3 ms·
Rotating on a long time scale invokes a tragedy of the commons problem. You would need to get all the world's drug manufacturers to agree not to make certain pr
by Jeff_Brown 4y ago
Rotating on a long time scale invokes a tragedy of the commons problem. You would need to get all the world's drug manufacturers to agree not to make certain products at certain times.
But if small exceptions (because you know some rich person is going to get sick and hire a rogue lab to make something that's supposed to be paused) wouldn't ruin the whole scheme then it seems feasible.
- andrewflnr 4y agoBut there's not necessarily an advantage to breaking the rotation. The point is that the currently allowed drugs stay effective the whole time. There's a coordination problem, sure, but I don't see the incentive to hire a "rogue lab".
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y agoI agree that a "rogue lab" is silly, but there is an incentive to use old stock before it goes bad but after the rotation has switched to a new drug.
- andrewflnr 4y agoEh, you can plan to allow some overlap. As long as the manufacturing is in disjoint intervals, you'll get basically the same effect.
- elil17 4y agoIf you have enough antibiotics, there won't be an incentive to do that because, when someone has an antibiotic resistant disease, that will just mean it's time to shelve an old antibiotic and start using one that has been out of circulation for a while (e.g., no bribes/rouge labs required - just a call to the WHO). If you do not actually have enough antibiotics to cycle through, then yeah, it would not really work.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]