4 ms·

I don't understand why governments haven't made the contracts and guarantees to ensure increased global production over the long-term (not just for Covid-19). W

I don't understand why governments haven't made the contracts and guarantees to ensure increased global production over the long-term (not just for Covid-19). We're going to need a much higher rate of production for years to come, yet everybody keeps thinking "Next month! It'll all be over next month!". I'm tired of this shit, and I'm tired of governments thinking so short-sightedly. The EU alone could make a huge difference in this area, but they're so unwilling to actually effect positive change in the world by using their position as a unified region.

dboreham 6y ago
Because incompetence?
- eecc 6y ago
  Or the competent were ousted for not aligning with the team strategy and lowering morale?
Someone 6y ago
“but they're so unwilling to actually effect positive change in the world by using their position as a unified region” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst... (Both examples of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect) Thing is: if the long term necessity for increased production of N95 masks were a no-brainer, companies would commit to building facilities. If governments subsidized producers, and it turns out we end up with more masks then we need, people would accuse them of wasting taxpayer money. Making that call is hard, as companies are ramping up production and articles such as the one being discussed could mean much fewer masks are needed. Also, it seems at least Germany is working on this. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-europe-masks/europes-scramble-for-face-masks-prompts-longer-term-rethink-idUSKCN21Y131 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-europe...: “Germany has said it will foot 30% of the investment bill for companies that manage to get production of the coveted filter fabric started before year-end”
- Voliokis 6y ago
  > If governments subsidized producers, and it turns out we end up with more masks then we need, There's no way to end up with more masks than you need. Masks don't expire. If you're worried about the elastic expiring, require designs where the straps are easily replaceable or removable. And masks are absolutely necessary for the future. Companies can't rely on society recognizing this, which is why they can't blindly commit to building the capacity for it. But that has nothing to do with how necessary masks are for the current situation and for the future. It's just another typical case of market failure, in the sense that a free market won't optimize for the same things you would if your priorities include things like environmental protection and health. This is something that needs to be regulated and subsidized by governments, who are supposed to be protecting us from future risks instead of pretending that there's nothing they ever could've done and nobody could've foreseen a global pandemic. Also, if a government cares more about looking good than doing the right thing, then it's a bad government.

dboreham 6y ago

Because incompetence?

eecc 6y ago
Or the competent were ousted for not aligning with the team strategy and lowering morale?

Someone 6y ago

“but they're so unwilling to actually effect positive change in the world by using their position as a unified region” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst... (Both examples of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect) Thing is: if the long term necessity for increased production of N95 masks were a no-brainer, companies would commit to building facilities. If governments subsidized producers, and it turns out we end up with more masks then we need, people would accuse them of wasting taxpayer money. Making that call is hard, as companies are ramping up production and articles such as the one being discussed could mean much fewer masks are needed. Also, it seems at least Germany is working on this. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-europe-masks/europes-scramble-for-face-masks-prompts-longer-term-rethink-idUSKCN21Y131 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-europe...: “Germany has said it will foot 30% of the investment bill for companies that manage to get production of the coveted filter fabric started before year-end”

Voliokis 6y ago
> If governments subsidized producers, and it turns out we end up with more masks then we need, There's no way to end up with more masks than you need. Masks don't expire. If you're worried about the elastic expiring, require designs where the straps are easily replaceable or removable. And masks are absolutely necessary for the future. Companies can't rely on society recognizing this, which is why they can't blindly commit to building the capacity for it. But that has nothing to do with how necessary masks are for the current situation and for the future. It's just another typical case of market failure, in the sense that a free market won't optimize for the same things you would if your priorities include things like environmental protection and health. This is something that needs to be regulated and subsidized by governments, who are supposed to be protecting us from future risks instead of pretending that there's nothing they ever could've done and nobody could've foreseen a global pandemic. Also, if a government cares more about looking good than doing the right thing, then it's a bad government.