4 ms·

Clearly you have no business experience. Two scenarios: First: "Please develop a vaccine for us. Go quickly. Invest massive amounts of money and resources.

Clearly you have no business experience. Two scenarios: First: "Please develop a vaccine for us. Go quickly. Invest massive amounts of money and resources. We might buy some from you. If someone else comes up with it first, we'll buy from them." Second: "Here's an irrevocable order for two billion US dollars for a product we need you to develop immediately. Go! Go! Go!". No business with risk it all under the first scenario. It would be suicidal. The second scenario. One where you are given guaranteed payment for a result as well as everything else that goes with it (lowering regulatory barriers, fast-track FDA action, help in mass manufacturing and organizing mass distribution, etc.). Yeah, the second scenario is vastly different. Put it in terms of a startup. Imagine going to a VC and saying "I have this idea but no clue if anyone will buy it", vs. "I have this idea and I have this irrevocable US government order for two billion dollars of my product and all the support I need to make it happen quickly". Which one of the two do you think will get funded in a microsecond? Yeah. That's the difference.

sofixa 6y ago
Yes, because making a vaccine for which there are over 7 billion customers that need it is absolutely the same as selling whatever. Production capacity is so far below what is needed that any vaccine manufactured in the first year or two is guaranteed to be bought. In any case, the question at hand was whether or not the US admin funded Pfizer, and it did not. It gave them assurances, but so did many other entities ( like the EU), so the US really cannot be hailed as some sort of visionaries that made the vaccines possible with their generous help ( which was what GP was claiming).
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  You've missed the real issues; they weren't the only one making a vaccine and their vaccine wasn't by any means guaranteed to be good much less the best. Without that pre-order, they had no guarantee that they would get any money. What if their vaccine turned out to be 50% effective? 30%?

sofixa 6y ago

Yes, because making a vaccine for which there are over 7 billion customers that need it is absolutely the same as selling whatever. Production capacity is so far below what is needed that any vaccine manufactured in the first year or two is guaranteed to be bought. In any case, the question at hand was whether or not the US admin funded Pfizer, and it did not. It gave them assurances, but so did many other entities ( like the EU), so the US really cannot be hailed as some sort of visionaries that made the vaccines possible with their generous help ( which was what GP was claiming).

Godel_unicode 6y ago
You've missed the real issues; they weren't the only one making a vaccine and their vaccine wasn't by any means guaranteed to be good much less the best. Without that pre-order, they had no guarantee that they would get any money. What if their vaccine turned out to be 50% effective? 30%?