5 ms·

That's still kind of a pathetic amount when you consider how wealthy the US is and how many vaccines are needed globally. The reluctance to invest in productio

That's still kind of a pathetic amount when you consider how wealthy the US is and how many vaccines are needed globally. The reluctance to invest in production capacity demonstrated by both the Trump administration and the Biden administration is disappointing. People like to reply to points like this by highlighting the unambitious investments that did get made. I don't pretend to know what the actual limits of production are, but I'm pretty skeptical that we got near them. Edit: A year after it was reasonably clear we had viable vaccines, we are something like 10 billion doses short of global coverage. That's what I am comparing 100 million to.

throwaway894345 5y ago
The Trump and Biden administrations both invested heavily in vaccine production. And while the US is wealthy, it’s not wealthier than all of the other countries combined, and yet it is donating more vaccine than all other countries combined.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  The Trump and Biden administrations both invested heavily in vaccine production. This is what I disagree with. They picked relatively low targets and invested against those. Modestly larger investments would likely have been able to increase production rates well beyond where they are right now. And it's production rate that is the bottleneck, not the decision to donate or whatever.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Modestly larger investments would likely have been able to increase production rates well beyond where they are right now. Citation needed. Scaling an industry from nothing in a year is a herculean task. I’m a staunch Trump critic, but Operation Warp Speed worked pretty well (if only because DJT got out of the way). The production rates are damn impressive and it’s not like anyone had any idea about how much vaccine we would be able to produce or how quickly. Arguments from hindsight aren’t particularly convincing.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      The spending they did do was probably illegal (glad they did it). They took ~$10 billion from other programs. Why didn't Congress allocate $50 billion? The piece the New York Times did on production of the Pfizer vaccine makes it pretty clear that a lot of the production is not new (bioreactors and the like). I realize it isn't trivial to do that sort of production, and don't really disagree with "Arguments from hindsight aren't particularly convincing.", but I also haven't seen a single piece of information on what fundamental limit was run into. The mixing of the mRNA and lipids got a lot of attention, but there wasn't any clear 'here's why we can't go twice as fast' information published, as far as I saw.
_3u10 5y ago
Poor countries except for the initial 20 years of adopting free market economics are poor by choice.
- Kungfuturtle 5y ago
  Reading this comment and shaking my head, I am reminded of the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Dont feed the trolls, folks.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Why not just address the point? Surely there’s an example of a country that has adopted free market economics and remained poor. You regard the point as trolling because you lack any counterpoint. Like say, ever since China adopted the free market post tianamen incomes had steadily declined while the Great Leaps Forward resulted in bumper crops and full wallets.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Just to be clear. Government wealth comes from tax collection and from the people. While we want to help the world there are constraints on how much we can do.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  I mean, that's a story book simplification. Look at the mobilization for World War II. The decision to do it had more than 0 impact on the resources that ended up being available (I'm being droll; the decision had an enormous impact). The US could start paying (the reasonable, cost based) price for every single Covid 19 vaccination that takes place and forget about it, it isn't that big a sum of money. Meanwhile, we've, by choice, only done a bit.
- mistermann 5y ago
  The general sentiment I get from most people is that banding together to save the lives of others is a moral imperative, and unwillingness to do so is selfish. I don't think I am mischaracterizing this, am I?
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    I don't think you are but it is nuanced. Our two sentiments are not incompatible. Focusing on self first is not inherently selfishness. "You can't help others if you yourself are in need of help." "Before You Help Others, You Must First Help Yourself" "Before you assist others, always put your oxygen mask on first." "Self-sufficiency is a prerequisite to charity."
    - mistermann 5y ago
      > Focusing on self first is not inherently selfishness. Agreed, but focusing on self-only is proclaimed to be selfish, is it not? Have Western nations not had the means for many years to dramatically decrease deaths in foreign countries for relatively modest sacrifices? There are certainly no shortage of persuasive memes, platitudes, and general rhetoric that exert significant influence on people's perception of this matter, but I prefer addressing it from a strict epistemic perspective.

throwaway894345 5y ago

The Trump and Biden administrations both invested heavily in vaccine production. And while the US is wealthy, it’s not wealthier than all of the other countries combined, and yet it is donating more vaccine than all other countries combined.

maxerickson 5y ago
The Trump and Biden administrations both invested heavily in vaccine production. This is what I disagree with. They picked relatively low targets and invested against those. Modestly larger investments would likely have been able to increase production rates well beyond where they are right now. And it's production rate that is the bottleneck, not the decision to donate or whatever.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Modestly larger investments would likely have been able to increase production rates well beyond where they are right now. Citation needed. Scaling an industry from nothing in a year is a herculean task. I’m a staunch Trump critic, but Operation Warp Speed worked pretty well (if only because DJT got out of the way). The production rates are damn impressive and it’s not like anyone had any idea about how much vaccine we would be able to produce or how quickly. Arguments from hindsight aren’t particularly convincing.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    The spending they did do was probably illegal (glad they did it). They took ~$10 billion from other programs. Why didn't Congress allocate $50 billion? The piece the New York Times did on production of the Pfizer vaccine makes it pretty clear that a lot of the production is not new (bioreactors and the like). I realize it isn't trivial to do that sort of production, and don't really disagree with "Arguments from hindsight aren't particularly convincing.", but I also haven't seen a single piece of information on what fundamental limit was run into. The mixing of the mRNA and lipids got a lot of attention, but there wasn't any clear 'here's why we can't go twice as fast' information published, as far as I saw.

_3u10 5y ago

Poor countries except for the initial 20 years of adopting free market economics are poor by choice.

Kungfuturtle 5y ago
Reading this comment and shaking my head, I am reminded of the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Dont feed the trolls, folks.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Why not just address the point? Surely there’s an example of a country that has adopted free market economics and remained poor. You regard the point as trolling because you lack any counterpoint. Like say, ever since China adopted the free market post tianamen incomes had steadily declined while the Great Leaps Forward resulted in bumper crops and full wallets.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

Just to be clear. Government wealth comes from tax collection and from the people. While we want to help the world there are constraints on how much we can do.

maxerickson 5y ago
I mean, that's a story book simplification. Look at the mobilization for World War II. The decision to do it had more than 0 impact on the resources that ended up being available (I'm being droll; the decision had an enormous impact). The US could start paying (the reasonable, cost based) price for every single Covid 19 vaccination that takes place and forget about it, it isn't that big a sum of money. Meanwhile, we've, by choice, only done a bit.
mistermann 5y ago
The general sentiment I get from most people is that banding together to save the lives of others is a moral imperative, and unwillingness to do so is selfish. I don't think I am mischaracterizing this, am I?
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  I don't think you are but it is nuanced. Our two sentiments are not incompatible. Focusing on self first is not inherently selfishness. "You can't help others if you yourself are in need of help." "Before You Help Others, You Must First Help Yourself" "Before you assist others, always put your oxygen mask on first." "Self-sufficiency is a prerequisite to charity."
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > Focusing on self first is not inherently selfishness. Agreed, but focusing on self-only is proclaimed to be selfish, is it not? Have Western nations not had the means for many years to dramatically decrease deaths in foreign countries for relatively modest sacrifices? There are certainly no shortage of persuasive memes, platitudes, and general rhetoric that exert significant influence on people's perception of this matter, but I prefer addressing it from a strict epistemic perspective.