This is the dilemma in a nutshell. There are lots of incredibly smart people working in the web3 space who are aware of its limitations, but for every one of those, there are 1000 people just trying to make as much money as possible.
"Would you say that you are free to express your opinion in public or do you have to be careful with certain or many topics?" („Würden Sie sagen, man kann seine Meinung in der Öffentlichkeit frei äußern oder muss man bei einigen oder vielen Themen vorsichtig sein?“)
As a German, I believe that I am free to express my opinion, nevertheless I would say that there are obviously many topics of discussion where one has to be careful just because there is lots of potential to be misunderstood.
This is about mRNA vaccines, but similar things exist for viral vector vaccines as well. Technology transfer, bioreactor bags, fill-finish capacity, all of these things are bottlenecked till next year basically.
They rightly fear that in 2-3 years, when the pandemic is likely over everywhere and other people have figured out how to commercialize the IP, they won't be the only ones producing their vaccines.
This isn't going to help India or anyone in the short term and there'll be more than enough doses for every person on Earth by next year. Why should they not retain the IP rights to make a profit on new generations that need to be vaccinated or potential booster shots? The manufacturing capacity will have been built up so scarcity won't be a problem at that point.
J&J uses a very rare human adenovirus, AZ uses a more common chimpanzee adenovirus. J&J also has the so-called 2PP modification on the Spike protein compared with the AZ vaccine. Good writeup here: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/genetic-code-of-covid-19-v...
I think you'd be seeing some improvements as we are seeing some upward adjustments in production capacity projections on a 3-6 month timeframe now that everyone is spending so much to get additional doses because of political pressure, but it wouldn't be nearly enough to change the situation drastically as some have been claiming.
Third-party foundations finding legitimate instances of sexual abuse of children is going to be incredibly rare because how would you ever tell 18 and 17-year-olds apart? Facebook has much more information available to them and they are aggressively checking their platform for it, that's why they find so many instances.
It does if that's the only standard you apply in choosing to whom you deliver a product. If you sell to despotic regimes and not to Israel, you're criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.