double-a

Cool. So then these companies should have nothing to fear.

Source?

Moderna (another mRNA vaccine) alone is estimating it will produce between 600M and 1B vaccines in 2021 already: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...

Curevac is on track to apply for authorization for another mRNA vaccine in Q2: https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Article/2021/03/22/CureVa...

It's not out of the question that the EU will be able to supply itself entirely with mRNA (or inactivated virus) past 2021.

So, everyone here has realized how inane this article is given that it doesn't account for the price of Fe and Ni plummeting once this much supply is introduced to the market.

But what is the actual value of something like this? Surely something comparable has happened in the past where a big reserve of some rare mineral has been found and monopolized, and its price didn't go to zero.

And has AstraZeneca claimed that this would cause them to fail on their commitments to the UK? Or are we presuming that because it benefits some other agenda?

I don't understand why there's a comparison with the UK vaccination program at play here. Your comment is precisely the type of incendiary fallacy that OP is accusing the BBC if.

EU is claiming that AZ is breaching the contract it had with them. Whether they are in the right or not, what does the UK's relationship with AZ have to do with it?

Glad to see at least some folks in Search understand this :)

I don't follow. If he was a child abuser as you're implying, wouldn't he be for encryption?

Because the market is not pricing this as a signal that the "sum of all future free cash flow" is in jeopardy.

Governments all over the world have implemented financial relief to these companies by promising to shoulder the cost of wages through the normal unemployment benefit system. Companies taking advantage of that during this extraordinary period doesn't say much about what their profitability will look like after the lockdowns are over.

In fact, in some cases this could be evidence of a flexible company that is able to scale down quickly and is more likely to survive this and future demand shocks.

Why do Americans believe trying to interpret the Founding Father's intent is a reasonable way to debate policy? If the opinions of 18th century wealthy men have merit today it should be because we believe their reasoning applies to current circumstances, not because they were the Founders of anything.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree that "a small accountable republic driven to progress only on issues where there was minimal to no opposition" is desirable today, but you have put forward no valid argument for it.

What did you find infuriating about BigTable?