11 ms·

Drug makers feel burned by string of vaccine pleas

63 points by sigstoat 7y ago

ianlevesque 7y ago
This is concerning because it is clear that we’ll need more and better vaccines (and new antibiotics) in the years to come. The impact of every mosquito borne disease entering and re-entering North America, along with the already surging cases of tick borne illness means pretty soon the United States will either be afraid to go outside or considerably worse off than people even realize. The nCOV outbreak is just the latest in an ongoing string of pandemics that modern air travel brings along with its benefits. Renewed funding heavy vaccine and antibiotic development would save millions in the US and abroad, sooner than we think.
- RobRivera 7y ago
  I strongly agree that this matter really is a matter of funding priorities. Regardless how it is funded, taxpayer dollars or medical costs, this should be funded for the benefit of society. And as far as I can tell, Pharma cos stand to make some solid revenue from this, so lets get the risk/reward commensurate with the value society gains from this line of work.
  - WhompingWindows 7y ago
    How do you wager Pharma makes good revenue from this? Compared to a chronically used drug like a statin, they DON'T stand to gain that much. It's a tragedy of the commons...any one company or nation could invest heavily, but it's a vaccine...therefore, it'll be widely disseminated once and it'll be cheap. It won't be taken years on end like a statin: MUCH less revenue; I'm not sure pharma would be interested without great incentives.
    - s1artibartfast 7y ago
      furthermore, I think there is a decent amount of abandoned IP from antibiotic companies that folded. I don't think anyone has found it viable to even manufacture them at a profit.
      - ufmace 7y ago
        There probably is, but have any of them been approved for commercial sale? That's the bottleneck that controls the industry. Creating a new antibiotic that might work is not that expensive, relatively speaking. Neither is manufacturing at scale. Proving that it's safe and effective to the current standards is extremely expensive, and risky - you get nothing at all if it eventually proves not to be effective enough.
        s1artibartfast 7y ago
        There are examples linked elsewhere in this thread of novel antibiotic companies with FDA approval declaring bankruptcy due to lack of revenue. We intentionally want to limit the use of novel antibiotics to as few cases as possible to minimize resistance. Combined with price controls, this kills the economic viability.
Spooky23 7y ago
I actually sympathize with the drug makers here. This type of work is a public health priority, why not just white-label it and have the government just fund it? It's particularly bizarre to me that flu shots just deliver an amazing public benefit, why charge anything? The government spends a fortune on development and distribution costs. Why not just pay for the administration, or even provide incentives to drive more adoption? If you paid a bounty to CVS/Walgreens/WalMart, they would hand out coupons or free donuts to lure people in and get much high vaccination rates.
- downrightmike 7y ago
  The government already funds most of the research, the least big pharma can do is not be greedy for a minute. Salk gave away the polio vaccine in the 1950's eradicating the disease, missing out on selling it for billions in 1950's money value.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    Government funds the foundation research, yes. But commercialization, especially certification, goes into billions of dollars that governments worldwide have decided that should be taken on by private companies. What a goddamn waste. I would hope someday all governments pay a fixed share of national income / national budget to the UN which then centrally funds vaccine and other pharma (antibiotics!) development and distribution worldwide...
Der_Einzige 7y ago
Oh, you don't like to lose your profits a little bit during a health crisis? Boo hoo How does it feel to become a state owned company and have the profits of labor never go into a CEO or shareholders hands again? Because I know many people who want exactly this for rackets like biotech companies Sorry capitalists, if you try to win all the time than everyone will lose but you'll lose harder than the proletariat does because you have more to lose
- magduf 7y ago
  You can make all the threats about nationalization you want, but if you think that's going to happen in America anytime soon, to any company here, you're delusional. I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea, just that the idea of any company in America being nationalized at all is crazy; it's so against the current political climate that it really is impossible to happen. Even if the Democrats win this election it will never happen, but the idea of Trump signing off on nationalizing anything at all is insane. In European nations, however, it could happen, but even there I have a hard time seeing it. If any nation nationalizes vaccine R&D in my lifetime, I'd put money on it being China.
empath75 7y ago
Alright, so let's nationalize them.
- Applejinx 7y ago
  Yup!
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  Or maybe governments could pay them for the vaccines they order? Alternatively, the government could hire the expertise to make vaccines.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - iron0013 7y ago
    That’s what nationalization means.
    - s1artibartfast 7y ago
      >nationalize, verb, (of a government) to take control of a business or industry[1] Nationalizing a company or industry is very different than paying a company to do something on contract or hiring government employees to do the work. Nationalization usually involves the seizure of a business or forced buyout, and then making it illegal for competition to form. Pharmaceuticals don't want to make vaccines and aren't standing in the way. If the government really thinks that it can make vaccines cheaper, it should make a factory and hire workers. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nationalize https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/national...
      - iron0013 7y ago
        the actual definition of nationalizing is even better than what I thought; they should do that!
s1artibartfast 7y ago
>The only real expertise in the world to make these vaccines in a quantity and a safety environment is in the private sector ... >A number of flu vaccine manufacturers were left on the hook with ordered but unpaid for vaccine during the mild 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. Expecting pharma to act as charitable NGOs seems like an unstable solution. Moreso as the PR vale decreases with public attention span. Who is working on the vaccines for 2019-ncov?
aeturnum 7y ago
This feels like it raises the question of what kind of drug development pipeline we want to invest into. Drug company profits generally come from serving the needs of the well-to-do in the global north. We will obviously need new vaccines and antibiotics as time goes on. I wonder if the expensive research infrastructure setup to target the high-profit drugs is the same as the one we would build to target vaccines and antibiotics. There's an element of systemic & structural dissonance here too - if we start dying from drug resistant strains of endemic diseases, those high profit drugs probably aren't going to keep selling well. We need to think seriously about how to construct a drug development ecosystem that balances our needs. I don't think it's as simple as "nationalize the drug companies" (though I think they are pretty morally bankrupt).
- reaperducer 7y ago
  It would be nice if we could come up with a system that rewards doing the most good. The problem is, does "the most good" mean treats the largest number of people, or treats the most virulent conditions, or something else. Right now, we're largely using "the most good" to mean "the most good for shareholders," which is how we ended up with a bunch of different wiener pills and breast cancer is still a thing.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    Viagra exists yet breast cancer is still a thing because cancer is way harder to solve. And there is an enormous amount of money in cancer. Cancer drugs are some of the most profitable drugs to research right now. And discovering viagra was a complete accident while trying to develop a pill for cardiovascular disease.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
      > Viagra exists yet breast cancer is still a thing because cancer is way harder to solve. I am not sure that breast cancer is a good example. There have been a lot of exciting advances in breast cancer therapy including therapy that tries to cure the cancer but still preserves the breast. Five year survival rate is near 90%. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
mnm1 7y ago
They don't want to do this anymore? No problem. We'll just withhold FDA approval from all their drugs until they do. Problem solved. It's amazing what you can do when you're not in the pocket of big phrama. We're supposed to believe these companies that ravage our nation with all sorts of fucked up drugs (opiates being only one of many) deserve pity or mercy or compassion as if they were people? Ludicrous. No, they deserve the complete and total brutality of our nascent authoritarian state. Of course, this is a fantasy and that authoritarianism will only be used against individuals to protect such disgusting entities as the pharma companies, but one can always dream.
- champagneben 7y ago
  > We'll just withhold FDA approval from all their drugs until they do. Do you believe this "we" will include mothers with children dying from currently incurable cancers?
  - evgen 7y ago
    Maybe it includes parent trying to figure out how they will provide their children with lifesaving insulin that costs pennies to produce but somehow ends up costing the consumer thousands of dollars a month. Want to make a bet about which group is bigger?
  - mnm1 7y ago
    You think these companies are the only ones that can develop such drugs?
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  "Stop or we will be forced to harm ourselves"
RobertRoberts 7y ago
What happened to the old wisdom "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" We know how many diseases start, why almost no discussion of prevention when vaccines are brought up as if they are the only way (or even best way) to deal with diseases?
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  > why almost no discussion of prevention when vaccines are brought up as if they are the only way (or even best way) to deal with diseases? I would love to hear your thoughts on how flu or measles can be reliably prevented on a population basis without the use of vaccines?
  - artificialLimbs 7y ago
    For flu: elderberry extract. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190423133644.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190423133644.h...
    - magduf 7y ago
      According to your article, this might help ease the symptoms of the flu. So it's just as useful in prevention as decongestants, cough drops, expectorant, and other such drugs: not at all. It just helps you get through the infection.
      - artificialLimbs 7y ago
        Anecdata: I got the flu a couple years ago. I didn't go to the doctor to get it "officially" confirmed, but I've had the flu many times prior in my life. It was the flu. I was laying in my bed literally crying, sleeping, sweating, or some combination of the 3 all day. My wife knew about this property of elderberry and had already made some extract with the highest grain alcohol she could get in the store and fresh elderberries from our bushes. She fed me several spoonfuls through the day. The next day I was working in the yard. It was by far the shortest episode of the flu I have ever had.
trixie_ 7y ago
If the people want's vaccines, then the government should pay these companies to develop them. No different than the people/government/military wanting new planes and paying defense contractors to develop them. There's a military-industrial complex that isn't perfect, but works. If it's important enough then there should be a health-industrial complex to develop the technologies, medicines, treatments, etc.. that would be too expensive/unprofitable to develop otherwise. Total privatization is not a good idea, as having companies bid for contracts at least introduces some competition into the process, and some incentive to innovate.
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  One issue is that intellectual property is vastly different in military and healthcare industries. It'd be a monumental task to re-create an aircraft carrier or fighter jet in another country, but recreate a drug that's taken billions to develop? Well that takes a small team of organic chemists and a small factory in India or elsewhere. Furthermore, vaccines are not typical drugs, they are one-use only, which is not a good profit-generator...there is not a good corollary in the military space for one-off vs. chronic drugs. The comparison of the two industries is a stretch, IMO. Completely different business models.
  - iguy 7y ago
    Maybe not such a stretch. The nation wants aircraft carriers, and ideally wants other countries not to have similar ones. The nation also wants vaccines, but if the rest of the world gets to copy them, so much the better! Then perhaps the pandemic stops closer to source. In both of these, the proposed business model is that you make what the government asks you to make. And of course you build your factories in certain senator's backyards, and so on... it's not going to be done for precisely the minimum possible cost. But it can get done.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >It'd be a monumental task to re-create an aircraft carrier or fighter jet in another country, but recreate a drug that's taken billions to develop? Well that takes a small team of organic chemists and a small factory in India or elsewhere. So what's the problem here? Do you want people in other countries to die of preventable diseases or something?
pazimzadeh 7y ago
It's almost like government should have a bigger hand in healthcare.
- harryh 7y ago
  The post is an essay about how the government has historically misdirected private resources by poorly assessing threats in times of crisis. Why does that make you think that government should be more involved in healthcare?
  - xenospn 7y ago
    The government doesn't require a profit before working on a vaccine. The article clearly states that private companies will not work on new vaccines unless there's profits to be made.
    - RandomGuyDTB 7y ago
      “The only real expertise in the world to make these vaccines in a quantity and a safety environment is in the private sector,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy. “If the private sector isn’t fully engaged and involved, it’s a show stopper.” That doesn't sound very hard to me. Hire people who have the skills necessary, pay them a fair wage (lower probably than they'll make in a corporation, but they'll be working for the people rather than a robber-baron), and let them make vaccines. Aside from the cost, is it really that difficult to do this? We've spent much more on war.
      - danw1979 7y ago
        I don't know why you got down voted for sharing what sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea...
        harryh 7y ago
        We have several centuries of evidence that private industry is better at bringing innovative products to market than centralized governments.
buboard 7y ago
I think it's more important to talk about air travel. Not only it's bad for the planet, it essentially turns every new flu virus to a pandemic. School holidays, travel, normal holidays/recess, remote work could and should be used for public health purposes. [Edit: what i'm saying is there should be motives to limit air travel during flu season, and maybe schools could align holidays / recess with flu season] As for pharma, well they 've contributed to the establishment of the current model according to which their FDA-approved monopolies are their moneymakers, everything else is a loss. The solution is to deregulate both ways, shorten or partially abolish drug patents
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  > Not only it's bad for the planet, it essentially turns every new flu virus to a pandemic. So you want to go back to the days of growing your own tomatoes in your own garden, and abandon trade and modern technologies?
  - buboard 7y ago
    of course not. just realize that it's a disease vector and motivate people to limit air travel during flu season
- Accujack 7y ago
  >it essentially turns every new flu virus to a pandemic No it does not. This is patently false. Suggesting that the human race stop traveling to stop any potential diseases from traveling also is delusional.
  - buboard 7y ago
    its definitely not false, but apparently you need higgh-level restrictions for it to work https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/ https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4177799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4177799/
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
thewarrior 7y ago
And so the human race goes extinct because private companies delayed making a vaccine because it wasn’t profitable enough.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  And because taxpayers didn't want to pay for it.
jeffrallen 7y ago
Cry me a river.
mhb 7y ago
Venturing a Perspective on the Drug Pricing Debate: https://lifescivc.com/2019/12/venturing-a-perspective-on-the-drug-pricing-debate/ https://lifescivc.com/2019/12/venturing-a-perspective-on-the...
g_p 7y ago
Should probably have (2018) appended to title.

63 points by sigstoat 7y ago

This is concerning because it is clear that we’ll need more and better vaccines (and new antibiotics) in the years to come. The impact of every mosquito borne disease entering and re-entering North America, along with the already surging cases of tick borne illness means pretty soon the United States will either be afraid to go outside or considerably worse off than people even realize. The nCOV outbreak is just the latest in an ongoing string of pandemics that modern air travel brings along with its benefits. Renewed funding heavy vaccine and antibiotic development would save millions in the US and abroad, sooner than we think.

RobRivera 7y ago
I strongly agree that this matter really is a matter of funding priorities. Regardless how it is funded, taxpayer dollars or medical costs, this should be funded for the benefit of society. And as far as I can tell, Pharma cos stand to make some solid revenue from this, so lets get the risk/reward commensurate with the value society gains from this line of work.
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  How do you wager Pharma makes good revenue from this? Compared to a chronically used drug like a statin, they DON'T stand to gain that much. It's a tragedy of the commons...any one company or nation could invest heavily, but it's a vaccine...therefore, it'll be widely disseminated once and it'll be cheap. It won't be taken years on end like a statin: MUCH less revenue; I'm not sure pharma would be interested without great incentives.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    furthermore, I think there is a decent amount of abandoned IP from antibiotic companies that folded. I don't think anyone has found it viable to even manufacture them at a profit.
    - ufmace 7y ago
      There probably is, but have any of them been approved for commercial sale? That's the bottleneck that controls the industry. Creating a new antibiotic that might work is not that expensive, relatively speaking. Neither is manufacturing at scale. Proving that it's safe and effective to the current standards is extremely expensive, and risky - you get nothing at all if it eventually proves not to be effective enough.
      - s1artibartfast 7y ago
        There are examples linked elsewhere in this thread of novel antibiotic companies with FDA approval declaring bankruptcy due to lack of revenue. We intentionally want to limit the use of novel antibiotics to as few cases as possible to minimize resistance. Combined with price controls, this kills the economic viability.

Spooky23 7y ago

I actually sympathize with the drug makers here. This type of work is a public health priority, why not just white-label it and have the government just fund it? It's particularly bizarre to me that flu shots just deliver an amazing public benefit, why charge anything? The government spends a fortune on development and distribution costs. Why not just pay for the administration, or even provide incentives to drive more adoption? If you paid a bounty to CVS/Walgreens/WalMart, they would hand out coupons or free donuts to lure people in and get much high vaccination rates.

downrightmike 7y ago
The government already funds most of the research, the least big pharma can do is not be greedy for a minute. Salk gave away the polio vaccine in the 1950's eradicating the disease, missing out on selling it for billions in 1950's money value.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  Government funds the foundation research, yes. But commercialization, especially certification, goes into billions of dollars that governments worldwide have decided that should be taken on by private companies. What a goddamn waste. I would hope someday all governments pay a fixed share of national income / national budget to the UN which then centrally funds vaccine and other pharma (antibiotics!) development and distribution worldwide...

Der_Einzige 7y ago

Oh, you don't like to lose your profits a little bit during a health crisis? Boo hoo How does it feel to become a state owned company and have the profits of labor never go into a CEO or shareholders hands again? Because I know many people who want exactly this for rackets like biotech companies Sorry capitalists, if you try to win all the time than everyone will lose but you'll lose harder than the proletariat does because you have more to lose

magduf 7y ago
You can make all the threats about nationalization you want, but if you think that's going to happen in America anytime soon, to any company here, you're delusional. I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea, just that the idea of any company in America being nationalized at all is crazy; it's so against the current political climate that it really is impossible to happen. Even if the Democrats win this election it will never happen, but the idea of Trump signing off on nationalizing anything at all is insane. In European nations, however, it could happen, but even there I have a hard time seeing it. If any nation nationalizes vaccine R&D in my lifetime, I'd put money on it being China.

empath75 7y ago

Alright, so let's nationalize them.

Applejinx 7y ago
Yup!
s1artibartfast 7y ago
Or maybe governments could pay them for the vaccines they order? Alternatively, the government could hire the expertise to make vaccines.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- iron0013 7y ago
  That’s what nationalization means.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    >nationalize, verb, (of a government) to take control of a business or industry[1] Nationalizing a company or industry is very different than paying a company to do something on contract or hiring government employees to do the work. Nationalization usually involves the seizure of a business or forced buyout, and then making it illegal for competition to form. Pharmaceuticals don't want to make vaccines and aren't standing in the way. If the government really thinks that it can make vaccines cheaper, it should make a factory and hire workers. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nationalize https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/national...
    - iron0013 7y ago
      the actual definition of nationalizing is even better than what I thought; they should do that!

s1artibartfast 7y ago

>The only real expertise in the world to make these vaccines in a quantity and a safety environment is in the private sector ... >A number of flu vaccine manufacturers were left on the hook with ordered but unpaid for vaccine during the mild 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. Expecting pharma to act as charitable NGOs seems like an unstable solution. Moreso as the PR vale decreases with public attention span. Who is working on the vaccines for 2019-ncov?

aeturnum 7y ago

This feels like it raises the question of what kind of drug development pipeline we want to invest into. Drug company profits generally come from serving the needs of the well-to-do in the global north. We will obviously need new vaccines and antibiotics as time goes on. I wonder if the expensive research infrastructure setup to target the high-profit drugs is the same as the one we would build to target vaccines and antibiotics. There's an element of systemic & structural dissonance here too - if we start dying from drug resistant strains of endemic diseases, those high profit drugs probably aren't going to keep selling well. We need to think seriously about how to construct a drug development ecosystem that balances our needs. I don't think it's as simple as "nationalize the drug companies" (though I think they are pretty morally bankrupt).

reaperducer 7y ago
It would be nice if we could come up with a system that rewards doing the most good. The problem is, does "the most good" mean treats the largest number of people, or treats the most virulent conditions, or something else. Right now, we're largely using "the most good" to mean "the most good for shareholders," which is how we ended up with a bunch of different wiener pills and breast cancer is still a thing.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  Viagra exists yet breast cancer is still a thing because cancer is way harder to solve. And there is an enormous amount of money in cancer. Cancer drugs are some of the most profitable drugs to research right now. And discovering viagra was a complete accident while trying to develop a pill for cardiovascular disease.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
    > Viagra exists yet breast cancer is still a thing because cancer is way harder to solve. I am not sure that breast cancer is a good example. There have been a lot of exciting advances in breast cancer therapy including therapy that tries to cure the cancer but still preserves the breast. Five year survival rate is near 90%. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

mnm1 7y ago

They don't want to do this anymore? No problem. We'll just withhold FDA approval from all their drugs until they do. Problem solved. It's amazing what you can do when you're not in the pocket of big phrama. We're supposed to believe these companies that ravage our nation with all sorts of fucked up drugs (opiates being only one of many) deserve pity or mercy or compassion as if they were people? Ludicrous. No, they deserve the complete and total brutality of our nascent authoritarian state. Of course, this is a fantasy and that authoritarianism will only be used against individuals to protect such disgusting entities as the pharma companies, but one can always dream.

champagneben 7y ago
> We'll just withhold FDA approval from all their drugs until they do. Do you believe this "we" will include mothers with children dying from currently incurable cancers?
- evgen 7y ago
  Maybe it includes parent trying to figure out how they will provide their children with lifesaving insulin that costs pennies to produce but somehow ends up costing the consumer thousands of dollars a month. Want to make a bet about which group is bigger?
- mnm1 7y ago
  You think these companies are the only ones that can develop such drugs?
s1artibartfast 7y ago
"Stop or we will be forced to harm ourselves"

RobertRoberts 7y ago

What happened to the old wisdom "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" We know how many diseases start, why almost no discussion of prevention when vaccines are brought up as if they are the only way (or even best way) to deal with diseases?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> why almost no discussion of prevention when vaccines are brought up as if they are the only way (or even best way) to deal with diseases? I would love to hear your thoughts on how flu or measles can be reliably prevented on a population basis without the use of vaccines?
- artificialLimbs 7y ago
  For flu: elderberry extract. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190423133644.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190423133644.h...
  - magduf 7y ago
    According to your article, this might help ease the symptoms of the flu. So it's just as useful in prevention as decongestants, cough drops, expectorant, and other such drugs: not at all. It just helps you get through the infection.
    - artificialLimbs 7y ago
      Anecdata: I got the flu a couple years ago. I didn't go to the doctor to get it "officially" confirmed, but I've had the flu many times prior in my life. It was the flu. I was laying in my bed literally crying, sleeping, sweating, or some combination of the 3 all day. My wife knew about this property of elderberry and had already made some extract with the highest grain alcohol she could get in the store and fresh elderberries from our bushes. She fed me several spoonfuls through the day. The next day I was working in the yard. It was by far the shortest episode of the flu I have ever had.

trixie_ 7y ago

If the people want's vaccines, then the government should pay these companies to develop them. No different than the people/government/military wanting new planes and paying defense contractors to develop them. There's a military-industrial complex that isn't perfect, but works. If it's important enough then there should be a health-industrial complex to develop the technologies, medicines, treatments, etc.. that would be too expensive/unprofitable to develop otherwise. Total privatization is not a good idea, as having companies bid for contracts at least introduces some competition into the process, and some incentive to innovate.

WhompingWindows 7y ago
One issue is that intellectual property is vastly different in military and healthcare industries. It'd be a monumental task to re-create an aircraft carrier or fighter jet in another country, but recreate a drug that's taken billions to develop? Well that takes a small team of organic chemists and a small factory in India or elsewhere. Furthermore, vaccines are not typical drugs, they are one-use only, which is not a good profit-generator...there is not a good corollary in the military space for one-off vs. chronic drugs. The comparison of the two industries is a stretch, IMO. Completely different business models.
- iguy 7y ago
  Maybe not such a stretch. The nation wants aircraft carriers, and ideally wants other countries not to have similar ones. The nation also wants vaccines, but if the rest of the world gets to copy them, so much the better! Then perhaps the pandemic stops closer to source. In both of these, the proposed business model is that you make what the government asks you to make. And of course you build your factories in certain senator's backyards, and so on... it's not going to be done for precisely the minimum possible cost. But it can get done.
- magduf 7y ago
  >It'd be a monumental task to re-create an aircraft carrier or fighter jet in another country, but recreate a drug that's taken billions to develop? Well that takes a small team of organic chemists and a small factory in India or elsewhere. So what's the problem here? Do you want people in other countries to die of preventable diseases or something?

pazimzadeh 7y ago

It's almost like government should have a bigger hand in healthcare.

harryh 7y ago
The post is an essay about how the government has historically misdirected private resources by poorly assessing threats in times of crisis. Why does that make you think that government should be more involved in healthcare?
- xenospn 7y ago
  The government doesn't require a profit before working on a vaccine. The article clearly states that private companies will not work on new vaccines unless there's profits to be made.
  - RandomGuyDTB 7y ago
    “The only real expertise in the world to make these vaccines in a quantity and a safety environment is in the private sector,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy. “If the private sector isn’t fully engaged and involved, it’s a show stopper.” That doesn't sound very hard to me. Hire people who have the skills necessary, pay them a fair wage (lower probably than they'll make in a corporation, but they'll be working for the people rather than a robber-baron), and let them make vaccines. Aside from the cost, is it really that difficult to do this? We've spent much more on war.
    - danw1979 7y ago
      I don't know why you got down voted for sharing what sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea...
      - harryh 7y ago
        We have several centuries of evidence that private industry is better at bringing innovative products to market than centralized governments.

buboard 7y ago

I think it's more important to talk about air travel. Not only it's bad for the planet, it essentially turns every new flu virus to a pandemic. School holidays, travel, normal holidays/recess, remote work could and should be used for public health purposes. [Edit: what i'm saying is there should be motives to limit air travel during flu season, and maybe schools could align holidays / recess with flu season] As for pharma, well they 've contributed to the establishment of the current model according to which their FDA-approved monopolies are their moneymakers, everything else is a loss. The solution is to deregulate both ways, shorten or partially abolish drug patents

dmitrygr 7y ago
> Not only it's bad for the planet, it essentially turns every new flu virus to a pandemic. So you want to go back to the days of growing your own tomatoes in your own garden, and abandon trade and modern technologies?
- buboard 7y ago
  of course not. just realize that it's a disease vector and motivate people to limit air travel during flu season
Accujack 7y ago
>it essentially turns every new flu virus to a pandemic No it does not. This is patently false. Suggesting that the human race stop traveling to stop any potential diseases from traveling also is delusional.
- buboard 7y ago
  its definitely not false, but apparently you need higgh-level restrictions for it to work https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/ https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4177799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4177799/
s1artibartfast 7y ago

thewarrior 7y ago

And so the human race goes extinct because private companies delayed making a vaccine because it wasn’t profitable enough.

s1artibartfast 7y ago
And because taxpayers didn't want to pay for it.

jeffrallen 7y ago

Cry me a river.

mhb 7y ago

Venturing a Perspective on the Drug Pricing Debate: https://lifescivc.com/2019/12/venturing-a-perspective-on-the-drug-pricing-debate/ https://lifescivc.com/2019/12/venturing-a-perspective-on-the...

g_p 7y ago

Should probably have (2018) appended to title.