6 ms·
The wealthy scramble for Covid-19 vaccines: ‘If I donate $25,000..’
- chmod775 6y agoI mean come on. A $25,000 donation is kind of laughable when hospitals have no issue charging that much to give a kid some stitches after falling off a bike. Try 100x that maybe?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SilasX 6y agolol yeah the amounts the hospitals charge is ridiculous. But even beside that, just intuitively, $25k seems low for a life-saving queue-jump during a crisis.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoBut it’s not a life saving measure in the same way a surgery might be. It’s life saving in the sense of seatbelts. And given a bit of time everyone can hopefully get it. I’m having trouble imagining many scenarios where getting the vaccine now vs. a bit later makes such a massive difference.
- freeone3000 6y agoWell, if you're a seventy-year-old in a nursing home, or a nurse seeing 70 patients a day, or a doctor involved in COVID care, there's a huge difference. There's a reason deployment is prioritized.
- flatiron 6y agoWhat I think of is the jet setting sales person. Now worry free back in the skies and in the hotels pounding the pavement. Then I realize who would they go meet?
- worker767424 6y ago> $25k seems low for a life-saving queue-jump during a crisis. Not really. Right off the bat, if you figure there's a 1% chance you die if you get it and a 20% change you get it, that values a life at $12.5M. That's a little on the low side for someone rich, but not not by that much. You also have to factor in that it's free in 6 months, and for at least 3 months, it's not like you can do anything. The drug is also experimental, so there's an off chance something really bad happens. The vaccine also means you won't be a long hauler, so that adds some value. $25k feels about right.
- bilbo0s 6y agoThe point is, we don't have to worry about what feels right when we have the ability to implement a computerized auction and maximize the wealth we extract from these people in the first place. I agree with OP. I'm betting if you have an open auction, 25k would come in on the low side.
- SilasX 6y agoEchoing what bilbo0 said. Also, you’re not factoring in the reputational and legal risk to those bribed, and the fact that the rich try to get it with the specific intent to ramp up their riskier activities once they get it, which will allow them to do valuable things in a disproportionately valuable time frame.
- Simulacra 6y agoI don't think so, considering that the wealthy were hoarding PPE and ventilators at the height of the crisis. It would be fascinating to see the wealthy scramble for this early vaccine, only to find that it has some horrible side-effect. Darn shame.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- noja 6y agoFine. Limit the number, make it an auction, use that money to buy vaccines for the poor.
- philipov 6y agoYou can't always just throw money at a problem to make it go away. The resources to make these vaccines are limited.
- jasongill 6y agoI'm not an economist but wouldn't that basically make it impossible for people in the middle class to get it? if the doses are sold to the wealthy at the top end, and that money goes to buy doses for those at the bottom end, how do people in the middle get access?
- newusr1212 6y agoThe middle class usually gets screwed. Policies either favor the wealthy or the poor, hardly ever the middle.
- ChrisLTD 6y agoThat’s what taxes are for; we shouldn’t be fine with people skipping the line.
- twblalock 6y agoThis isn't actually that crazy, if it is done by states rather than hospitals. If state governments set aside some amount of vaccines and auctioned them off to the highest bidders, it might help cover the budget shortfalls and cuts to social services that are going to come in the next few years as a result of states draining their budgets to pay unemployment benefits during the pandemic. Those cuts would disproportionately affect the poor, and the rich wouldn't care -- but we can get the rich to help us avoid making the cuts. Given that many of the rich donors would be old, and therefore members of the high risk group eligible for early vaccination, such auctions might not actually make a big difference in who gets the vaccines first.
- chadash 6y agoSince we all know that the wealthy will figure out how to cut the line, I wish we would just own up to it and auction off a certain number of doses and give the money to those affected by the pandemic.
- ChrisLTD 6y agoI humbly suggest not expecting and tolerating corruption.
- wmf 6y agoIn a neoliberal world, buying the vaccine isn't really corruption.
- creddit 6y agoHow is it corruption if it's the official policy to auction off some of the vaccine to top bidders? It’s basically a tax on the wealthy.
- aqme28 6y agoHow is that preferable to a regular tax on the wealthy?
- umeshunni 6y agoBecause a regular tax wouldn't get them vaccines
- aqme28 6y agoThat's kind of the idea. A regular tax and distribution also wouldn't keep vaccines from people who need them most.
- justicezyx 6y agoThey are not countering each other, do they? Why not do both? And ATM why not execute a measure that is the one more acceptable to everyone, I.e. auction? I doubt any typical citizens would be mad at auction off 1% and use the fund to increase the total supply by 10% or even 100%.
- lumost 6y agoGovernments (aka taxpayers - present and future), NGOs, and a myriad private philanthropy endeavors donated Billions of dollars to create the vaccines, jump start production, and secure volume for the entire population. Turning to market distribution after taking on free public money to make a vaccine available to everyone sounds like pure corruption.
- wmf 6y agoNot if the money goes to the government.
- fortran77 6y agoIf 10 wealthy people cover the costs to administer the vaccine to 10,000 poor people, is anybody losing?
- war1025 6y agoPeople don't like it when we do things to highlight the fact that, as stated in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
- ceejayoz 6y agoIt's not gonna work that way, though.
- vlovich123 6y agoAll of us actually. Quite badly. There aren't 10 wealthy people. There's about 12 million millionaire households in this country. That's not even discussing the generational implications of that. Young couple in their 20s or 30s that don't have a lot of wealth themselves, but can fallback onto a parental group to help them. There's only ~210 million people > 18 years of age. 12 million households is a lot even when you start excluding people based on being cash poor (locked up in long-term bonds, most of it is housing appreciation, etc). These people generally can afford their own health care, they have good health outcomes even when they get COVID (access to health care, diet, general healthiness, etc). They likely already have jobs that they can do remotely & generally minimize contact with other people indoors via food delivery services & whatnot. We're already prioritizing lots of "famous" people because they need to help the media get the message out. I find this argument questionable but at least it's plausible & I haven't researched the data/case studies on this. The rest of us need to wait. We need to make sure that we're prioritizing those people who are likely to GET COVID multiplied by their expected likelihood of how many people they'd infect & somehow score that against their personal risk for fatality. In a list like that I'd expect elderly homes to get the most attention. Very susceptible as we have seen in the reports. Doctors & nurses would be lower as they have access to healthcare, they have great access to high quality handling of COVID, etc. These are the guidelines I would use. Then I'd have the candidate groups vote amongst themselves in terms of who they think should have priority. If there's a nurse there that's well like & is working two jobs that have them in contact with large population groups because of shitty pay, let that information source bubble up to the overall organizational level. Then from those loops have cut-offs (i.e. everyone this spot & below gets the next batch because there's more needy people elsewhere). As you vaccinate more of a group then you end up having better heard immunity. As you vaccinate more people who travel between groups regularly, you decrease the speed of disease spread. There are ways to do this fairly & efficiently. The problem is how to fight the innate selfishness we all have where we look with either missing or partial data & complete the gaps in a way that happens to benefit the group I'm in in some way. At the extremes you have those who are willing to do it blatantly & pay bribes to get advantage over their fellow being. At the other it's "we have to use famous/powerful people to advertise!", or "sell to the rich!" which again promote ways of privileging the people who make these decisions & their friend networks. This kind of flawed thinking is eating apart American society. We need to be focused downward. How can we best help those less fortunate than ourselves. We need to get them to the poorest & most vulnerable the fastest. They're suffering from it the most & are likely to be in housing conditions or working conditions that keep the disease alive longer. Why is this important? The disease has a fantastic opportunity to mutate if vaccine doesn't perfectly contain it. Think Spanish Flu that turned into the annual flu. Or we can roll the dice again on this thing. YOLO?
- haberman 6y ago> Toll tells his patients that those designated as most at-risk by public health officials should get it first. Let us hope this is true. Because it appears that public policy experts are racializing the question of who is an "essential worker" and who should be getting the vaccine first: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs... > One occupation whose priority is being hotly debated is teaching. The C.D.C. includes educators as essential workers. But not everyone agrees with that designation. > Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argued that teachers should not be included as essential workers, if a central goal of the committee is to reduce health inequities. > “Teachers have middle-class salaries, are very often white, and they have college degrees,” he said. “Of course they should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of workers.” > Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”
- SilasX 6y agoAt risk of feeding a political debate ... JFC! Teachers are an absolutely vital pillar of the economy, both for preparing the next generation, and for freeing up the parents for full time work. Their inability to do their jobs right now is absolutely crippling the economy and amplifying they crisis tenfold. The virtualization of classrooms has already had effects that will be felt for years. And they’re seriously arguing for holding that up on the grounds that teachers are too white and well-off? Wow. The chronic underpayment of teachers looks almost trivial by comparisons.
- tayo42 6y agoSeems like you could use the same logic and don't vaccinate doctors and nurses because they're are paid well and educated. People will get outraged about anything.
- MichaelZuo 6y agoAn auction would be quite a clever way to mitigate this issue while raising funds. I wonder if there’s a way to quickly spool up a secure auction system. I’d be curious to know how much could be raised if 1% of the supply was reserved for that. Still distributing the proceeds of the auction would have the same problem. GPS trackers on tamper proof containers with computerized scales? With some sort of self destruct system? Perhaps 24/7 monitoring from a command centre? Or just post armed guards 24/7 at each distribution point. Sky’s the limit it seems if cost is no object.
- aqme28 6y agoWhat about raising money through taxation, and then distributing vaccines to those most in need? I don't think we should acquiesce to corruption like you're proposing. There are better ways to raise funds.
- SilasX 6y agoBecause you can raise a lot more money with a lot less impact this way. It definitely feels preferable to higher taxes on labor or investment.
- MichaelZuo 6y agoWell one method can be implemented immediately, and the results will be immediately evident, whereas the other actually invites further corruption, because distribution is precisely the problem that we are trying to solve.
- aqme28 6y agoIt's not clear that there's a distribution problem here, and it seems pretty obvious to me that giving them to the highest bidder would make whatever distribution scheme we have even worse.
- MichaelZuo 6y agoIf there is no distribution problem then what’s there to worry about that requires coordinated action?
- kazinator 6y agoYou know, I'm kind of okay with those who move around the globe and party more than everyone else getting the vaccine first.
- Trasmatta 6y ago"When I mentioned that we could put him on the priority list for the Ambrosia vaccine he was so willing it was almost pathetic."
- KingMachiavelli 6y agoI don't expect to much of a black market during the first phase since the vaccines are being sent directly to hospitals and nursing homes. Medication in those places tends to be literally locked down (initially just for drugs of abuse but recently I've heard most medication is becoming tracked and locked down). Although since the vaccine has to be stored in a freezer, I'm not quite sure how hospitals will keep their supply secure other than having a guard. Once the second phase opens next year and allows anyone with a risk factor including some pretty common ones; diabetes and obesity, I expect the rules to be bent a bit more and a black/greymarket to gain traction. Although, wealthy people tend to be older anyway which makes them more likely to qualifying risk factors.
- worker767424 6y agoYou could just sell the hanukkah doses. No one's tracking those. You're also not allowed to pool partial doses, but I'm sure someone paying $25k would be fine with a pooled dose.
- laegooose 6y agoWhat is 'hanukkah dose'?
- worker767424 6y agoA lot of the vaccine vials that had 5 doses actually have 6 or 7. The hanukkah story is about a candle that had enough oil to burn one night, but it lasted 8. This happened right on hanukkah, too.
- AntiImperialist 6y agoSounds like bs. Traditionally, vaccines have been tried out in the poorest countries first... because it's easy to do if all you have to do for masses to show up is bribe the leaders and give hungry people free food. If things go wrong, "they died of hunger" and nobody cares. This time around, it may be a bit tricky to do that, so it has to be tried out closer to home. The problem is people are not willing to be guinea pigs. Many would rather wait and see: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/who-wants-be-guinea-pig-health-workers-balk-vaccine-40-staff-one-chicago-hospital-refuse https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/who-wants-be-guinea-pig-h... So, I think this is just an effort to manufacture consent. "The rich people are willing to pay a lot for it. Are you sure you don't want it?" I think there is a better way to do it than to give it to doctors and other frontline workers. They're too valuable. The people who are going to get it should be randomly drafted to get it... over and over again until we reach critical mass. Eventually, we should leave out enough people unvaccinated and hence long term effects can be less catastrophic.
- PragmaticPulp 6y agoI have no doubt this is happening, but this article seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Most of the article is about hypothetical situations where boutique doctor clinics might receive vaccine allocations that would go to their wealthy client base. Unless I'm missing something, the article doesn't actually say it's happening, just that it might. The headline claim about one person asking about a $25K donation comes from a single anecdote in the middle of the article: > Dr. Jeff Toll, who has admitting privileges at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, one of the first hospitals to stock the vaccine, recalled a patient asking: “If I donate $25,000 to Cedars, would that help me get in line?’” Toll said no. The rest of the article makes a logical leap from people asking their doctors when they can get the vaccine to implications that they are trying to skip the line by paying extra, simply because they're wealthy. The author throws in some anti-Hollywood and anti-Silicon Valley jabs for good measure: > The pattern is familiar in a state where Hollywood stars and Silicon Valley executives are accustomed to getting their way. There doesn't seem to be much substance to this article, beyond the one anecdote from one guy who asked about a $25K donation.
- umeshunni 6y agoIt's just your standard rage bait that Bernie/AOC fans can share on their Instagram stories. But Laura and Maya can now feed their kids thanks to the clicks they got the LA times.
- Hoasi 6y agoIf this needed further demonstration, this whole COVID crisis showed how irrational humans are. It's flabbergasting how, in the same world, a person would want to pay more to get access to a vaccine first while another wants to avoid it at all costs. That is not at all how things work.
- worker767424 6y agoThey're both being rational; they're just weighing costs and benefits with a lot of unknowns differently.
- Hoasi 6y agoTrue, if we confuse being selfish with having a rational position.
- aaron-santos 6y agoThey're Nash optimizing and we're asking them to Kantian optimize.
- bluedino 6y agoGo volunteer at a hospital that requires people to get vaccinated. That seems like the simplest way.
- ogre_codes 6y agoFor some, paying $25k is more affordable and convenient than doing a couple weeks volunteer time.
- worker767424 6y agoI have a feeling hospitals aren't using volunteers right now
- bluedino 6y agoOf course they are. So many employees have quit or are out sick.
- georgebarnett 6y agoWhy is the life of a person with money more important that somebody without? Why is this an important signal, given healthcare teams have already decided on a priority order?
- twblalock 6y ago> Why is this an important signal, given healthcare teams have already decided on a priority order? Because if we handle it right, we can get the wealthy to pay for the vaccine production for everyone else, or plow that money into state governments to prevent the cuts to social services that are coming.
- georgebarnett 6y agoGovernments have already paid for the production. Rich people paying hospitals would funds hospital coffers and not go further. If you think the states should get the money, then taxes are a better approach. Giving this to rich people does nothing to further immunity in vulnerable sectors of the population - it weakens that goal.
- twblalock 6y agoI have suggested, in another comment, directing the money to states rather than hospitals. We don't need to take the narrow view that hospitals are the only way to do this. Let the states run the show, let them take the money, and let them use the money for social services, or to reimburse hospitals for vaccines, or whatever else that will make a positive impact.
- georgebarnett 6y agoI find it ironic, that in a nation that complains so bitterly about its healthcare system and the associated costs of care, there are so many willing to exponentially increase the costs of an item just because people need it and some can afford it. Your approach baffles me.
- gt565k 6y agoThey did it with the first covid tests, when us plebs couldn't get a test even when we were sick, those hollywood stars and athletes got access to the tests right away.
- yread 6y agoEven the damn tiger!
- Bostonian 6y agoWhy not? If someone produces $1mil of value in a year, his or her good health is more important to society than someone who produces no value. Even someone on the political left should value the $300K in tax revenue that the high earner may generate.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- postingpals 6y ago"Jobs and Wozniak's lives were worthless when they were making no money developing Apple" Is essentially the argument you're making.
- Simulacra 6y agoI don't even want to contemplate the vaccine. Yesterday I went to my doctor just for a COVID test, as I will be traveling over the holidays. He asked me to wait to get the test until the last possible minute as my insurance will only pay for ONE test. Any additional tests will be $750 out of pocket. I would hope that we could work out cheap, rapid testing first, before deciding the price of a vaccine.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]