4 ms·

Thanks, that's quite informative. In a critical situation such as the pandemic, it seems to me, from a project management and engineering perspective, that it

Thanks, that's quite informative. In a critical situation such as the pandemic, it seems to me, from a project management and engineering perspective, that it might be worth ramping up production of a vaccine (or several) even before it has passed later stage trials, and maybe even pre-distribute it a bit to national storage facilities. So if the trials look great and the side effects are sufficiently minimal, the delay for manufacture and distribution will be reduced after the trials. But I guess I see all sorts of political problems with that, if the trials are good but the side effects are a problem, or say it causes a horrible desease for 0.1% of people down the line. The pressure to use the product would be immense, despite the trial saying no this is not safe.

acqq 7y ago
Long term, THE major problem is the expectation to profit every time, stupidly, nobody with the money cares if one of that times the whole world gets infected: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-long-will-it-take-to-develop-a-coronavirus-vaccine https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-long-will-it-ta... "There may never be a market for a vaccine at the end of the development process, because the epidemic is contained, or never comes to pass. Then, traditionally, if there is an epidemic, it may take hold in a developing country where the costs of research and development cannot be recouped. “The resources and expertise sit in biotech and pharma, and they’ve got their business model,” Grant said. “They’re not charities. They can’t do this stuff for free.”" The "investors" just want the growth of their money, even the money they make would become meaningless after the pandemics that's efficient enough. The nature is indeed capable to set its own growth not caring about the "interests of investors." Obviously the whole structure as well as the priorities just have to be set differently. The next time could be even much worse than now. Which must be a political decision for change, not a technological "invention". The technology is not a "deux ex machina" -- the natural limitations are real. Some solutions exist but simply can't be expected to "make profit every time." So how can it be done? Taxes. What was too dangerous selling point for generations of politicians? "Less taxes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina But the taxes are even now used, and spent in mind boggling amount, just for other priorities, year after year: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike...

acqq 7y ago

Long term, THE major problem is the expectation to profit every time, stupidly, nobody with the money cares if one of that times the whole world gets infected: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-long-will-it-take-to-develop-a-coronavirus-vaccine https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-long-will-it-ta... "There may never be a market for a vaccine at the end of the development process, because the epidemic is contained, or never comes to pass. Then, traditionally, if there is an epidemic, it may take hold in a developing country where the costs of research and development cannot be recouped. “The resources and expertise sit in biotech and pharma, and they’ve got their business model,” Grant said. “They’re not charities. They can’t do this stuff for free.”" The "investors" just want the growth of their money, even the money they make would become meaningless after the pandemics that's efficient enough. The nature is indeed capable to set its own growth not caring about the "interests of investors." Obviously the whole structure as well as the priorities just have to be set differently. The next time could be even much worse than now. Which must be a political decision for change, not a technological "invention". The technology is not a "deux ex machina" -- the natural limitations are real. Some solutions exist but simply can't be expected to "make profit every time." So how can it be done? Taxes. What was too dangerous selling point for generations of politicians? "Less taxes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina But the taxes are even now used, and spent in mind boggling amount, just for other priorities, year after year: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike...