7 ms·
I sadly know little about all this technology. It is fantastically expensive at the moment from what you say. That keeps it away from the vast majority of can
by ThinkBeat 4y ago
I sadly know little about all this technology.
It is fantastically expensive at the moment from what you say.
That keeps it away from the vast majority of cancer patients in the world.
Technology does tend to get cheaper over time, though not always.
Do you think this treatment could reach $30.000 in 2,5,10,15 years?
And $300 in another 10,20,50 more years?
- solveit 4y ago> Technology does tend to get cheaper over time, though not always. What technology didn't get cheaper?
- LegitShady 4y agoti calculators
- TedDoesntTalk 4y agoHearing aids
- midoridensha 4y agoLike a lot of things, you need to add "in the US" to stuff like this, because outside the US these things are dirt cheap.
- yitchelle 4y agoSadly, physical calculators will soon be extinct as it will be replaced with calc app on the mobile phones.
- imiric 4y agoThe fact that hasn't happened after 15 years of smartphones suggests it won't happen at all. There's still a market for dedicated calculators. Schools don't allow students access to smartphones during tests, but calculators are fine.
- quickthrower2 4y agoBecause of calculator lobbyists?
- LegitShady 4y agobecause of schools and cheating
- macintux 4y agoAlthough I'm hesitant to make strong statements because inflation plays a significant role here, cars are much more sophisticated than they used to be but also very expensive as a result.
- andy_ppp 4y agoDepends on the car… there are still some extremely cheap options out there that do a surprising amount of stuff.
- macintux 4y agoI think that depends on what you classify as "extremely cheap". The cheapest car in the U.S. market is the Spark at under $14k, but it's been discontinued. The Versa and Mirage both start around $16k. I'm unaware of anything else under $20k, although the Ford Maverick is impressively reasonable at $21k.
- somenameforme 4y agoIn 1916 a barebones model-T cost $360 [1]. That's $8400 in 2019 dollars, and $9800 in 2022 dollars. This is actually what led to the normalization of planned obsolescence. [2] The widespread availability of reliable and cheap vehicles posed a problem for manufacturers which had, to that date, primarily just competed on quality and price. What do do when you can't create something more cheaply, or of a higher quality? Curve some edges, strap a layer of chrome on it, and market it endlessly to get people to buy the fundamentally identical product over and over and over again. Progress! "Oh god, I can't believe you're still driving a 1916 - that's soooo last year." [1] - https://modeltfordfix.com/the-1916-model-t-ford/ https://modeltfordfix.com/the-1916-model-t-ford/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History
- mlyle 4y ago> In 1916 a barebones model-T cost $360 [1]. That's $8400 in 2019 dollars, and $9800 in 2022 dollars. Not too much like a modern car to compare, though. Still no electric starting, and not a lot of capacity, creature comforts, or speed. Time between major overhauls was ~15,000 miles. Overall lifespan of the car was estimated as 100,000. > What do do when you can't create something more cheaply, or of a higher quality? Curve some edges, strap a layer of chrome on it, and market it endlessly to get people to buy the fundamentally identical product over and over and over again. Progress! When we're comparing to vehicles with anything like modern speeds and capacities,... average vehicle age / longevity is higher than its ever been. (It's a bit more difficult to compare before the mid-1960s because vehicles were rebuilt and overhauled so much before then...)
- John23832 4y agoNot in the medical field, but space flight? I think the point is that technology that has to constantly progress to stay relevant doesn’t stay cheap.
- BurningFrog 4y agoSpace-X has lowered costs by almost an order of magnitude, if I remember the numbers.
- etothepii 4y agoI don't think this is true. It's something Musk likes to say, but a source would be useful.
- midoridensha 4y agoI'm sure the launch costs (which can be worked into $/kg for payload) can be easily looked up, and show that SpaceX's reused rockets are much cheaper than what came before.
- someweirdperson 4y agoFalcon 9 is as cheap as Proton M according to something google found somewhere.
- etothepii 4y agoDo you have a source? We haven't seen a reduction in space insurance premiums of any particularly large magnitude which I would expect if the costs of launching satellites into space had been substantially reduced.
- John23832 4y agoSpaceX is a small fraction of total lifts though.
- 4y ago
- bluetwo 4y ago> What technology didn't get cheaper? Insulin.
- anthk 4y agoIn the US.
- rootusrootus 4y agoYeah, Europe bends us over on pricing. Though plain old insulin is actually pretty cheap. It's the fancy stuff that's really expensive.
- lost_tourist 4y agoInsulin, also a lot of pharmaceuticals have gone up over the past 10 years, at least in the USA from price gouging.
- est31 4y agoWebcams. They have barely improved in the last 10 years technology wise, and in fact even got more expensive due to covid.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- musicale 4y agoPhone cameras have improved phenomenally and are great webcams. You can even clip them to your laptop if needed. For webcams we now also have eye/head/movement tracking, automatic background insertion, and other improvements (as well as added features like turning you into an animated cartoon character) although arguably those are from webcam software rather than hardware (though there are examples like the Apple Studio Display webcam which uses their neural engine hardware.)
- worik 4y ago> What technology didn't get cheaper? Military hardware?
- concordDance 4y agoSmall planes. The exact same plane from the 1970s costs 4x as much.
- someweirdperson 4y agoThose fancy digital glass cockpit avionics in the modern versions are not cheap. On the other hand, those ancient mechanical avionics were crazily expensive, too.
- concordDance 4y agoWhen I say the exact same plane I mean the same plane, not one with fancier avionics.
- someweirdperson 4y agoSame model from the 70s with the same avionics in 2022? I'm not sure that's even available. C172 entry model is full glass today. Interior looks a lot more shiny, too. Maybe not same model but actually same plane? If it was new in the 70s it is used and much cheaper now. If it was new in the 50s, the used price in the 70s might have been lower than it is today though. That's caused by the minimum price the market defines for anything that's airworthy. Maybe that's an investment stragtegy, buying used planes when they reach their minimum price, then keeping them, flying minimal hours to keep the engine alive, to sell 50 years later. But any potential gain will be neglected by hangar and maintenance cost.
- club_tropical 4y agoThis is criminally underinvested.
- queuebert 4y agoGeneral aviation is quite a ways behind where cars are right now. There are new planes like the Cirrus SR22 that have made advances, but they are far from ubiquitous. Most GA planes are like driving a 57 Chevy except if the engine dies, you die.
- colinmhayes 4y agoObviously not op, but it sounds like the issue is that the cure makes you sick in the short term which requires expensive care. If the sickness is inherent to the solution it’s hard to see how this gets cheaper.
- dumbmrblah 4y agoThe next generation CAR-T treatments are supposed to be "easier" on the immune system and hopefully don't require the prolonged hospitalizations. But that is 5-10 years away.
- nicwilson 4y agoAs with many medical drugs, the marginal cost of production of the medication is small, but it is dwarfed by the cost of research, trial conduction and FDA approval and is patented. Additionally for CAR-T there is rather intense post-adminitsation care required. For the pharma research companies to be profitable, they need to recoup the above costs on the limited number of cancer patients there are. For a widely applicable technology like CAR-T, if you can figure out how to distribute the costs over multiple types of cancers, you could have a much larger pool of patients to distribute the cost over, such that the marginal cost of production is a more meaningful component of the cost to patient/insurer.
- erisian 4y agoPharma typically spends a lot more on marketing than research. In fact, there is little to no correlation between research costs and the cost of a drug. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5559086/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5559086/ https://www.wired.com/story/drug-research-pricing/ https://www.wired.com/story/drug-research-pricing/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/higher-drug-prices-support-profits-not-research/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/higher-drug-prices-support-prof...
- fredophile 4y agoThere are companies doing research in applying CAR-T for treating animals. This has a much easier approval process since it is run through USDA and not FDA. I'd expect to see faster advancements in treatment and lowering costs and then having this tech brought over to humans later.
- heavyset_go 4y agoI've watched the prices of patented drugs quadruple in less than 5 years, to the point where a 30 day prescription can cost thousands of dollars despite the same medication costing $40 in countries like the UK. Drug companies have absolutely no reason to drive down prices of the patented treatments they have a literal monopoly on.
- worik 4y agoCorporate capture
- rmak 4y agoCancer won't be a problem by 2027, at least for the people who don't already have cancer. By 2030 there will be drugs that can even cure stage 4 cancer with next to nothing side effects. (AI and some form of quantum computing will help find these drugs)
- teux 4y agoThat seems like a very confident statement. How are you reaching that? (Other than a magic AI.) Quantum is not at that point, and won’t be in 3 years.
- evandijk70 4y agoResearcher working in a related field. The above is just patently false. There are currently no drugs that can do this in lab-animals, let alone make it through clinical trials in time by 2027. Computation is also not the bottleneck of research, it's the amount of training data, see ICGC https://dcc.icgc.org https://dcc.icgc.org for the current state of the art. Remember that each tumor has 3 billion base pairs (A,C,G,T), each of which can be duplicated, deleted, mutated. It can also be affected by methylation. Expression of the genes comprised by these base pairs is also affected by the micro-environment of the cell. Any machine learning model will have far to many parameters for far to few observations, to pick the rare drug that can cure stage 4 cancer (assuming it even exists) out of millions of possible chemical compounds.
- chefkoch 4y agoAnother therapy mentioned often in the comments here CAR-T is at the moment around 300k from the pharmaceutical companies. A study in germany predicts a cost of around 30k if universities or other bigger health care providers create the CAR-T cells in their own labs.