3 ms·

I would imagine we'd have the capacity to make as many vaccines as someone will pay for. Yes the factories have to be ramped up but that can be done quickly en

I would imagine we'd have the capacity to make as many vaccines as someone will pay for. Yes the factories have to be ramped up but that can be done quickly enough. If those low to middle income countries were offering big bucks for vaccines, the vaccine makers would have just put more resources on it. The only reason it might make sense that we should stop boosting because it is taking them away from people who need them more, is if the vaccine makers made more than needed, or built more capacity than needed, simply because they didn't anticipate hesitancy. It would be great if the US and other wealthy countries wanted to subsidize vaccines for poorer countries.... I mean, I'd vote for that. That just means we have less money, though, not fewer doses of vaccine. (and just to be clear, I'm not saying we should overdo it if there is no point. I'm just saying the article and the position of the WHO is not logical)

giantg2 5y ago
Factories have already ramped up. Additional factories take about 5 years to build. With a constrained supply (from continual boosting), it is logical that the wealthy countries want to keep it for themselves rather than subsidize other countries. Hopefully they'll stop at 3 doses, as recommended, and then they can roll out to the poorer countries. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster-vaccines-feasibility-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster... https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine-manufacturing-bottleneck-51621952245 https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine...
bagacrap 5y ago
"as many as someone will pay for" doesn't contradict "we don't have the capacity". This is a capital allocation problem and dedicating 100% of the world gdp to vaccine production will not improve our overall health and prosperity.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  But no one was suggesting " dedicating 100% of the world gdp" to vaccine production. I'm simply saying that using more boosters in wealthy countries in no way depletes the vaccine, or raises the prices for it, in poorer countries. I mean, would you agree that wealthy people buying more television sets does not in any way reduce the ability of poorer people to buy television sets?
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    If rich people decide to throw away their TVs every six months and get a new one, this may affect our ability to make sure everyone in the world has a TV without beginning to sacrifice other things like bread or clothing. But this analogy sucks because a TV is a luxury purchase and there's no network effect whereby I become safer if everyone in the world has a TV.

giantg2 5y ago

Factories have already ramped up. Additional factories take about 5 years to build. With a constrained supply (from continual boosting), it is logical that the wealthy countries want to keep it for themselves rather than subsidize other countries. Hopefully they'll stop at 3 doses, as recommended, and then they can roll out to the poorer countries. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster-vaccines-feasibility-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster... https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine-manufacturing-bottleneck-51621952245 https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine...

bagacrap 5y ago

"as many as someone will pay for" doesn't contradict "we don't have the capacity". This is a capital allocation problem and dedicating 100% of the world gdp to vaccine production will not improve our overall health and prosperity.

robbrown451 5y ago
But no one was suggesting " dedicating 100% of the world gdp" to vaccine production. I'm simply saying that using more boosters in wealthy countries in no way depletes the vaccine, or raises the prices for it, in poorer countries. I mean, would you agree that wealthy people buying more television sets does not in any way reduce the ability of poorer people to buy television sets?
- bagacrap 5y ago
  If rich people decide to throw away their TVs every six months and get a new one, this may affect our ability to make sure everyone in the world has a TV without beginning to sacrifice other things like bread or clothing. But this analogy sucks because a TV is a luxury purchase and there's no network effect whereby I become safer if everyone in the world has a TV.