3 ms·

> Compare this with a vaccine that promises N years of immunity. Except that they've backtracked: it no longer promises "immunity" and apparently it no longer

> Compare this with a vaccine that promises N years of immunity. Except that they've backtracked: it no longer promises "immunity" and apparently it no longer promises "years". The vaccine doesn't have to be the best possible. It's obviously hard to make a good one; the problem is, the biggest players are the ones best suited to put the work in for a good vaccine, and if they don't choose to, it's possible they can just swallow up a smaller player that does manage to pull it off. There's been so many conversations on HN about the antitrust situation with the big tech corporations; is it so hard to consider that maybe there's a similar situation in biotech? Consumers aren't looking for the best vaccine; they're looking for the first one available, so they can be less scared about dying. That's the metric that's visible and desirable.

AshamedCaptain 5y ago
> There's been so many conversations on HN about the antitrust situation with the big tech corporations; is it so hard to consider that maybe there's a similar situation in biotech? Sure there is. Sure there are. You hear about them when the antitrust law goes into effect. And? We obviously don't live in a world where all the software is intentionally filled with bugs, so at best you can use that as evidence that the antitrust laws are doing _something_. You can hardly use that as evidence that they are ineffective and there are trusts everywhere. > Consumers aren't looking for the best vaccine; they're looking for the first one available Apparently not, since they seem to get angry if they've used the one that "lasts for 6 months". Certainly there is no practical durability information right now, but are you arguing that once there is, they won't flee to the one that promises longer-term "protection"?
- peteradio 5y ago
  Software doesn't need to be filled with bugs intentionally. Software is basically the art of writing and selectively removing bugs. It happens naturally and if for some reason you find your software has evolved to a state of optimal bugginess then you fire your last developer. See! No intention required.
- generalizations 5y ago
  > Apparently not, since they seem to get angry if they've used the one that "lasts for 6 months". People get mad when their cheap stuff breaks, too, even if that wasn't part of their purchasing criteria. Now they're scared about dying, again. > You can hardly use that as evidence that they are ineffective and there are trusts everywhere. I'm not making such an extreme claim, because it's not binary. There's a middle ground that you've excluded. I'm using the existence of some antitrust in one sphere as evidence that some antitrust might also exist in another sphere. Edit: I think you might be misunderstanding my position: I'm defending the legitimacy of some very critical questions. Far as I can tell, you're arguing that my skepticism is flat-out unwarranted. Of the two, from a logic perspective, yours is the harder position to defend, because you're trying to prove a negative.
  - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
    > People get mad when their cheap stuff breaks, too No, they don't. They just buy another iDevice with again non-removable battery. > I'm using the existence of some antitrust in one sphere as evidence that some antitrust might also exist in another sphere. Not really -- you are assuming the entire "another" sphere is entirely a big trust, since that is what would be required for your claim of not a single lab making long-term vaccines / claiming that they know how to make long-term vaccines / leaking that they don't make long-term vaccines for non-technical reasons. This is not a minor specialized market, it is the friggin vaccine-of-the-year market. > I'm defending the legitimacy of some very critical questions. Far as I can tell, you're arguing that my skepticism is flat-out unwarranted. Of the two, from a logic perspective, yours is the harder position to defend, because you're trying to prove a negative. This is ridiculous. You are the one making the claim, you are the one needing to provide the evidence. Most specially if it is a dubious claim that requires a big conspiracy of a significant amount of people (but you'd still need to provide the evidence even if it wasn't). Otherwise, this is just Russell's teapot all over again. How are you going to disprove my very critical questions of there being a perfectly safe and very long term vaccine hidden inside a porcelain teapot which is floating around in the Lagrange point of Earth that NASA (and Elon Musk!) is hiding from us, for god knows what reasons? Aha! Unwarranted skepticism much, eh?

AshamedCaptain 5y ago

> There's been so many conversations on HN about the antitrust situation with the big tech corporations; is it so hard to consider that maybe there's a similar situation in biotech? Sure there is. Sure there are. You hear about them when the antitrust law goes into effect. And? We obviously don't live in a world where all the software is intentionally filled with bugs, so at best you can use that as evidence that the antitrust laws are doing _something_. You can hardly use that as evidence that they are ineffective and there are trusts everywhere. > Consumers aren't looking for the best vaccine; they're looking for the first one available Apparently not, since they seem to get angry if they've used the one that "lasts for 6 months". Certainly there is no practical durability information right now, but are you arguing that once there is, they won't flee to the one that promises longer-term "protection"?

peteradio 5y ago
Software doesn't need to be filled with bugs intentionally. Software is basically the art of writing and selectively removing bugs. It happens naturally and if for some reason you find your software has evolved to a state of optimal bugginess then you fire your last developer. See! No intention required.
generalizations 5y ago
> Apparently not, since they seem to get angry if they've used the one that "lasts for 6 months". People get mad when their cheap stuff breaks, too, even if that wasn't part of their purchasing criteria. Now they're scared about dying, again. > You can hardly use that as evidence that they are ineffective and there are trusts everywhere. I'm not making such an extreme claim, because it's not binary. There's a middle ground that you've excluded. I'm using the existence of some antitrust in one sphere as evidence that some antitrust might also exist in another sphere. Edit: I think you might be misunderstanding my position: I'm defending the legitimacy of some very critical questions. Far as I can tell, you're arguing that my skepticism is flat-out unwarranted. Of the two, from a logic perspective, yours is the harder position to defend, because you're trying to prove a negative.
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  > People get mad when their cheap stuff breaks, too No, they don't. They just buy another iDevice with again non-removable battery. > I'm using the existence of some antitrust in one sphere as evidence that some antitrust might also exist in another sphere. Not really -- you are assuming the entire "another" sphere is entirely a big trust, since that is what would be required for your claim of not a single lab making long-term vaccines / claiming that they know how to make long-term vaccines / leaking that they don't make long-term vaccines for non-technical reasons. This is not a minor specialized market, it is the friggin vaccine-of-the-year market. > I'm defending the legitimacy of some very critical questions. Far as I can tell, you're arguing that my skepticism is flat-out unwarranted. Of the two, from a logic perspective, yours is the harder position to defend, because you're trying to prove a negative. This is ridiculous. You are the one making the claim, you are the one needing to provide the evidence. Most specially if it is a dubious claim that requires a big conspiracy of a significant amount of people (but you'd still need to provide the evidence even if it wasn't). Otherwise, this is just Russell's teapot all over again. How are you going to disprove my very critical questions of there being a perfectly safe and very long term vaccine hidden inside a porcelain teapot which is floating around in the Lagrange point of Earth that NASA (and Elon Musk!) is hiding from us, for god knows what reasons? Aha! Unwarranted skepticism much, eh?