3 ms·

So just to be clear you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have? This is ludicrous. The “free market” isn

So just to be clear you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have? This is ludicrous. The “free market” isn’t for everything. The US is going to get enough shots in part because the companies are US companies.

nickpp 6y ago
> you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have? No, I'm suggesting people should get the vaccine based on how much money they are willing to spend on it. Just like everything else. This would in effect reduce demand (most people would decide a mask is enough protection or to simply wait) and make sure that only people needing the vaccine (or their sponsors) would spend the money for it. The free market works for even more essentials like food, clothes and shelter, but suddenly is not for vaccines?! Only Moderna is a US company. BioNTech and AstraZeneca are European. The vaccine's very existence is owed to the free market and private enterprise. The failure to distribute and use the vaccine is solely due to governmental intervention.
- robin21 6y ago
  My first reaction was "this can't possible work", but it's interesting to think about. I wonder how the market would price it. If there was a "vaccination passport" in operation to let those vaccinated travel freely, I would be happy to pay up to 1/2K to jump-the-queue. It's a minor premium on the expense of an overseas summer vacation. Would also be happy if part of the fee included a subsidy for low-income. However, morally, I would prefer to wait for first-line responders and elderly at-risk to be prioritized with first doses. Which kind of leads us back to where we started with government prioritization. Would be interesting to see how an SV startup revenue team would price it with their huge data points on pricing models. Worth an A/B test perhaps.

nickpp 6y ago

> you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have? No, I'm suggesting people should get the vaccine based on how much money they are willing to spend on it. Just like everything else. This would in effect reduce demand (most people would decide a mask is enough protection or to simply wait) and make sure that only people needing the vaccine (or their sponsors) would spend the money for it. The free market works for even more essentials like food, clothes and shelter, but suddenly is not for vaccines?! Only Moderna is a US company. BioNTech and AstraZeneca are European. The vaccine's very existence is owed to the free market and private enterprise. The failure to distribute and use the vaccine is solely due to governmental intervention.

robin21 6y ago
My first reaction was "this can't possible work", but it's interesting to think about. I wonder how the market would price it. If there was a "vaccination passport" in operation to let those vaccinated travel freely, I would be happy to pay up to 1/2K to jump-the-queue. It's a minor premium on the expense of an overseas summer vacation. Would also be happy if part of the fee included a subsidy for low-income. However, morally, I would prefer to wait for first-line responders and elderly at-risk to be prioritized with first doses. Which kind of leads us back to where we started with government prioritization. Would be interesting to see how an SV startup revenue team would price it with their huge data points on pricing models. Worth an A/B test perhaps.