3 ms·
Well, that's an interesting question. Much like music, uptake is strongly dependant on price and it's a fallacy to infer that the quantity consumed would be equ
by sitharus 13y ago
Well, that's an interesting question. Much like music, uptake is strongly dependant on price and it's a fallacy to infer that the quantity consumed would be equal if the cost changed.
If there was a higher price due to patents I wouldn't expect so much of the third world to be immunised, as a lot of those countries depended on aid to distribute the vaccine. I'd also expect first world countries without socialised healthcare to have more non-immunised people.
Also many. It's many dollars. </pedant>
- gabriel34 13y agoYes, but in this case there is another factor still to consider: Had he patented the vaccine, the disease would most likely still be endemic, and the immunizations still be sold. How much is that worth? One could speculate on some factors such as population, uncertainties of the future worldwide validity of the patent (e.g.: How long would the market reserve last) and regulation changes, but the present(past) value of a patent is hard to determine, specially if the world we know doesn't have it. Also, I don't know what OP meant, but I read 'How much money', not dollars
- noonespecial 13y agoI have an even deeper factor. With that vaccine restricted, how much poorer would the world be? What advances would not have occurred? What would all of that "wealth" really be worth? What good is being "rich"(1) in a world of poverty? (1)25 years ago not even the richest men in the world had HD tv. Even if one could focus his wealth to create one for himself, it would have been nearly useless. I'd rather be a poor man in a rich world than a rich man in a poor one.