4 ms·
> unless most of the research is not for a vaccine This. Only a small sliver of that would be for vaccine research, probably at a handful of labs.
by thomasfedb 8y ago
> unless most of the research is not for a vaccine
This. Only a small sliver of that would be for vaccine research, probably at a handful of labs.
- ars 8y agoSo under the assumption that the researchers involved are smart people, they believe that this is the best use of the money. So why should I believe a random article that increasing specifically vaccine spending is the right thing to do? If it's only a small sliver, them to get the massive increase the article wants, total spending must go up massively. Either that or the researchers are not directing their money in the right proportions, which seems unlikely to me. Whatever the correct situation is, the article is seriously lacking for not even mentioning any of it. And if that's the case, I am inclined to disbelieve the entire thing.
- lostmyoldone 8y agoResearchers are usually bright people, but funding is often decided by entirely different people, and policy. But anyway ... Vaccines, as well as antibiotics are hard to find/make and eithee have high price sensitivity, nobody will pay a million for a dose of vaccine, or as with new antibiotics, will only be used as a last resort to combat bacterial resistance. As most medical research today is made by for profit companies, less money is spent on things that are harder to make money on. Many 'easy' vaccines are already done, and the same goes for antibiotics, so there is. need to move public funding into the entire pipeline for these kinds of substances. Almost forgot, antivenoms also suffer from this, mostly because there are many venoms, and few victims.