7 ms·

This is a terrible piece of writing. It claims here that Gates is evil since he recommended Oxford partner up with AstraZeneca. There is no analysis whatsoever

This is a terrible piece of writing. It claims here that Gates is evil since he recommended Oxford partner up with AstraZeneca. There is no analysis whatsoever about that why that might have been a good idea. Here's one, the companies with the production capacity might not want to produce something they don't own... (actually the article says as much if you scroll all the way to the bottom) Also just assuming that someone who donates billions is evil without any research whatsoever is just lazy clickbait journalism. Next it talks about how businesses profit from this. While true it's also totally misses the point. The economist wrote an article on how the world is vastly underspending on solving this problem. Another one: "this should have expected better negotiation on the part of the U.S. government". If I'm negotiating with a freelance developer and need help tomorrow, do you think it makes sense to haggle on price? I definitely wouldn't.

croes 6y ago
In a global pandemic with lots of people dying a company doesn't want to produce a vaccine they don't own, sounds pretty evil to me and to urge Oxford to sell their research instead of donating it isn't any better. So it remains, the wealthy can afford their healthcare, the poor dependent on "kind" donors and the rest is fucked. Seems to me like Gates didn't want to lose his leverage.
- open-source-ux 6y ago
  That's not entirely fair. The other view: Oxford University pairs with a company with the global logistics and manufacturing capability to create billions of vaccine in record time. I much prefer the idea of a royalty-free vaccine open to all, but I also understand the more practical route of working with a company if it means faster delivery where time is of the essence. The article posted here purposefully omits the cost price of the Oxford vaccine which is approximately £3 ($5). Even if AstraZeneca were to add a profit margin of a few dollars to the cost price (e.g. bring the cost to $10) that would still be cheaper than the vaccines from Biotech/Pfizer and Moderna. Also, Oxford has always insited that they wanted to create a vaccine that would be as cheap as possible to manufacture so it would be affordable to treat people around the world.
  - croes 6y ago
    Wouldn't you think there are multiple local companies that could handle the production? We need lots of vaccine in a short time. A few companies can't to that. And AstraZenecas current price for the vaccine doesn't need to be the price after the pandemic when corona shots are maybe as common as flu shots. The took the results of public funded research, can produce a vaccine without risk of loss and and chance of high profit in the future. And Oxfords insistence on low manufacturing costs, doesn't make it affordable if the IP is hold by a single company. It just raises the profit margin. Oxford should have insisted on a maximum markup to the manufacturing price.
flagrant 6y ago
> Next it talks about how businesses profit from this. While true it's also totally misses the point. The economist wrote an article on how the world is vastly underspending on solving this problem. Is it supposed to make me feel better that not only are we not spending enough on the problem, but what little we are spending is going to line the pockets of Big Pharma instead?
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  They're the ones actually making the vaccines to solve the problem?? What better use of our money is it than funding and buying the vaccine? How is that "lining their pockets"? If anything they're selling doses for much much more cheaply than people would be willing to pay for them.
  - flagrant 6y ago
    But this is about profit. Profit is by definition money that wasn't required to create the vaccine.
    - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
      Where are the vaccines from non-capitalist societies? Fact is, it was necessary. Incentives are part of the solution, not just the end product.
    - bradleyjg 6y ago
      It’s necessary to incentivize people to invent and manufacture the vaccine. It’s amazing to me that we now have a generation coming up that doesn’t know that we—-that is the human race—-tried socialism, really gave it the old college try, and it. did. not. work. For a significant period of time most of the educated people in the world thought it would work. This was not some fringe idea that was never given a fair shot. (I’m talking here about actual socialism, not welfare capitalism that many on the contemporary left and right call socialism for their own propagandist reasons.)
      - 6y ago
monopoledance 6y ago
> Also just assuming that someone who donates billions is evil without any research whatsoever is just lazy clickbait journalism. Assuming someone who donates billions is not evil is also lazy thinking... To me the article doesn't say Gates is "evil". They say Gates uses his immense influence to make the world how he sees fit. Do you have any evidence against Gate's being in strong favor of IP over open access? And let's roll with it... Do you think Gates should have the power to influence the lives of billions like that? I don't mean "access to vaccines" and other superficial no-brainers, I mean setting up the world way beyond the good bits. It's not like the "patents: good, corporate power: good" weltanschauung is general consensus, especially in research where he plays his cards[+]. [+] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUWDrLazCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUWDrLazCg
- Tenoke 6y ago
  >And let's roll with it... Do you think Gates should have the power to influence the lives of billions like that? Yes, I think the world will be worse-off if he couldn't. I definitely wouldn't put all my hope in governments and is overall good that there are other actors, too. I can recommend this Scott Alexander piece on the topic[0]. 0. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    I had never read the supposed rationalist bastion that is Slate Star Codex. But this is total first-order thinking rubbish. Shall we talk incentives? If billionaries cannot launder their reputations through philanthropy, maybe that would be more careful of their reputation during the wealth-accumulation phase. This reasoning is the equivalent of "well, the sharecropper better keep on paying the man, because no field means starvation which is worse".
    - Tenoke 6y ago
      >Shall we talk incentives? If billionaries cannot launder their reputations through philanthropy, maybe that would be more careful of their reputation during the wealth-accumulation phase. I think you are exaggerating the effect of it. Do you really those who do shady deals think about 'laundering their reputation' when they are older - especially with the majority of their assets - as a big reason to do what they do, to the point where they wouldn't do those deals if they cant do philanthropy later? Perhaps to a small extent but I seriously doubt it's a big part of the picture. Definitely not enough to overshadow all the good done through philanthropy.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Just assuming that someone who donates billions is good without any research whatsoever is just as lazy.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Because donating billions is a morally neutral act, or what?
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Yeah, basically.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      That would make you, someone who hasn't donated billions, evil, correct?
      - nojster 6y ago
        Your statement is illogical on several levels. This is not a tertium non datur situation. If donating money is ‘neutral’ then not donating money is ‘neutral’. I’m not joining the discussion on whether or not this is a charitable act, just pointing out (since this is HN) inconsistencies.
JeremyNT 6y ago
This is an old article. It's resurfacing now because the supposed benefit of selling this vaccine to AZ was their ability to produce it and distribute it rapidly, but on Friday they announced a 60% reduction in their q1 supply to the EU. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-astrazeneca-exc-idUSKBN29R2I9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-ast... It's important to hold "free market" solutions accountable when they fail to deliver. Maybe all these decisions were really made in a good faith belief that selling to AZ was for the best. But the proof is in the tasting; intentions are important but they don't change reality.
anigbrowl 6y ago
There is no analysis whatsoever about that why [...] (actually the article says as much if you scroll all the way to the bottom) I'm confused about why you left your first assertion in place since you went on to acknowledge it wasn't factual.

croes 6y ago

In a global pandemic with lots of people dying a company doesn't want to produce a vaccine they don't own, sounds pretty evil to me and to urge Oxford to sell their research instead of donating it isn't any better. So it remains, the wealthy can afford their healthcare, the poor dependent on "kind" donors and the rest is fucked. Seems to me like Gates didn't want to lose his leverage.

open-source-ux 6y ago
That's not entirely fair. The other view: Oxford University pairs with a company with the global logistics and manufacturing capability to create billions of vaccine in record time. I much prefer the idea of a royalty-free vaccine open to all, but I also understand the more practical route of working with a company if it means faster delivery where time is of the essence. The article posted here purposefully omits the cost price of the Oxford vaccine which is approximately £3 ($5). Even if AstraZeneca were to add a profit margin of a few dollars to the cost price (e.g. bring the cost to $10) that would still be cheaper than the vaccines from Biotech/Pfizer and Moderna. Also, Oxford has always insited that they wanted to create a vaccine that would be as cheap as possible to manufacture so it would be affordable to treat people around the world.
- croes 6y ago
  Wouldn't you think there are multiple local companies that could handle the production? We need lots of vaccine in a short time. A few companies can't to that. And AstraZenecas current price for the vaccine doesn't need to be the price after the pandemic when corona shots are maybe as common as flu shots. The took the results of public funded research, can produce a vaccine without risk of loss and and chance of high profit in the future. And Oxfords insistence on low manufacturing costs, doesn't make it affordable if the IP is hold by a single company. It just raises the profit margin. Oxford should have insisted on a maximum markup to the manufacturing price.

flagrant 6y ago

> Next it talks about how businesses profit from this. While true it's also totally misses the point. The economist wrote an article on how the world is vastly underspending on solving this problem. Is it supposed to make me feel better that not only are we not spending enough on the problem, but what little we are spending is going to line the pockets of Big Pharma instead?

CydeWeys 6y ago
They're the ones actually making the vaccines to solve the problem?? What better use of our money is it than funding and buying the vaccine? How is that "lining their pockets"? If anything they're selling doses for much much more cheaply than people would be willing to pay for them.
- flagrant 6y ago
  But this is about profit. Profit is by definition money that wasn't required to create the vaccine.
  - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
    Where are the vaccines from non-capitalist societies? Fact is, it was necessary. Incentives are part of the solution, not just the end product.
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    It’s necessary to incentivize people to invent and manufacture the vaccine. It’s amazing to me that we now have a generation coming up that doesn’t know that we—-that is the human race—-tried socialism, really gave it the old college try, and it. did. not. work. For a significant period of time most of the educated people in the world thought it would work. This was not some fringe idea that was never given a fair shot. (I’m talking here about actual socialism, not welfare capitalism that many on the contemporary left and right call socialism for their own propagandist reasons.)
    - 6y ago

monopoledance 6y ago

> Also just assuming that someone who donates billions is evil without any research whatsoever is just lazy clickbait journalism. Assuming someone who donates billions is not evil is also lazy thinking... To me the article doesn't say Gates is "evil". They say Gates uses his immense influence to make the world how he sees fit. Do you have any evidence against Gate's being in strong favor of IP over open access? And let's roll with it... Do you think Gates should have the power to influence the lives of billions like that? I don't mean "access to vaccines" and other superficial no-brainers, I mean setting up the world way beyond the good bits. It's not like the "patents: good, corporate power: good" weltanschauung is general consensus, especially in research where he plays his cards[+]. [+] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUWDrLazCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUWDrLazCg

Tenoke 6y ago
>And let's roll with it... Do you think Gates should have the power to influence the lives of billions like that? Yes, I think the world will be worse-off if he couldn't. I definitely wouldn't put all my hope in governments and is overall good that there are other actors, too. I can recommend this Scott Alexander piece on the topic[0]. 0. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  I had never read the supposed rationalist bastion that is Slate Star Codex. But this is total first-order thinking rubbish. Shall we talk incentives? If billionaries cannot launder their reputations through philanthropy, maybe that would be more careful of their reputation during the wealth-accumulation phase. This reasoning is the equivalent of "well, the sharecropper better keep on paying the man, because no field means starvation which is worse".
  - Tenoke 6y ago
    >Shall we talk incentives? If billionaries cannot launder their reputations through philanthropy, maybe that would be more careful of their reputation during the wealth-accumulation phase. I think you are exaggerating the effect of it. Do you really those who do shady deals think about 'laundering their reputation' when they are older - especially with the majority of their assets - as a big reason to do what they do, to the point where they wouldn't do those deals if they cant do philanthropy later? Perhaps to a small extent but I seriously doubt it's a big part of the picture. Definitely not enough to overshadow all the good done through philanthropy.

Ericson2314 6y ago

Just assuming that someone who donates billions is good without any research whatsoever is just as lazy.

StavrosK 6y ago
Because donating billions is a morally neutral act, or what?
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Yeah, basically.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    That would make you, someone who hasn't donated billions, evil, correct?
    - nojster 6y ago
      Your statement is illogical on several levels. This is not a tertium non datur situation. If donating money is ‘neutral’ then not donating money is ‘neutral’. I’m not joining the discussion on whether or not this is a charitable act, just pointing out (since this is HN) inconsistencies.

JeremyNT 6y ago

This is an old article. It's resurfacing now because the supposed benefit of selling this vaccine to AZ was their ability to produce it and distribute it rapidly, but on Friday they announced a 60% reduction in their q1 supply to the EU. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-astrazeneca-exc-idUSKBN29R2I9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-ast... It's important to hold "free market" solutions accountable when they fail to deliver. Maybe all these decisions were really made in a good faith belief that selling to AZ was for the best. But the proof is in the tasting; intentions are important but they don't change reality.

anigbrowl 6y ago

There is no analysis whatsoever about that why [...] (actually the article says as much if you scroll all the way to the bottom) I'm confused about why you left your first assertion in place since you went on to acknowledge it wasn't factual.