5 ms·

I don't think it's fair to say that it's just money. There's also a global crisis and a huge need for such a drug.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Well hopefully money serves as a tool for prioritizing resources for important problems. Seems to be working well in this case.
- xattt 5y ago
  The added incentive is survival of the species.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    Lets not overdo it. Covid is not wiping out the human species.
    - rafaelvasco 5y ago
      Maybe it could if left unchecked and mutating up and down ?
      - acdha 5y ago
        No — if it was that easy, the odds are high that something else would have already done so. The two things which tend to factor into this are that there's a lot of natural variation so it means that the population will change to favor a high percentage of people who are somewhat resistant to it[1] after a few generations of recovery. There's also an inverse relationship between deadliness and spread: if something kills at a high rate, the odds are high that it'll burn out when the outside world goes into quarantine as long as it doesn't spread to 100% of the breeding population before they start dying. Anything deadly enough to wipe out a species is going to have a LOT less resistance to lockdowns — COVID-19 is deadly but far below the rates of other diseases and that puts it in a grey area where there are a fair number of people who've had it and can say “no big deal”. Smallpox or polio were enough worse that people jumped on treatment campaigns because almost everyone with lived experience knew they didn't want it. 1. A great example appears to be Sickle Cell Anemia, where the gene responsible is thought to confer some resistance to malaria — normally this would be a disadvantage but in areas where malaria is endemic the risk of SCA is more than balanced by the risk of malaria.
        rafaelvasco 5y ago
        Makes sense to me. Thanks.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - FpUser 5y ago
        >"Maybe it could if left unchecked and mutating up and down ?" Nope
  - therealdrag0 5y ago
    How is species survival at risk?
  - kazinator 5y ago
    Big Pharma will not invest in a research program they know will lose money, even if that money-losing situation is the successful case which saves humanity from extinction. They will do the work, if the money comes from somewhere else.
- pxc 5y ago
  Money has totally failed at allocating vaccinations and treatments for COVID-19 to 95% of the global population. But it's 'succeeded' in securing boosters for people who are already vaccinated in the richest parts of the world while global supply is lacking.
  - thefounder 5y ago
    I guess that's just an unfortunate, cynical side effect of the "survival of the fittest".
kazinator 5y ago
Pharma doesn't do charity though. Drug risky is very expensive and highly risky. It's risky whether you research a drug for some disease that ten people have in the world, or for a pandemic. Research related to the pandemic is de-risked by some margin and that alone makes it attractive.

Well hopefully money serves as a tool for prioritizing resources for important problems. Seems to be working well in this case.

xattt 5y ago
The added incentive is survival of the species.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  Lets not overdo it. Covid is not wiping out the human species.
  - rafaelvasco 5y ago
    Maybe it could if left unchecked and mutating up and down ?
    - acdha 5y ago
      No — if it was that easy, the odds are high that something else would have already done so. The two things which tend to factor into this are that there's a lot of natural variation so it means that the population will change to favor a high percentage of people who are somewhat resistant to it[1] after a few generations of recovery. There's also an inverse relationship between deadliness and spread: if something kills at a high rate, the odds are high that it'll burn out when the outside world goes into quarantine as long as it doesn't spread to 100% of the breeding population before they start dying. Anything deadly enough to wipe out a species is going to have a LOT less resistance to lockdowns — COVID-19 is deadly but far below the rates of other diseases and that puts it in a grey area where there are a fair number of people who've had it and can say “no big deal”. Smallpox or polio were enough worse that people jumped on treatment campaigns because almost everyone with lived experience knew they didn't want it. 1. A great example appears to be Sickle Cell Anemia, where the gene responsible is thought to confer some resistance to malaria — normally this would be a disadvantage but in areas where malaria is endemic the risk of SCA is more than balanced by the risk of malaria.
      - rafaelvasco 5y ago
        Makes sense to me. Thanks.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - FpUser 5y ago
      >"Maybe it could if left unchecked and mutating up and down ?" Nope
- therealdrag0 5y ago
  How is species survival at risk?
- kazinator 5y ago
  Big Pharma will not invest in a research program they know will lose money, even if that money-losing situation is the successful case which saves humanity from extinction. They will do the work, if the money comes from somewhere else.
pxc 5y ago
Money has totally failed at allocating vaccinations and treatments for COVID-19 to 95% of the global population. But it's 'succeeded' in securing boosters for people who are already vaccinated in the richest parts of the world while global supply is lacking.
- thefounder 5y ago
  I guess that's just an unfortunate, cynical side effect of the "survival of the fittest".

kazinator 5y ago

Pharma doesn't do charity though. Drug risky is very expensive and highly risky. It's risky whether you research a drug for some disease that ten people have in the world, or for a pandemic. Research related to the pandemic is de-risked by some margin and that alone makes it attractive.