13 ms·

Maybe this was clear to some, but lots of people thought it worthwhile to fund trials. To me 63M doses of a cheap drug sounds like a really small bet. We shoul

by iguy 6y ago

Maybe this was clear to some, but lots of people thought it worthwhile to fund trials. To me 63M doses of a cheap drug sounds like a really small bet. We should be willing to make lots of them, on the slightest hope, knowing that most will be wasted. Get 50 experts and fund anything which gets 2 votes.

justin66 6y ago
> Maybe this was clear to some, but lots of people thought it worthwhile to fund trials. "A lot of people are saying..."
- iguy 6y ago
  A policy of funding a domestic trial of anything which anyone else is trying anywhere in the world wouldn't be crazy, actually. We're not trying to only make safe bets; the cost of not having a solution is 1000 deaths a day.
  - justin66 6y ago
    > A policy of funding a domestic trial of anything which anyone else is trying anywhere in the world wouldn't be crazy, actually. It seems rather crazy to me, but perhaps more importantly, it is a strategy that - implemented literally - would result in the US leadership being very easily led by others "anywhere in the world" in matters of drug research, a situation which would be very amenable to manipulation for profit. That's obviously wrong. We want the US leadership to be very easily led by Fox News personalities and whatever is popping on Twitter.
sharkmerry 6y ago
I think the issue was, as another commenter stated, it has current uses for patients and the price almost doubled. So people had shortages or couldnt afford needed medicine. because of a (apparently) dubious study
- mlyle 6y ago
  Yes, that is really unfortunate. Hopefully not too many people did without needed medicine. Probably there will be some suffering relating to stockpiling of steroids (dexamethasone, methylprednisolone), that we're now learning -do- work in the severely ill, too.
- iguy 6y ago
  Sure, that's bad. There's no point spending money chasing existing stock of the drug within the country, if it's useful it will all get used anyway. But a $100M or whatever check to ramp up production, or to buy wholesale stock from elsewhere, that would have been worth writing on day 1. Even on extremely flimsy evidence, given the huge daily costs of this thing. Run the careful trials at the same time as building a huge factory which you probably won't need.
  - sharkmerry 6y ago
    > buy wholesale stock from elsewhere The issue im presenting is they are buying them to be prepared to treat Americans IF it worked. But because they bought so many so quickly, it put Americans in a position where they weren't able to have medicine they needed. The government has a responsibility to balance current needs with possible immeidate future needs, it doesnt seem like they did.
    - iguy 6y ago
      It would be interesting to understand better how shortages came about. Was there enough time for a global price rise to have filtered through to retail customers? Or was there enough retail panic-buying to generate shortages? If everybody with a prescription tried to buy 3 months worth, because they are scared of shortages, then I bet there would be shortages. (Isn't that exactly what happened with toilet paper?)
      - tim333 6y ago
        I suspect it was panic buying that drove prices up. You can't go and just buy 63M doses on the market as there isn't that much lying around normally - it was probably produced to order. I know Novartis donated 30M pills and was offering to supply 130M.

by iguy 6y ago

justin66 6y ago

> Maybe this was clear to some, but lots of people thought it worthwhile to fund trials. "A lot of people are saying..."

iguy 6y ago
A policy of funding a domestic trial of anything which anyone else is trying anywhere in the world wouldn't be crazy, actually. We're not trying to only make safe bets; the cost of not having a solution is 1000 deaths a day.
- justin66 6y ago
  > A policy of funding a domestic trial of anything which anyone else is trying anywhere in the world wouldn't be crazy, actually. It seems rather crazy to me, but perhaps more importantly, it is a strategy that - implemented literally - would result in the US leadership being very easily led by others "anywhere in the world" in matters of drug research, a situation which would be very amenable to manipulation for profit. That's obviously wrong. We want the US leadership to be very easily led by Fox News personalities and whatever is popping on Twitter.

sharkmerry 6y ago

I think the issue was, as another commenter stated, it has current uses for patients and the price almost doubled. So people had shortages or couldnt afford needed medicine. because of a (apparently) dubious study

mlyle 6y ago
Yes, that is really unfortunate. Hopefully not too many people did without needed medicine. Probably there will be some suffering relating to stockpiling of steroids (dexamethasone, methylprednisolone), that we're now learning -do- work in the severely ill, too.
iguy 6y ago
Sure, that's bad. There's no point spending money chasing existing stock of the drug within the country, if it's useful it will all get used anyway. But a $100M or whatever check to ramp up production, or to buy wholesale stock from elsewhere, that would have been worth writing on day 1. Even on extremely flimsy evidence, given the huge daily costs of this thing. Run the careful trials at the same time as building a huge factory which you probably won't need.
- sharkmerry 6y ago
  > buy wholesale stock from elsewhere The issue im presenting is they are buying them to be prepared to treat Americans IF it worked. But because they bought so many so quickly, it put Americans in a position where they weren't able to have medicine they needed. The government has a responsibility to balance current needs with possible immeidate future needs, it doesnt seem like they did.
  - iguy 6y ago
    It would be interesting to understand better how shortages came about. Was there enough time for a global price rise to have filtered through to retail customers? Or was there enough retail panic-buying to generate shortages? If everybody with a prescription tried to buy 3 months worth, because they are scared of shortages, then I bet there would be shortages. (Isn't that exactly what happened with toilet paper?)
    - tim333 6y ago
      I suspect it was panic buying that drove prices up. You can't go and just buy 63M doses on the market as there isn't that much lying around normally - it was probably produced to order. I know Novartis donated 30M pills and was offering to supply 130M.