3 ms·
This is such an absurd argument: >We continue to support public-private partnerships for product development, and approaches such as non-exclusive voluntary li
by yogthos 6y ago
This is such an absurd argument:
>We continue to support public-private partnerships for product development, and approaches such as non-exclusive voluntary licensing which promote affordable access for all while also providing incentives to create life-changing vaccines.
The researchers doing the actual work to create life-changing vaccines are clearly not driven by profit, nor do they actually get a share of that profit being salaried. The question is of a monetary incentive for funding the research in the first place. Seems to me that this is a strong argument for important research being done at state level since private companies won't do it without a profit incentive.
- StavrosK 6y agoIt just means "we can't take pharmaceutical companies' profit away when it's the biggest goldmine they've seen in the past century". They were fine before COVID, they'll be fine without profiteering from it.
- yogthos 6y agoThe point here is that profit has no place in things like healthcare in the first place. People's lives should not be evaluated in terms of profitability. This also results in completely wrong incentives. For example, making a treatment that can be sold repeatedly is more profitable than making a vaccine that eradicates a diseases. Profit motive is entirely at odds with what's actually desirable in this scenario.