4 ms·

I don't get it he wants the companies to pay instead of the government that mandated the vaccines. Doesn't make any sense.

sfusato 4y ago
A one-liner would suffice. The idea is pretty simple. It's crazy it's not like this at the moment. later edit: parent's comment was initially something like "a 4-page nothing burger"
- theCrowing 4y ago
  How is it crazy if we have CICP and HRSA already in place? The only thing that bill would achieve is that no pharmacy company would ever develop new vaccines.
  - sfusato 4y ago
    Why wouldn't they?
    - theCrowing 4y ago
      Why would they? Big pharma wants big money. Getting sued doesn't make money. Still not answering the question why we would even need it with CICP and HRSA in place.
      - sfusato 4y ago
        So, "privatize the profits, socialize the losses"?
        theCrowing 4y ago
        Let's play a game where you answer my question and after that I will answer the next from "you". Despite that "your" new question is irrelevant if you know how CICP and HRSA are financed. Would have expected more expertise from someone who rants about vaccines for years now. yikes.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - jleyank 4y ago
      There’s little money in vaccines and it would not take much loss-from-use to make then a loss leader. Yeah, they’re used in bulk but nowhere as much as “proper” drugs. If the govt wants vaccines, particularly on very short notice, they have to bear the risk. Otherwise they’ll be developed on the multi year cycle of drugs and biologics. Assuming the need is large enough to bother. Edit to following reply: Abbvie make billions and billions from Humera and it’s been successful in all sorts of applications. Took new technology and several years to get to market and takes far less manufacturing and distribution costs than a worldwide vaccine. One could argue that it’s more successful in what it does vs the covid vaccines, but RA wasn’t a pressing world problem. Remember: good, fast, cheap. Pick two. Without the government payments and guarantees that cash to Pfizer would have come from something else. It’s what drug companies do. Maybe we’d have seen an mRNA based cancer treatment sooner or maybe something like diabetes. On the whole, I’ll take the haste re vaccines in the current system when facing novel viruses of unknown pathology. YMMV
      - sfusato 4y ago
        > There’s little money in vaccines "Pfizer's Set to Make $131 Billion in COVID Sales in 2 Years." https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/pfizers-set-to-make-%24131-billion-in-covid-sales-in-2-years.-is-the-stock-a-buy https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/pfizers-set-to-make-%24131-b...
        bediger4000 4y ago
        Lucky for Pfizer that COVID scale diseases are common, eh?
        jleyank 4y ago
        There are larger market segments, such as Alzheimer’s, that have consumed billions of D&D dollars. So yeah, there are other ways to make $billion if the blockbusters hit. Humera as I recall was 1-2 bil/quarter back in the 00’s. Big bucks in that industry and the trend now seems to be biologics which can be tailored more specifically than small molecule drugs.
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  I’d prefer that companies keep developing and manufacturing vaccines. That would stop if they had to assume liability for vaccines, especially compulsory vaccines. The government had to step in and create programs to assume liability for vaccine injuries because pharmaceutical companies were not going to make them any longer. Don’t rip down the fence without understanding why it exists! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Comp... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_I...
  - sfusato 4y ago
    > I’d prefer that companies keep developing and manufacturing vaccines. That would stop if they had to assume liability for vaccines. So this industry gets a "pass" on assuming responsibility for their developed products? Why would they stop if their product has a market? That's nonsense.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      You seem to want to cut off your nose to spite your face. Is ensuring companies get the punishment you think they deserve more important than the overall net improvement in public health?
    - quickthrowman 4y ago
      If you think it’s nonsense, I suggest reading about the DPT vaccine lawsuits in the 1980s and how the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program came about, pharmaceutical companies almost stopped making the DPT vaccine. [0] I repeat: pharmaceutical companies were willing to stop making vaccines due to the liability inherent in making something that everyone takes. The government had two choices: start manufacturing vaccines, or come up with an alternative way to compensate victims of vaccine injuries. The second one is much easier to implement, so that’s what they chose. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Comp...

sfusato 4y ago

A one-liner would suffice. The idea is pretty simple. It's crazy it's not like this at the moment. later edit: parent's comment was initially something like "a 4-page nothing burger"

theCrowing 4y ago
How is it crazy if we have CICP and HRSA already in place? The only thing that bill would achieve is that no pharmacy company would ever develop new vaccines.
- sfusato 4y ago
  Why wouldn't they?
  - theCrowing 4y ago
    Why would they? Big pharma wants big money. Getting sued doesn't make money. Still not answering the question why we would even need it with CICP and HRSA in place.
    - sfusato 4y ago
      So, "privatize the profits, socialize the losses"?
      - theCrowing 4y ago
        Let's play a game where you answer my question and after that I will answer the next from "you". Despite that "your" new question is irrelevant if you know how CICP and HRSA are financed. Would have expected more expertise from someone who rants about vaccines for years now. yikes.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - jleyank 4y ago
    There’s little money in vaccines and it would not take much loss-from-use to make then a loss leader. Yeah, they’re used in bulk but nowhere as much as “proper” drugs. If the govt wants vaccines, particularly on very short notice, they have to bear the risk. Otherwise they’ll be developed on the multi year cycle of drugs and biologics. Assuming the need is large enough to bother. Edit to following reply: Abbvie make billions and billions from Humera and it’s been successful in all sorts of applications. Took new technology and several years to get to market and takes far less manufacturing and distribution costs than a worldwide vaccine. One could argue that it’s more successful in what it does vs the covid vaccines, but RA wasn’t a pressing world problem. Remember: good, fast, cheap. Pick two. Without the government payments and guarantees that cash to Pfizer would have come from something else. It’s what drug companies do. Maybe we’d have seen an mRNA based cancer treatment sooner or maybe something like diabetes. On the whole, I’ll take the haste re vaccines in the current system when facing novel viruses of unknown pathology. YMMV
    - sfusato 4y ago
      > There’s little money in vaccines "Pfizer's Set to Make $131 Billion in COVID Sales in 2 Years." https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/pfizers-set-to-make-%24131-billion-in-covid-sales-in-2-years.-is-the-stock-a-buy https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/pfizers-set-to-make-%24131-b...
      - bediger4000 4y ago
        Lucky for Pfizer that COVID scale diseases are common, eh?
        jleyank 4y ago
        There are larger market segments, such as Alzheimer’s, that have consumed billions of D&D dollars. So yeah, there are other ways to make $billion if the blockbusters hit. Humera as I recall was 1-2 bil/quarter back in the 00’s. Big bucks in that industry and the trend now seems to be biologics which can be tailored more specifically than small molecule drugs.
quickthrowman 4y ago
I’d prefer that companies keep developing and manufacturing vaccines. That would stop if they had to assume liability for vaccines, especially compulsory vaccines. The government had to step in and create programs to assume liability for vaccine injuries because pharmaceutical companies were not going to make them any longer. Don’t rip down the fence without understanding why it exists! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Comp... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_I...
- sfusato 4y ago
  > I’d prefer that companies keep developing and manufacturing vaccines. That would stop if they had to assume liability for vaccines. So this industry gets a "pass" on assuming responsibility for their developed products? Why would they stop if their product has a market? That's nonsense.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    You seem to want to cut off your nose to spite your face. Is ensuring companies get the punishment you think they deserve more important than the overall net improvement in public health?
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    If you think it’s nonsense, I suggest reading about the DPT vaccine lawsuits in the 1980s and how the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program came about, pharmaceutical companies almost stopped making the DPT vaccine. [0] I repeat: pharmaceutical companies were willing to stop making vaccines due to the liability inherent in making something that everyone takes. The government had two choices: start manufacturing vaccines, or come up with an alternative way to compensate victims of vaccine injuries. The second one is much easier to implement, so that’s what they chose. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Comp...