Covid vaccines

Why are there no commercials on TV advertising Covid vaccines?  Logic dictates that all the companies would want you to use their vaccine and advertise the benefits of their vaccine over the others. There are billions upon billions of dollars up for grabs to who ever can convince people to use their vaccine over another competitor. It makes no sense that they don't advertise with that amount of profit to be made.

I don't watch TV much,

But I've seen plenty of ads about vaccines on YouTube, Still see them now and then.

This article suggests that they already convinced a number of people, and that the rest might not be worth the ad money, to those who run the ads.

As for a brand war, my guess would be they've profits enough, without infighting,

Many people who get shots, research the shots themselves, their side effects and recommendations.

It's a multi stage Prisoners Dilemma.

Imagine do nothing and everyone will take home $1B, but by spending 0.05B you can take home an extra 0.25B next quarter... If you are shit at business that makes sense to jump into that.

Now, imagine company A does just that. They don't get the extra 0.25B perpetually, rather they have to keep spending it each quarter, only now companies B and C on onto them, and are going to spend the same amount to retake their portion of the market share.

Long term equilibrium is restored, but each company makes only profits 0.95B each quarter due to A's greed making them all waste money on advertising. Of course A got that extra 0.20B for one quarter, but that only sets them ahead for one year, and every year thereafter they are making less money than had they done nothing.

Not sure what the others are talking about because the reason is simple; it would enrage and fuel conspiracy theorists more than anything else it could achieve.

Bingo, Drug companies are required by law to list all side affects of any drug they advertise on network or cable TV. That's why they don't advertise. Having to say you could die  or be permanently injured from the vaccine  would in fact cause alarm. They would also have to say you can still get covid and die anyway  even if you are vaccinated. They would have to disclose all of this. And lastly they would have to say their drug is experimental and not properly tested and by agreeing to take the drug you waive all responsibility to the drug company if you get sick or die.  And people look at me and ask why I wont get vaccinated. Just following the science I say.

You do realise Covid is real and can really damage you even if it doesn't kill you, as in months of severe fatigue? It scars lungs and affects other organs in certain ways too.

You’re not following the science. You think the vaccines don’t help fight against contagion, in fact you think it’s more harmful than the virus. 

don't kid yourself

Covid  and therefore Covid vaccines, get all the press that they need.

So why pay advertising companies?

Stay safe.

Can you prove the vaccines are not more harmful. I cant prove that they work. 

I’m curious. What science have you been following?

science is science isn't it. What do you mean what science have I been following? There is only one way to conduct science.  Studies are not science. Studies show exactly what those who conduct them want them to show. I have never seen a study that didn't. Have you?

It’s a good thing you’re not politicising science then isn’t it, by being a typical reactionary conservative. 

Why the hell would they advertise on TV? People use netflix and the internet right now. Going out of the way to film a TV reminder is just not worth it now. 

Why would COVID vaccines ever need to be advertised? People who want the vaccine ought to just leave(because those aren't even ads, those are free reminders, they want you to take the vaccine, not to buy) their houses to take it, and people who don't can just bitch about it quitely or shut their mouths up.

Threating peoples lively hoods or putting them in concentration camps for not taking a vaccine, now that's what I call science. "Follow the science"

Yes and eat your damn vegetables. 

Sorry sadolite, but this is a stupid thing to say.

Science is essentially, the process of studying.

Is it really a stupid thing to say?  Studies don't try to prove something untrue but rather try to support a predetermined outcome.

Not if the study is well-designed. Every study is built on a hypothesis, but the vast majority of the time, the goal isn't to prove the hypothesis true, it's to test the hypothesis. The outcome (whether the hypothesis is true or false) isn't predetermined, and labs that enter a study trying to prove a hypothesis true will fail far more often than they succeed.

Studies will either prove something true or untrue.......As in evaluating hypotheses. (See  whiteflame)

And a predetermined outcome is a predetermined outcome....Doesn't matter what the outcome is.

So the "Science" says.

"Not if the study is well-designed. " Now why on earth would scientists conduct a flawed study? And would anyone reading the study know the difference between a good study and a bad study?

Because scientists are flawed and some of them try to make a name for themselves in ways that are unethical. I’m acknowledging that and saying that the vast majority of scientists would never take this step.

As for anyone reading the study, that’s usually what reviewers are for, but there is also a wide community of scientists that read and re-read scientific papers. We can and do find problems with them, including establishing whether it’s a study of merit or not.

One of the best ways to find out if the research study conducted is reliable is to find out if it has been peer reviewed. Peer reviewed is a system of evaluation by peers whom, ideally, have expertise in the subject area.

Peer reviewed is a whole other can of worms.  

 Courts and the media often treat peer reviewed studies as proven science, which they are not. 

Peer review and publication are time-consuming, frequently involving more than a year between submission and publication. The process is also highly competitive. For example, the highly-regarded journal Science accepts less than 8% of the articles it receives, and The New England Journal of Medicine publishes just 6% of its submissions.Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else's unreliable study! Peer-reviewed work isn't necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results.

So by saying all this, it gives peer review credibility. The thing is, peer review means nothing if nothing is fact checked, replicated or math checked. It's utterly meaningless. This is the case more often than not. A peer reviewed study is no more credible than one that isn't that hasn't been replicated fact checked and data checked. It just some so called scientist  saying it sounds good on paper. You can make pedophiles sound good on paper.

The assumption that peer review increases the quality of work assumes that experts are actually experts. Most scientists are statistically illiterate, for example. The entire system is circular. 

If a non expert has their work reviewed by a non expert, that is still a form of peer review. It does not increase the quality of the work; for peer review to actually matter, you are presupposing something which does not exist, namely, that "experts" are usually competent. Seriously, read that first link. Also interesting: In one experiment, Over half of the papers with basic chemistry errors got published. 

I see what you are saying. I just read this. "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" is an article written by Science correspondent John Bohannon that describes his investigation of peer review among fee-charging open-access journals. Between January and August 2013, Bohannon submitted fake scientific papers to 304 journals owned by as many fee-charging open access publishers. The papers, writes Bohannon, "were designed with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that they should have been rejected immediately by editors and peer reviewers", but 60% of the journals accepted them. The article and associated data were published in the 4 October 2013 issue of Science as open access.