more government money.)

It had been ten years since the SARS scare. The money for coronavirus research dried up, despite prophetic warnings of a future coronavirus pandemic. Dr. Hotez says it's a typical pattern of funding vanishing when an immediate threat subsides. He believes that this flaw of penny-wise and tons foolish has now proven to be fatal and needs to be corrected. (Sigh. None of this has to do with the private sector, or the need for government to intervene.)

Dr. Hotez's vaccine remains in a freezer at the University of Texas. He told Congress in 2020: "Had we had those investments early on to carry this all the way through clinical trials years ago, we could have had a vaccine ready to go." Sadly, had he obtained funding untold numbers of lives might have been saved. (A government college couldn't get funding. And how is this "socialistic?")

Fortunately, "socialism" kicked in once COVID-19 became a deadly reality. (It's becoming clear that the author doesn't understand socialism, or is willfully misdirecting the reader as to its nature.)

Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Johnson and Johnson received hefty government support, which enabled them to develop their vaccines. (This is not socialism. While the official definition of socialism is "government ownership of the means of production," a more practical description would be "the redistribution of private wealth without regard for merit." 

In either case, the author's examples have nothing to do with socialism. In fact, what the author describes is more like fascism, i.e., the intervention of government into private enterprise, so as to have private enterprise serve the interests of government.)

According to Republicans, of course, that government funding was "socialist." (No references supplied. Which republicans said this? 

Socialists are known for their agitprop, which of course doesn't have to be true. As such we deem the author's assertion to be agitprop.)

It's worth noting, too, that in light of the current worldwide anti-vaccine movement, private and public companies will be even less likely in the future to risk engaging in vaccine research without "socialism."

How much "socialism" did these companies receive? (Zero,)

"The U.S. may end up investing as much as $6 billion in Moderna's vaccine," reports Zachary Brennan, Senior Editor of Endpoint News. Pfizer teamed up with the German pharmaceutical company BioNTech and then received $640 million in funding from the German government. And British socialism funded the AstraZeneca vaccine to the tune of £84m ($115 million). Johnson and Johnson received $456 million in U.S. government funding and an additional one billion dollars for 100 million doses of their vaccine. (These huge sums do not constitute socialism.)

The overall U.S. government spending for coronavirus research and development has ballooned as reported by Healthcare Affairs.org. Data they derived from various government websites show "government spending estimates of between $18 billion and $23 billion. Most recently the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Biomedical Research and Development Authority (BARDA) alone has spent $19.3 billion on COVID-19 vaccine development."

In drawing on socialism for the development of their vaccines, companies dodged the risks of scientific failure, safety failures, and other market risks. At the same time, they generated profits for their shareholders from the sale of the vaccines to the governments that funded their research. (Which again sounds more like fascism.)

Moderna's stock rose from a year low of $66 a share before their vaccine to a high of $497 a share after approval. Pfizer stock rose more modestly from a low of $34 to a high of $51 still a substantial gain. AstraZeneca also showed a significant gain from a low of $47 to a high of $62 per share after approval of its vaccine. Johnson and Johnson showed less of a gain, probably due to reports of adverse reactions to their vaccine. All these increases were generous socialist benefits to their stockholders. Add to that a report in Forbes on May 21, 2021, that "Covid-19 vaccine injected billions into big pharmaand made its executives very rich." And Oxfam International confirms that "At least nine people have become new billionaires... thanks to the excessive profits pharmaceutical corporations with monopolies on COVID vaccines are making."

If Republicans are truly disturbed by this "super socialism" (The author has yet to document his claim that Republicans opposed this funding for the reason of socialism.)

they should demand that the companies that received the "no strings attached" funding for development of their vaccines share their profits with the American people. (Why don't the author's leftist friends do this? They have control of both branches of Congress and the presidency.)

That's not likely to happen since Republicans have shown over and over their love for socialism when it means handouts for corporations and the rich (Waaait. The author has been touting the huge sums of money government put into pharmaceutical companies, deeming this desirable socialism, but now he accuses Republicans of loving government handouts for corporations.

We no longer are confident in the author's thinking skills.)

while sticking the poor with the harsh failings of capitalism, (This is not capitalism. Capitalism has no failings, and no one can get "stuck" by someone else with these mythical "harsh failings."

It is clear the author doesn't understand capitalism either. Or as we noted, he is engaging in agitprop, as socialists are wont to do.)

as noted by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.

But make no mistake about it, if government-sponsored programs or "socialism," as Republicans have persistently called them hadn't stepped in, the death rate from the pandemic, as massive as it has been (five million worldwide and more than 700,000 in the U.S.) would have been far greater, with no end in sight. 

(The author's tour-de-force of ignorance is complete. He doesn't understand socialism or capitalism. He denies then advocates socialism. He loves then hates government funding of private companies.

The author does not intend to inform or clarify. His purpose is to further the socialist agenda.)