Fully agree. Interesting enough, global CO2 certificates would not affect Bitcoin at all (unlike air travel and cement). In the case of Bitcoin they would simply mean that the price per hash rate goes up for everyone, and therefore the difficulty is reduced.
So... if Bitcoin can push politics to make better, more air(!)-tight rules for CO2 certificates faster, then it would be clearly have a net benefit for the world.
The core issue has nothing to do with Bitcoin: The environmental impact of "X" has to be priced into the product cost. That is a legal question at its core. I know that is easier said than done, but it is the only long term solution. CO2 certificates are one way to do it, and it already helps.
*X= Air Travel, Bitcoin, Cement... whatever creates large amount of CO2
And while we are at it: Overfishing is another huge tragedy of the commons that needs more attention.
The 2nd key reason is that no other vaccine is backed up by so much real world data as BT because of Israel. That is the very topic of this thread. That is why I thought it is self-explanatory.
The side effect of this amazing BioNTech/Pfizer success: Meanwhile AstraZeneca is clearly only the second choice. At least locally here in my town (EU) people line up for Biontech, but the vaccination centers that offer AstraZeneca report up to 50% no shows.
Please note that the EU is the _only_ Western country that is currently exporting vaccines to the world. It is the US + UK that are blocking all exports. Even Canada gets its vaccines from the EU, since the US is not sending them any.
So yes, clearly the EU has made mistakes (fully agree with the 1st part of your post), but they had good intentions and it is not as bad as you make it sound.
If the state (any state) would decide on this, we would have not any mRna vaccines because "obviously this new thing will not work and/or is too risky".. Remember that just a year ago the AZ vaccine was the clear front runner. That is also one of the reasons why the EU did not order enough/too late of Biontech.
Of course EU/UK/USA consider it. But none of these vaccines have provided any trustworthy data of their efficacy and safety. And none of the makers of these vaccines even applied to be used in EU/UK/USA.
If today's publication changes that status for Sputnik V remains to be seen. Still many open questions.
Well... maybe not. What the EU suspects is that vaccine that was produced in the EU with EU money was shipped to the UK in December. I have read that even until last week shipments went from the EU to the UK.
If so, AZ and/or the UK government are actively cheating the EU. Is it true? I guess time will tell.
Please stop spreading lies. The paper is only about "The effectiveness of the first dose of BNT162 ..."
50% efficacy after the first dose is exactly the number that BioNTech reported in its Phase3 trial. So nothing unusual here. That is why the 2nd booster shot is needed to get to 95%.
Please stop spreading lies. The paper is only about "The effectiveness of the first dose of BNT162 ..."
50% efficacy after the first dose is exactly the number that BioNTech reported in its Phase3 trial. So nothing unusual here. That is why the 2nd booster shot is needed to get to 95%.
So... if Bitcoin can push politics to make better, more air(!)-tight rules for CO2 certificates faster, then it would be clearly have a net benefit for the world.