3 ms·
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 $100
by 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 agoIt 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 agoI 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.