3 ms·

> I think there's a fairly sizable difference between modern medicine, in which we can develop an effective cure for a pandemic within a year of the pandemic st

> I think there's a fairly sizable difference between modern medicine, in which we can develop an effective cure for a pandemic within a year of the pandemic starting, and historical medicine Yes, there is a difference, and it's striking. For example, despite the pandemic the wealthy countries have voted overwhelmingly against waiving patents on the long-needed vaccine: https://www.msf.org/countries-obstructing-covid-19-patent-waiver-must-allow-negotiations https://www.msf.org/countries-obstructing-covid-19-patent-wa... > I don't think the modern medical industry would work without IP law. No. Modern medical industry preys on IP law.

suck-it-dang 6y ago
Yes, it's evident from the flagging on this post. The mere mention of "intellectual property" in the era of the pandemic causes people's minds to melt from the cognitive dissonance. If both are true that 1) there is a deadly contagious virus and 2) the vaccine is the best way to prevent the spread of this virus, then the clear implication is that we should maximize the production of the vaccine and, so, that IP laws should be relaxed (especially so for publicly funded vaccines). Really, millions might die in the developing world over this, but a lot of the people who posture the most about the virus seems to not really care at all about that. No surprise, decades of endless propaganda and general stupefaction have taken quite a toll on the frail American mind.
reissbaker 6y ago
Yes, there is a difference, and it's striking. For example, despite the pandemic the wealthy countries have voted overwhelmingly against waiving patents on the long-needed vaccine Correct. In modern times, the countries that developed the vaccine are insisting on getting paid for it. In historical times, vaccines didn't exist and everyone died when a pandemic struck. The reason the countries that developed the vaccines voted against waiving patents is precisely because they believe that IP is required for the modern medical industry to function. The historical alternative to IP law is trade secrets, which is much worse for medicine, which has made its advancements on the back of researchers publishing and sharing their work. And with trade secrets, even assuming that the mRNA research and development necessary had somehow been funded and done entirely in-house since no one would be publishing it, still Pfizer would demand to be paid for its vaccines, and no one could copy them because they wouldn't have told anyone how to make them.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  Yes. "Insisting to be paid" for a vaccine to combat global pandemic. If you don't see an issue with that, then you need to amend the following: > In historical times, vaccines didn't exist and everyone died when a pandemic struck. Amendment: now it's the poor countries who die. > The historical alternative to IP law is trade secrets Yes, historically it is. But it's shades and shades of possibilities between "you pay, or you die" and "you pay, or you die, but for different reasons"

suck-it-dang 6y ago

Yes, it's evident from the flagging on this post. The mere mention of "intellectual property" in the era of the pandemic causes people's minds to melt from the cognitive dissonance. If both are true that 1) there is a deadly contagious virus and 2) the vaccine is the best way to prevent the spread of this virus, then the clear implication is that we should maximize the production of the vaccine and, so, that IP laws should be relaxed (especially so for publicly funded vaccines). Really, millions might die in the developing world over this, but a lot of the people who posture the most about the virus seems to not really care at all about that. No surprise, decades of endless propaganda and general stupefaction have taken quite a toll on the frail American mind.

reissbaker 6y ago

Yes, there is a difference, and it's striking. For example, despite the pandemic the wealthy countries have voted overwhelmingly against waiving patents on the long-needed vaccine Correct. In modern times, the countries that developed the vaccine are insisting on getting paid for it. In historical times, vaccines didn't exist and everyone died when a pandemic struck. The reason the countries that developed the vaccines voted against waiving patents is precisely because they believe that IP is required for the modern medical industry to function. The historical alternative to IP law is trade secrets, which is much worse for medicine, which has made its advancements on the back of researchers publishing and sharing their work. And with trade secrets, even assuming that the mRNA research and development necessary had somehow been funded and done entirely in-house since no one would be publishing it, still Pfizer would demand to be paid for its vaccines, and no one could copy them because they wouldn't have told anyone how to make them.

dmitriid 6y ago
Yes. "Insisting to be paid" for a vaccine to combat global pandemic. If you don't see an issue with that, then you need to amend the following: > In historical times, vaccines didn't exist and everyone died when a pandemic struck. Amendment: now it's the poor countries who die. > The historical alternative to IP law is trade secrets Yes, historically it is. But it's shades and shades of possibilities between "you pay, or you die" and "you pay, or you die, but for different reasons"