5 ms·

I don't think it's an ass move on the WHO's part. If anything, I think it's an ass move on Moderna's part, for not donating the vaccine to the public domain in

by LocalH 5y ago

I don't think it's an ass move on the WHO's part. If anything, I think it's an ass move on Moderna's part, for not donating the vaccine to the public domain in full, without reservation.

thrashh 5y ago
I think it’s an ass move if you consider this as an one-time isolated incident but in a greater context of encouraging future entrepreneurs to invest in creating these kind of things, it’s a lot more complicated.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think it's an ass move to not make the production methods public within markets where you're unlikely to bring in any significant revenue. All the big budget western nations have (mostly) vaccinated theirs - now the issue is rolling out an vaccine that's affordable as possible to the rest of the world. Part of that effort is enabling domestic production wherever possible in a reasonable manner.
  - bjoernw 5y ago
    The real problem limiting supply isn't the manufacturing, it's the supply chain. We now have factories optimized to produce vaccines as fast as the supply chain allows. If we start messing with the supply chains and divert inputs to factories not at the same optimization level then overall output could actually fall.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure this is legitimately a "the market will fix it" problem. If a manufacturer isn't able to efficiently use supply this will likely result in some spoilage and backlogging - that will lower the effective price that manufacturer will be willing to pay (since buying extra stock just to have it expire is a waste) and allow the more efficient manufacturers to continue to consume necessary supplies at an efficient rate. Additionally, any added sustainable demand will result in an increase in profitability in the supply chain before that point - so existing manufacturers will be encouraged to expand and some new manufacturers may enter the field. We might see a short term dip but I don't think that additional inefficient factories would lead to less overall production unless there was something weird going on like government mandates to supply inefficient manufacturers.
      - bjoernw 5y ago
        Is it worth optimizing for future output when the life-saving metric during a global pandemic is time-to-first-dose? There are only a few factories in the world that can make something as complex as an mRNA vaccine. There is literally a shortage in glass beakers and shipping lanes are backlogged. These supply chains are very fragile and helping stabilize those would do more for vaccine supply than what's being proposed here.
        munk-a 5y ago
        I would agree if I thought this would create a significant market disturbance - but I would assume the impact of a few more competing vax manufacturers will be extremely minor.
  - thawSeh6s2p 5y ago
    But they are likely to make significant revenue with everything included in the requested disclosure. Corona isn't going to be the only virus that needs a vaccination. A lot of the methods and technology produced with this vaccine can be reused later, which will generate more revenue. Can no countries pool money together for the vaccine? Can the who not act as a broker instead of encouraging IP theft? Certain pieces can be shared and reused, just like in the FOSS ecosystem, but some things are gated behind paying for the time taken to produce the overall product. It's completely reasonable to expect compensation especially when it could be provided but they're just choosing not to.
nickthemagicman 5y ago
Glad someone else thought so! I though I was crazy, for a second, thinking that people not dying was more important than some IP rights.
- darkarmani 5y ago
  Millions more will die if all of the biotech firms leave the business because they can't fund the research.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    Employees don't disappear when a company goes out of business. If Moderna has to shut down because they were too successful and their process becomes a global standard keeping billions safe, then its researchers will go work for other companies working on new stuff.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Half the founders of Moderna just made the 'richest people in the world's list. Innovators are going to be just fine.
echelon 5y ago
I think Moderna is concerned about having its entire synthesis, mass manufacture, and delivery mechanism given away for free. This isn't just about the Covid vaccine, this is their entire business that the WHO wants access to. It'd be one thing if the vaccine was an isolated innovation like a single piece of software that could be given away, but this is the company itself and everything they've been building. It's like the WHO is asking for the entire monorepo and instructions to set up the entire platform. Also, once the WHO has the tech, it'll go into the hands of competing firms in Russia and China. Maybe the WHO should be paying Moderna for more vaccines and asking for them to be provided at-cost?
- burkaman 5y ago
  But there's a global pandemic killing millions. How can they think their long-term business model is more important? I don't get it. Sure the WHO should pay for it, but if they won't pay enough to balance your projections, suck it up and save the world anyway.
  - selectodude 5y ago
    The WHO can absolutely buy the entire process. Moderna is a public company. It will cost them, at current time, $134 billion.
    - burkaman 5y ago
      Ok sure, they should do that then. If they don't, then Moderna needs to step up and release the process anyway, and then write some angry editorials about how they deserved more money if they feel that way.
      - echelon 5y ago
        Why aren't you asking McDonalds to liquidate themselves, buy Moderna, and give it to the WHO for free? You're picking on one entity here and asking them to give away everything. Moderna is a company that originally intended (and is following through on) developing cancer vaccines. If Moderna's money goes to competitors and they lose cash flow, their ambitions here become harder if not impossible. Also ask yourself why the WHO hasn't developed a vaccine for Covid and cancer by itself. It certainly has the funding to do so. Ask yourself why European countries aren't dishing out money to buy Moderna and open up the patents. I don't mean to criticize you, merely to get you to think about the interlocking and competing world-scale problem gradients. Nothing is ideal. There's always a bigger picture, and you have to think pragmatically.
plandis 5y ago
If the WHO and it’s member nations want it why don’t they value that information enough to buy up ownership of Moderna? The reality is that the rest of the world wants a US companies innovation, but is unwilling to pay the true price.

by LocalH 5y ago

I don't think it's an ass move on the WHO's part. If anything, I think it's an ass move on Moderna's part, for not donating the vaccine to the public domain in full, without reservation.

thrashh 5y ago

I think it’s an ass move if you consider this as an one-time isolated incident but in a greater context of encouraging future entrepreneurs to invest in creating these kind of things, it’s a lot more complicated.

munk-a 5y ago
I think it's an ass move to not make the production methods public within markets where you're unlikely to bring in any significant revenue. All the big budget western nations have (mostly) vaccinated theirs - now the issue is rolling out an vaccine that's affordable as possible to the rest of the world. Part of that effort is enabling domestic production wherever possible in a reasonable manner.
- bjoernw 5y ago
  The real problem limiting supply isn't the manufacturing, it's the supply chain. We now have factories optimized to produce vaccines as fast as the supply chain allows. If we start messing with the supply chains and divert inputs to factories not at the same optimization level then overall output could actually fall.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure this is legitimately a "the market will fix it" problem. If a manufacturer isn't able to efficiently use supply this will likely result in some spoilage and backlogging - that will lower the effective price that manufacturer will be willing to pay (since buying extra stock just to have it expire is a waste) and allow the more efficient manufacturers to continue to consume necessary supplies at an efficient rate. Additionally, any added sustainable demand will result in an increase in profitability in the supply chain before that point - so existing manufacturers will be encouraged to expand and some new manufacturers may enter the field. We might see a short term dip but I don't think that additional inefficient factories would lead to less overall production unless there was something weird going on like government mandates to supply inefficient manufacturers.
    - bjoernw 5y ago
      Is it worth optimizing for future output when the life-saving metric during a global pandemic is time-to-first-dose? There are only a few factories in the world that can make something as complex as an mRNA vaccine. There is literally a shortage in glass beakers and shipping lanes are backlogged. These supply chains are very fragile and helping stabilize those would do more for vaccine supply than what's being proposed here.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        I would agree if I thought this would create a significant market disturbance - but I would assume the impact of a few more competing vax manufacturers will be extremely minor.
- thawSeh6s2p 5y ago
  But they are likely to make significant revenue with everything included in the requested disclosure. Corona isn't going to be the only virus that needs a vaccination. A lot of the methods and technology produced with this vaccine can be reused later, which will generate more revenue. Can no countries pool money together for the vaccine? Can the who not act as a broker instead of encouraging IP theft? Certain pieces can be shared and reused, just like in the FOSS ecosystem, but some things are gated behind paying for the time taken to produce the overall product. It's completely reasonable to expect compensation especially when it could be provided but they're just choosing not to.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

Glad someone else thought so! I though I was crazy, for a second, thinking that people not dying was more important than some IP rights.

darkarmani 5y ago
Millions more will die if all of the biotech firms leave the business because they can't fund the research.
- burkaman 5y ago
  Employees don't disappear when a company goes out of business. If Moderna has to shut down because they were too successful and their process becomes a global standard keeping billions safe, then its researchers will go work for other companies working on new stuff.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Half the founders of Moderna just made the 'richest people in the world's list. Innovators are going to be just fine.

echelon 5y ago

I think Moderna is concerned about having its entire synthesis, mass manufacture, and delivery mechanism given away for free. This isn't just about the Covid vaccine, this is their entire business that the WHO wants access to. It'd be one thing if the vaccine was an isolated innovation like a single piece of software that could be given away, but this is the company itself and everything they've been building. It's like the WHO is asking for the entire monorepo and instructions to set up the entire platform. Also, once the WHO has the tech, it'll go into the hands of competing firms in Russia and China. Maybe the WHO should be paying Moderna for more vaccines and asking for them to be provided at-cost?

burkaman 5y ago
But there's a global pandemic killing millions. How can they think their long-term business model is more important? I don't get it. Sure the WHO should pay for it, but if they won't pay enough to balance your projections, suck it up and save the world anyway.
- selectodude 5y ago
  The WHO can absolutely buy the entire process. Moderna is a public company. It will cost them, at current time, $134 billion.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    Ok sure, they should do that then. If they don't, then Moderna needs to step up and release the process anyway, and then write some angry editorials about how they deserved more money if they feel that way.
    - echelon 5y ago
      Why aren't you asking McDonalds to liquidate themselves, buy Moderna, and give it to the WHO for free? You're picking on one entity here and asking them to give away everything. Moderna is a company that originally intended (and is following through on) developing cancer vaccines. If Moderna's money goes to competitors and they lose cash flow, their ambitions here become harder if not impossible. Also ask yourself why the WHO hasn't developed a vaccine for Covid and cancer by itself. It certainly has the funding to do so. Ask yourself why European countries aren't dishing out money to buy Moderna and open up the patents. I don't mean to criticize you, merely to get you to think about the interlocking and competing world-scale problem gradients. Nothing is ideal. There's always a bigger picture, and you have to think pragmatically.

plandis 5y ago

If the WHO and it’s member nations want it why don’t they value that information enough to buy up ownership of Moderna? The reality is that the rest of the world wants a US companies innovation, but is unwilling to pay the true price.