4 ms·

>>I don’t feel reassured that those won’t be rushed. actually I am. Vaccine makers don't gain much by doing something risky (considering the negatives) so they

>>I don’t feel reassured that those won’t be rushed. actually I am. Vaccine makers don't gain much by doing something risky (considering the negatives) so they'll check the ones seeking election at all costs.

takeda 6y ago
especially right now, a failure when so many are paying attention (and large part of population is now anti-vaxers) could actually ruin the company.
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  should have added that that the vaccine has very limited $$ potential (can't charge a gazillion for it due to bad PR and competition) and most makers have hundred billion brands that can be ruined by this. So they aren't going to risk their company for this. Lastly, suppose Acme Pharma released it against all common sense, all over the media scientists would talk against it, so lose-lose.
  - refurb 6y ago
    This! I have some experience with the big pharma companies and they are risk adverse, even when it comes to PR. They often have billions of dollars coming in from approved products, and they are often more worried about that existing revenue than any potential future revenue.
  - lbeltrame 6y ago
    However, these companies got a lot of money to ramp up production ahead of approval ("at-risk manufacturing") often by governments. If the vaccine is a fluke, they might be in trouble.
Tarq0n 6y ago
They probably could get some countries to indemnify them, they'd probably survive the damage to their reputation.
- ibejoeb 6y ago
  Countries including the USA, under the VICP. Vaccine makers are at very limited liability.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    I would imagine a COVID vaccine would be put under the homeland security act like the smallpox vaccine was. Means you have to try and sue the government.
farias0 6y ago
Well, this is a case of high risks and high rewards. I don't know a lot about business, but I don't find it hard to imagine that there's some companies out there that are willing to take the risk, especially if they have some kind of government agreement that can alleviate their liability.
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  They are hundreds of vaccines in work. Not really. The rich are hunkering down and no one is rushing to use the Russian or Chinese one
Jaepa 6y ago
Under normal times I would agree. There is already employer liability protection in the Senate stimulus bill, I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort limited liability clause added for vaccine makers as well. Also with only 38.9 approval rating of Trumps covid response, and him trailing in the polls I wouldn't be shocked to see him trying to pressure some sort of deliverable around the end of Oct, which is when some of the 3rd phase ends. EDIT: From Trump > "We’re gonna have a vaccine very soon. Maybe even before a special date. You know what date I’m talking about."

takeda 6y ago

especially right now, a failure when so many are paying attention (and large part of population is now anti-vaxers) could actually ruin the company.

onetimemanytime 6y ago
should have added that that the vaccine has very limited $$ potential (can't charge a gazillion for it due to bad PR and competition) and most makers have hundred billion brands that can be ruined by this. So they aren't going to risk their company for this. Lastly, suppose Acme Pharma released it against all common sense, all over the media scientists would talk against it, so lose-lose.
- refurb 6y ago
  This! I have some experience with the big pharma companies and they are risk adverse, even when it comes to PR. They often have billions of dollars coming in from approved products, and they are often more worried about that existing revenue than any potential future revenue.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  However, these companies got a lot of money to ramp up production ahead of approval ("at-risk manufacturing") often by governments. If the vaccine is a fluke, they might be in trouble.

Tarq0n 6y ago

They probably could get some countries to indemnify them, they'd probably survive the damage to their reputation.

ibejoeb 6y ago
Countries including the USA, under the VICP. Vaccine makers are at very limited liability.
- selectodude 6y ago
  I would imagine a COVID vaccine would be put under the homeland security act like the smallpox vaccine was. Means you have to try and sue the government.

farias0 6y ago

Well, this is a case of high risks and high rewards. I don't know a lot about business, but I don't find it hard to imagine that there's some companies out there that are willing to take the risk, especially if they have some kind of government agreement that can alleviate their liability.

onetimemanytime 6y ago
They are hundreds of vaccines in work. Not really. The rich are hunkering down and no one is rushing to use the Russian or Chinese one

Jaepa 6y ago

Under normal times I would agree. There is already employer liability protection in the Senate stimulus bill, I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort limited liability clause added for vaccine makers as well. Also with only 38.9 approval rating of Trumps covid response, and him trailing in the polls I wouldn't be shocked to see him trying to pressure some sort of deliverable around the end of Oct, which is when some of the 3rd phase ends. EDIT: From Trump > "We’re gonna have a vaccine very soon. Maybe even before a special date. You know what date I’m talking about."