4 ms·

The article answers this. Because further government involvement would slow down the process. E.g. “To as­sem­ble its mRNA pro­duc­tion net­work, Pfizer used

• scotty79 6y ago
  So basically the answer is that government is completely incapable to give money with no strings attached. There are always strings and they always slow things down.
  • lifeformed 6y ago
    Another way to interpret this is that when unrestrained, Pfizer cut some corners and insufficiently represented the test population. Of course, this all depends on the reasoning behind that request.
    • eloff 6y ago
      That's a completely unsubstantiated allegation.
      • throwaway2245 6y ago
        "Executives said they didn’t want to give agencies outside the FDA more leverage over the design of the trials" substantiates it, given that this was the leverage sought.
        • eloff 6y ago
          No it does not. Your assuming that was the leverage sought. You're also assuming that's the primary reason for avoiding government interference when there are many reasons for that. The primary possibly being that bringing the government into it would slow things down. Finally you're assuming that they didn't have a diverse trial, and you're wrong about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25408528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25408528
      • lifeformed 6y ago
        It's not meant to be an allegation; my point is that the government asking to increase test diversity isn't inherently a negative. However, the parent comment interpreted that it was, because it was stated earlier that it "slowed things down", without showing that such a request was frivolous.
    • NicoJuicy 6y ago
      The FDA still has to approve and cutting corners will end up being when searching for approval
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• wiz21c 6y ago
  yeah but it increases government's control. Which, depending on how you see it, may be a good thing.
• jariel 6y ago
  1) The FDA sets the rules, even in a pandemic, not Pfizer - and this is good. It's pointless to test a vaccine if the result are not valid for Black people. This is not an example of 'slow government bureaucracy' - this is normal regulatory oversight, akin to 'approval' of the drug in the first place. 2) That they didn't take the money is a second order issue in the context of $4 Trillion hit to the economy with 300 000 dead in the US alone. Pfizer will do whatever is best for their economic outcome. Not taking money because they believe it may have slowed them down is one thing, but not taking it because they'd not make as much profit is another. The profit motivation has obviously distorted early response, to the point that good organized leadership would have required some kind of regulated but open regime for manufacture, with some kind of negotiated price. Why on earth are we only letting Pfizer manufacture it? The answer is 'free markets' - except they are obviously dysfunctional at the moment. A better answer would be some kind of 'Open IP' agreement whereby an established royalty would be set for the vaccine, and basically anyone can make it. We already have government established rates for every single natural resource, and we have controlled rates for energy as well - this is not a new idea. Also - the government could provide 'infinite credit' for approved pre-production of select vaccines by select manufacturers at a set price, thereby encouraging mass-manufacturing of vaccine candidates even if the candidate failed. i.e. socialize the risk. Its counter-intuitive but only in a regular market based context. The math shows how that's upside down though, the ROI is much, much higher with intervention. Now - if the government has is literally incompetent in every operating capacity, that's another storey, but what I have described here is not 'government manufacture', but rather, a different kind of market-based solution, with a different incentive structure.