3 ms·

If "we" gave you $20B to move a vaccine from proof-of-concept to production, could you do it? I know I couldn't... That's a service, it's worth money, it's wort

by tomp 6y ago

If "we" gave you $20B to move a vaccine from proof-of-concept to production, could you do it? I know I couldn't... That's a service, it's worth money, it's worth paying for. Edit: people don't seem to understand that there are several stages in pharma development... (1) research, (2) trials, (3) scaling production. It sounds to me that even if (1) and (2) are "paid for" (with public money), (3) is still non-trivial and therefore expensive.

flyingfences 6y ago
> it's worth paying for And "we" are already paying for it. Let's not let them double-dip.
- reegnz 6y ago
  No, we're only paying for part of 'it'. The cure isn't just research, it's also logistics and there does not exist a capable non-profit to do the logistics part of it in such a short time. Also you underestimate how much it costs to build such a supply chain capable of producing and shipping that many vaccines around the world. Hint: the research costs are just a fraction of the logistics cost, you just don't see that up front because it's also used to ship other stuff besides vaccines. These things cost money, and you assume your taxes are covering them in full. They don't.
  - teucris 6y ago
    I think the key desire is that the intellectual property, built from publicly funded research, should not be owned by a single corporation. Production and distribution are of tremendous value and these companies should be rewarded for providing that value. But the vaccine itself? Why not let others invest capital and try to produce & distribute the vaccine?
fock 6y ago
especially to the shareholders ... holding shares and getting dividends (and no, for a 100 year old company these people didn't invest at all in the business case. They invested in a financial product.)
overlyresucpp 6y ago
You’re being overly reductionist and dismissive. No one is claiming otherwise. And back to normal is still a long ways off. If you’re admitting we’re giving them money for a thing, it’s paid for. I don’t know why you quote it like that, transfer payments of public money to private institutions is a thing, is it up for debate it happens? Also cost is emotional. Does it have to be 20 billion or is the government handing out cheddar for consulting jobs later? There’s more too it than high school capitalist theory. Just because you can’t for $20 billion doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t for $5. But we hide the work in private accounts. Humanities work, built towards by countless hands and minds. Yeah ok we get it, Murray Rothbard; You’re only 1 in 7 billion. Why does your theory matter? Roll up them sleeves. What? He’s dead? In the bin with it, no need to carry water for a dead man.

by tomp 6y ago

flyingfences 6y ago

> it's worth paying for And "we" are already paying for it. Let's not let them double-dip.

reegnz 6y ago
No, we're only paying for part of 'it'. The cure isn't just research, it's also logistics and there does not exist a capable non-profit to do the logistics part of it in such a short time. Also you underestimate how much it costs to build such a supply chain capable of producing and shipping that many vaccines around the world. Hint: the research costs are just a fraction of the logistics cost, you just don't see that up front because it's also used to ship other stuff besides vaccines. These things cost money, and you assume your taxes are covering them in full. They don't.
- teucris 6y ago
  I think the key desire is that the intellectual property, built from publicly funded research, should not be owned by a single corporation. Production and distribution are of tremendous value and these companies should be rewarded for providing that value. But the vaccine itself? Why not let others invest capital and try to produce & distribute the vaccine?

fock 6y ago

especially to the shareholders ... holding shares and getting dividends (and no, for a 100 year old company these people didn't invest at all in the business case. They invested in a financial product.)

overlyresucpp 6y ago

You’re being overly reductionist and dismissive. No one is claiming otherwise. And back to normal is still a long ways off. If you’re admitting we’re giving them money for a thing, it’s paid for. I don’t know why you quote it like that, transfer payments of public money to private institutions is a thing, is it up for debate it happens? Also cost is emotional. Does it have to be 20 billion or is the government handing out cheddar for consulting jobs later? There’s more too it than high school capitalist theory. Just because you can’t for $20 billion doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t for $5. But we hide the work in private accounts. Humanities work, built towards by countless hands and minds. Yeah ok we get it, Murray Rothbard; You’re only 1 in 7 billion. Why does your theory matter? Roll up them sleeves. What? He’s dead? In the bin with it, no need to carry water for a dead man.