3 ms·

Eminent domain in the US still requires fair compensation.

by mobilefriendly 7y ago

pmiller2 7y ago
Indeed, a 20% return would be more than fair, wouldn’t it? So, pay off their development costs + 20%.
- mlyle 7y ago
  Oh yah, that makes a lot of sense. /s IF you succeed, you get upside bounded at +20%, but you still have full downside risk. And of course, most things in bio R&D don't work. Also, re: your other hyperbole point-- this test system is neat and fills a small gap in testing capabilities. It does not have the ability to "save millions of lives" but could be a nice tool among many to help slow things down. It doesn't scale well, so it's not how you'll do most tests, but there are scenarios where having a close-to-immediate result noticeably helps. > Show me another breakthrough in the past 100 years that could save millions of lives ... The past century is littered with thousands of examples of technologies that have contributed in this or bigger ways. The Rosch and Abbott machines are going to be the workhorses here, not the Cepheid ones.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    No, you make 20% and save millions of lives. Identifying and quarantining the infected is literally the only tool we have now to slow this pandemic.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      It seems you missed both points: * "Making" 20% if you happen to be successful, when most efforts fail, is not much of a prize-- especially if you lose your company in the process. Not even the most diehard gambler would play slots with those rules. ;) * It's not going to save millions of lives. There's lots of tests available meeting different needs. It may save some lives, and will likely improve quality of life of those suspected of having COVID-19 quite a bit. Identifying and quarantining is a complicated strategy and this test is not going to be the "workhorse" of it and is certainly not going to save millions of lives. Look to Rosch, Abbott, and others that have made pieces of already-deployed infrastructure to fill that need.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        20% for a few months worth of effort is more than fair. They would not lose the entire company, simply the rights to the specific technology. And, even if it is "the whole company," then they can go start another one, or go cry me a fucking river. You seem to think I care; I don't. Mass testing literally will save lives. It worked in South Korea. If we could run 700M tests (slightly more than 2 per US resident, because you have to run at least 2 as an accuracy check) right now, I guarantee you we could get this under control. Don't believe me? Believe this guy. He's a doctor: > Testing, Testing, Testing: We must widely test our population, diagnose mild and even asymptomatic cases. Requires point of care diagnostics in doctor's office. We must advance these immediately to market. It means serology to know who was exposed and developed immunity. 9/n (From https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1241419593014484993 https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/12414195930144849... ) But, every incremental step helps here. Information is literally our only weapon against this disease right now, and testing is how you get that. Getting something like this into the hands of doctors on the front line right now is what is needed. TL;DR: You are wrong on both counts.
        mlyle 7y ago
        > 20% for a few months worth of effort is more than fair. They would not lose the entire company, simply the rights to the specific technology. And, even if it is "the whole company," then they can go start another one, or go cry me a fucking river. You seem to think I care; I don't. The rapid test technology is something that Cepheid has been developing since before 2010. Now they have gotten approval to load reagents into the disposable cartridges their machine uses to test for COVID-19. There is no way to parcel off "just this test". > Mass testing literally will save lives. It worked in South Korea. If we could run 700M tests The Cepheid technology, as I've been patiently explaining to you, is about the dumbest way to run millions of tests. The Cepheid test costs about $40 in raw materials, when a similar test from Roche has an underlying cost of $0.75, but it requires a much lower degree of operator skill and capital equipment. But because it requires less operator skill and less capital equipment, it can be closer to patients, especially in remote areas. But you're too much into "rah rah let's nationalize the technology" before you even realize what it's useful for. Neat.

Eminent domain in the US still requires fair compensation.

pmiller2 7y ago

Indeed, a 20% return would be more than fair, wouldn’t it? So, pay off their development costs + 20%.

mlyle 7y ago
Oh yah, that makes a lot of sense. /s IF you succeed, you get upside bounded at +20%, but you still have full downside risk. And of course, most things in bio R&D don't work. Also, re: your other hyperbole point-- this test system is neat and fills a small gap in testing capabilities. It does not have the ability to "save millions of lives" but could be a nice tool among many to help slow things down. It doesn't scale well, so it's not how you'll do most tests, but there are scenarios where having a close-to-immediate result noticeably helps. > Show me another breakthrough in the past 100 years that could save millions of lives ... The past century is littered with thousands of examples of technologies that have contributed in this or bigger ways. The Rosch and Abbott machines are going to be the workhorses here, not the Cepheid ones.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  No, you make 20% and save millions of lives. Identifying and quarantining the infected is literally the only tool we have now to slow this pandemic.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    It seems you missed both points: * "Making" 20% if you happen to be successful, when most efforts fail, is not much of a prize-- especially if you lose your company in the process. Not even the most diehard gambler would play slots with those rules. ;) * It's not going to save millions of lives. There's lots of tests available meeting different needs. It may save some lives, and will likely improve quality of life of those suspected of having COVID-19 quite a bit. Identifying and quarantining is a complicated strategy and this test is not going to be the "workhorse" of it and is certainly not going to save millions of lives. Look to Rosch, Abbott, and others that have made pieces of already-deployed infrastructure to fill that need.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      20% for a few months worth of effort is more than fair. They would not lose the entire company, simply the rights to the specific technology. And, even if it is "the whole company," then they can go start another one, or go cry me a fucking river. You seem to think I care; I don't. Mass testing literally will save lives. It worked in South Korea. If we could run 700M tests (slightly more than 2 per US resident, because you have to run at least 2 as an accuracy check) right now, I guarantee you we could get this under control. Don't believe me? Believe this guy. He's a doctor: > Testing, Testing, Testing: We must widely test our population, diagnose mild and even asymptomatic cases. Requires point of care diagnostics in doctor's office. We must advance these immediately to market. It means serology to know who was exposed and developed immunity. 9/n (From https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1241419593014484993 https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/12414195930144849... ) But, every incremental step helps here. Information is literally our only weapon against this disease right now, and testing is how you get that. Getting something like this into the hands of doctors on the front line right now is what is needed. TL;DR: You are wrong on both counts.
      - mlyle 7y ago
        > 20% for a few months worth of effort is more than fair. They would not lose the entire company, simply the rights to the specific technology. And, even if it is "the whole company," then they can go start another one, or go cry me a fucking river. You seem to think I care; I don't. The rapid test technology is something that Cepheid has been developing since before 2010. Now they have gotten approval to load reagents into the disposable cartridges their machine uses to test for COVID-19. There is no way to parcel off "just this test". > Mass testing literally will save lives. It worked in South Korea. If we could run 700M tests The Cepheid technology, as I've been patiently explaining to you, is about the dumbest way to run millions of tests. The Cepheid test costs about $40 in raw materials, when a similar test from Roche has an underlying cost of $0.75, but it requires a much lower degree of operator skill and capital equipment. But because it requires less operator skill and less capital equipment, it can be closer to patients, especially in remote areas. But you're too much into "rah rah let's nationalize the technology" before you even realize what it's useful for. Neat.