Health Officials Worry About Possible Lack of Cooperation on Coronavirus Vaccines (politico.com) 324
Global health officials and diplomats are "alarmed" by America's "apparent lack of interest in cooperation" on international efforts for a vaccine against Covid-19. Slashdot reader Charlotte Web quotes this report from Politico:
The fear is that Trump will be content with allowing the race to develop and distribute the vaccine to devolve into a global contest -- and that poorer countries will be left behind in the rush to procure doses. In essence: that the president's "America First" view of world affairs as an atavistic scramble for power will lead to unnecessary suffering and death. "The worst situation would be, if when these tools are available, they go to the highest bidder -- that would be terrible for the world," said Melinda Gates, who, along with her tech entrepreneur husband, Bill, leads a powerful foundation that has devoted billions to health research. "Covid-19 anywhere is Covid-19 everywhere. And that's why it's got to take global cooperation."
The ongoing global scramble for masks, gloves and other personal protective gear offers a harrowing and potentially instructive example. Now imagine, officials and experts say, a similar competition to obtain vaccine doses: It could drag out the health crisis by letting the virus spread for longer than it otherwise might, devastating the very countries least equipped to fight it... It's not just the U.S. that has put the needs of its own citizens first. Dozens of countries, including the U.S. and some in Europe, have imposed travel restrictions as well as limits on the exports of masks and other critical medical equipment. Global health leaders are trying to avoid a repeat of such nationalist tactics when it comes to vaccines and other types of medicines that could combat Covid-19.
"Health officials and analysts caution that it's too early to go into full-fledged panic about a looming global vaccine fistfight," the article notes.
But it also points out that "There's no binding treaty or other mechanism that governs how a vaccine will be produced and distributed worldwide."
The ongoing global scramble for masks, gloves and other personal protective gear offers a harrowing and potentially instructive example. Now imagine, officials and experts say, a similar competition to obtain vaccine doses: It could drag out the health crisis by letting the virus spread for longer than it otherwise might, devastating the very countries least equipped to fight it... It's not just the U.S. that has put the needs of its own citizens first. Dozens of countries, including the U.S. and some in Europe, have imposed travel restrictions as well as limits on the exports of masks and other critical medical equipment. Global health leaders are trying to avoid a repeat of such nationalist tactics when it comes to vaccines and other types of medicines that could combat Covid-19.
"Health officials and analysts caution that it's too early to go into full-fledged panic about a looming global vaccine fistfight," the article notes.
But it also points out that "There's no binding treaty or other mechanism that governs how a vaccine will be produced and distributed worldwide."
None of these vaccines will work. (Score:2, Informative)
Drug treatments may be the better option.
Re: None of these vaccines will work. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: None of these vaccines will work. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Competition doesn't mean standing on a patent like Skreli did.
Shkreli didn't even have a patent. It was decades out of patent. He bought another companies production and as I recall paid other companies not to compete then jacked prices to the sky and beyond.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: None of these vaccines will work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Competition has made the modern world what it is today.
Errr no, regulation has made the modern world what it is today. Competition in a free market is an inherently unstable system typified by consolidation, and absolute abuses of power in any way possible in an attempt for competition to eliminate itself from the market. The stable end point of any free market is a monopoly, though some get stuck in an oligopoly.
The only reason we still have competition at all is an endless string of laws and regulation constantly created and fine tuned over more than a century to ensure the free market (a definition which people use incorrectly) actually remains the real textbook definition (the perfect market).
Re: None of these vaccines will work. (Score:5, Insightful)
You started out making a point about how cooperative efforts may be more effective than competitive efforts in finding a cure to this plague, but then devolved into an angry rant against Capitalism in which you advocated for violence against capitalists.
That is an *amazingly* accurate depiction of what has actually happened, historically, as communist regimes attained power by upselling the benefits of cooperation and then ended in genocide and bloody civil war. You can read all about that here [wikipedia.org].
You blame Capitalism for the power-gulf between those with power and those without it. BUT, socialism creates the exact same power-gulf. The exact same, but even worse, because those with all the power get complete control over everyone's lives, deciding who will do what jobs, how much they will produce, and who will then get to receive what they have produced. It invariably devolves into totalitarianism by logical necessity. Nobody can get their fair share of providence unless everyone does their fare share of work, you see, and nobody wants to work an ounce more than they actually have to.
In both Capitalistic and Socialistic models *something* must motivate people to work (and things like patriotism, altruism, duty, etc., universally fail at achieving this). So in one case, the need for money is the motivator, and in the other case, the end of a loaded rifle is the motivator. Under capitalism, however, you are free to choose your own line of work, choose your own employer, and choose for yourself how you will spend the money.
My basic point is this: your hatred of Capitalism is based on a lack of education, and a very skewed world-view that is typical of people who want everyone else to labor on their behalf without earning it themselves.
Re: None of these vaccines will work. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is an *amazingly* accurate depiction of what has actually happened, historically, as communist regimes attained power by upselling the benefits of cooperation and then ended in genocide and bloody civil war. You can read all about that here [wikipedia.org].
You're likely referring to the soviet union or china, neither of which are socialist. They call themselves socialist as a PR move, while they are in fact oligarchies. Their failures and atrocities are not the result of socialism
The exact same, but even worse, because those with all the power get complete control over everyone's lives, deciding who will do what jobs, how much they will produce, and who will then get to receive what they have produced.
You again confuse totalitarianism with socialism. They are nowhere near the same thing.
It invariably devolves into totalitarianism by logical necessity.
No, they didn't devolve in to totalitarianism - they were totalitarian power grabs from day one that called themselves socialism as a PR move. Meanwhile look at the US during WWI & WWII, during both periods socialism was the de facto state of government in the US. We simply didn't *call* it socialism. It was called patriotism. Meanwhile the democratically elected government controlled production and distribution at all levels to maximize the war efforts. Assets and patents were seized at necessary for the greater good.
So in one case, the need for money is the motivator, and in the other case, the end of a loaded rifle is the motivator.
We know (and have even discussed on slashdot for years) that this is not true. Money motivates only so far. And your loaded rifle has nothing to do with socialism, you have YET AGAIN confused it with totalitarianism.
Under capitalism, however, you are free to choose your own line of work, choose your own employer, and choose for yourself how you will spend the money.
You forgot the sarcasm tags in that note. None of those things are under your control in a capitalistic society. Your options for work are dictated by what employers need. Your choice of employer is dictated by your allegiance to their political will. You have little practical choice on your expenses beyond 'Would you like your McMansion in red or blue?' Sure, a portion of your income is allotted to the circus of your choice, but the bulk are funneled in to basic necessities like food, shelter, and medical - all of which are priced as absolutely high as possible. You can't opt out. Opting out just means you die under a bridge.
Your biggest failure is this - you perceive capitalism and socialism as competing models, likely due to your indoctrination. They are not. They are two tools available for a society to plan their collective efforts. Advocating one over the other is just silly, like advocating for saws over hammers, or nails over glue. A sane builder uses all tools available to them, and a sane society should do the same.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nicely put but beyond the intellect of extremes of the capitalists and socialists who have difficulty
Re: (Score:3)
Talk about nonsense?
You're likely referring to the soviet union or china, neither of which are socialist. They call themselves socialist as a PR move, while they are in fact oligarchies. Their failures and atrocities are not the result of socialism
Ignoring your "no True Scotsman" fallacy for the moment, that was EXACTLY Brain-Fu's point, you dolt. There are two ways to determine how I get money out of this economy. I can convince people to give me money in exchange for my goods and services, or the government can decide what I deserve. Given the former, my profits will depend on how much I work or how much I'm willing to sell, and requires a voluntary exchange. As Brain-Fu correctly informed you, the latter requires a governme
Re: (Score:2)
Shkreli was able to monopolize a generic compound because he had a US supply exclusive on a niche condition. There was no patent in sight.
International competition on a major disease is a good thing because patent or no patent, no one country will be able to monopolize a successful vaccine. Any supply-chain exclusive deal in one country will be interpreted by the open market as damage, to be routed around.
Re: (Score:3)
Except with an eviscersted profit motive, there is no solution to route around anything. That is the fraud of it.
The choice isn't between fast and cheap, or fast and expensive. It's between expensive and fast, or cheap and slow, or not at all.
Re: (Score:3)
The US government was supposed to watch "critical supplies and manufacturing", such that, should there be a war, or even just an asshole disagreement, and unfriendly countries are cut off, that we are not high and dry.
Looks like they got lazy.
Re:None of these vaccines will work. (Score:5, Interesting)
Their effectiveness is limited.
For herd immunity, limited effectiveness is good enough.
With no social distancing, C19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3.0.
We just need to get R0 below 1.0.
With a vaccine effectiveness of 70%, life can go back to normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that estimate based on current data? It seems a little low, if you ask me. I thought it was more like about 5 or 6, roughly twice that of SARS-CoV1.
Re: (Score:2)
A higher R0 estimate was based on patient-zero occurring in late December.
It is now believed that that patient-zero was in November.
Re: (Score:3)
I had gotten, what I presume to be Corona in January of 2018
Found the real "Patient Zero"!
Re: (Score:2)
April 7th
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t... [forbes.com]
"The COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease May Be Twice As Contagious As We Thought"
"A single person with COVID-19 may be more likely to infect up to 5 or 6 other people, rather than 2 or 3, suggests a new study of Chinese data from the CDC. Itâ(TM)s not clear if this higher number applies only to the cases in China or if it will be similar in other countries.
If the higher number does remain true elsewhere, it means that more people in a population need to be immune fro
Re: (Score:2)
"A single person with COVID-19 may be more likely to infect up to 5 or 6 other people, rather than 2 or 3
Hey! Let's do math!
Figure "Patient-Zero" was in November, and the serial interval is 9 days.
So from November through March (before lockdowns) is 17 generations.
2.5 ^ 17 = 5.8 million infections (in the right ballpark)
5.5 ^ 17 = 3.8 trillion infections (wrong by six orders of magnitude)
So is R0 between 5 and 6? I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's do facts...
https://www.drugs.com/news/fir... [drugs.com]
"The patient was brought to the University of California, Davis, Medical Center from another hospital on Feb. 19, the Associated Press reported. The patient was on ventilator support upon arrival."
https://covidtracking.com/data... [covidtracking.com]
Thu, Feb 27... 2 cases.
Fri, Feb 28... 9 cases. (worldometer reported 62 cases that day-- Trump said 15 in his press conference)
Fri Mar 6 387 cases.
Fri Mar 13 3004 cases. (7.5x prior week) (lockdowns and quarantines starting)
Fri
"The fear is ..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Why live in "fear" of something that might never happen?
Why complain about "stuff" that may or may not happen?
Bill Gates says that a vaccine is 9 months out; some medical sources are estimating 12 to 18 months; one news reports said years and years.
With the Trump administration already allocating ventilator shipments to foreign countries (and Third World countries at that), why do some Leftists think the same thing won't happen if the USA/Trump Administration has vaccines?
Do these Leftists believe that the Biden (or whatever Democrat runs for POTUS) will lose? Because Gates' estimate of 9 months puts the vaccine AFTER the 2021 inauguration?
Puzzling Bullshit!
Re: (Score:3)
"The fear is" the driving force behind Leftists at Politico.
Their point is that cooperation is better than competition. After all, that is why the Soviet Union won the Cold War.
Re:"The fear is ..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to find out who thought that was a good idea
It is a good idea. If you want to incentivize more production of PPE, the best way to do that is to offer the manufacturers more money.
They are paying for extra shifts, overtime, training for new workers, and rushed maintenance on equipment. Many of them are setting up new ad-hoc assembly lines that are less efficient than purpose-built lines.
Should they just be expected to eat those costs?
Perhaps you should show some financial gratitude toward those who are helping the most, instead of begrudging them fa
Re: "The fear is ..." (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it ceases to behave in a particular way, even during a pandemic. As Bill pointed out the way to ensure that there is sufficient supply to meet demand is by allowing those willing to pay higher prices to do so which creates the financial incentive and ability to produce more. Higher prices also have the effect of limiting overconsumption because pe
Re: "The fear is ..." (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't quite work out that way in stressed situations. Due to a few factors:
1. It takes time to ramp up production to meet the market demand. It also takes time to forecast said demand and assess the risk of producing X quantities for Y demand at Z prices with Rx risks. In times of crisis, these are so skewed & dynamic that usually private enterprise doesn't see a ROI and doesn't partake. Historically, the political sectors have taken the risk because they can shift the price after the fact (taxes, bonds, inflation, legal forfeit, etc) and still come back to a net zero.
2. It doesn't send supply to the locations that actually need it. It sends it to locations that have the capital to pay. But, pandemics aren't so picky in their deliveries. One location under supplied (for whatever reason) will overload on the pandemic and still spill into the locations that are oversupplied. Just because you are over stocked on something doesn't mean you have the logistics to utilize it at various rates of consumption.
3. Drugs aren't like burgers. People don't take 2 because there is a 50% off promotion. You only need to look at Canada for an example. They buy X supply of common drugs every year to keep the price at Y for everyone. This results in a far lower price for the drug than the laissez faire US market.
And the way it works globally is simple. Poor countries will simply ignore the patents and produce on their own at their own cost. Or like India, use that as an ultimatum to force the drug company to sell at Y cost domestically. This hits ROI so the companies raise prices in places like the US to compensate OR ask for a govt handout as said govt can't protect them from other govts. The WTO _may_ allow retaliatory actions a few years after the pandemic... assuming the hurt countries are "heartless" enough to bring it up. Democracies usually have a hard time doing so.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a great idea if you want 1,186,073 cases and 68,552 deaths.
MAGA! USA #1! USA USA USA!
No one will have as big an outbreak as U.S.. Lotsa people will talk about it. Everyone knows it!
Re:"The fear is ..." (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you figure the death figure will be revised downward? If anything, we're severely underestimating the number of CoVID-19 deaths. Just look at the spikes in overall deaths after March in the highly affected areas compared with previous years and contrast this with the reported numbers. In many cases, the spike in deaths is much higher than can be accounted for with the reported CoVID-19 deaths.
Re: "The fear is ..." (Score:3)
That's not how coding of deaths work... if anything because the guide lines are incomplete, and we don't have enough or proper tests, the count is actually _lower_ than actual.
People dying at home are probably not being counted as COVID-19. They may be counted as flu like causes but most won't pick COVID-19 without a reason behind it. And there isn't enough testing capacity to do this assessment. So better to leave it more generic because you can still determine this later on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: "The fear is ..." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You need to stop using that bogus study. it's been widely debunked by *both* statisticians *and* medical personel *and* by actual numbers of deaths in some locations (i.e. the results of the study are impossible given the number of deaths so it's clearly wrong).
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Note the quote from the study in this response which I've bracketed in '***' marks.
"The findings reported in the first version suffered from serious mistakes in statistical treatment. Now two weeks later, the authors
Re: (Score:2)
US, "went for it's own testing" because the FDA has a sever case of Not Invented Here
Re: (Score:3)
I misread that as,
Their point is that cooperation is better than competition. After all, that is why the Soviet Union won the Second World War.
But as you say, that cooperation between east and west led to losing WWII
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also why the Soviets lost WWII, stupid communists cooperating with the west.
Re:"The fear is ..." (Score:5, Funny)
Why live in "fear" of something that might never happen?
A substantial number of people live in fear of burning in Hell. Next question...
Re: (Score:2)
About those ventilators being sent overseas - is there a US hospital or State going without right now? No? So I guess in your liberal (excuse me - moderate) opinion, better to horde them for our own stockpiles than to share with the rest of the world. How very socially responsible of you...
As far as funding of healthcare - can you point to these cuts you want to avoid? Because in 4 years we've seen zip. Nada. Zilch. And that includes 2 years with GOP control of the House and Senate. This is more fea
atavistic scramble for power... Nice! (Score:2, Insightful)
The American President is not without his flaws, but his America First world view is an appeal to his base, and it is completely unlikely to get in the way if he finds himself in a position to say, "We saved the World."
This is sensationalism. Say what you will, but America wouldn't allow the creation of a vaccine to be politicized for gains in the international power struggle... regardless of the wishes of a few.
My fear is Trump will put patent profits (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The dominating impetus that is likely to spare us from the baser instincts of men, is that the country (and the World) reopening is the single most important plank in the Trump reelection platform.
Ego may continue to be a problem, yet survival instincts (which in this case are all about "the good" we can do with four more years) will rise to the top like the cream most likely to cause a cardiac event.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. It's a stretch.
"The definition of an atavism is a genetic trait that reoccurs after skipping several generations. If a person has blue eyes like her great great grandmother but her mother, grandmother, and great grandmother have brown eyes, then having blue eyes is an example of an atavism."
It's also clearly a way to explain genetic traits that very unfortunately don't resemble the presumptive parents.
Regarding one of mankind's basest natures, to use every situation for personal gain, atavism would seem to suggest that this behavioral trait would have had to skip a few generations.
Re: (Score:2)
Bolsanaro, Vlad, MBS, Johnson, Sakellaropoulou, Jong-un, Duterte, al-Assad, and many others... The US selection of our current Prez is hardly exceptional.
Re: (Score:2)
Lacking empathy doesn't mean we won't be fed and sheltered with some comforts until we're needed.
Despite, or perhaps in tribute to, humanity's uncanny ability to compartmentalize, most non-vegan people lack empathy for the cows being grain-fattened at the feed lot until they're needed at the processing plant.
Re: (Score:2)
this is a feature, not a bug (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't think that something like a little pandemic is going to change this. He sees it as his job to implement the views of the most vocal conservatives who voted for him. Nobody else. No matter what. One could debate that perhaps the president is supposed to represent the ENTIRE population, but that's a different discussion. This specific president sees it differently: his mandate is to enact a very specific form of conservatism, and screw the rest of the people. They lost the election and didn't vote for him.
If the red states start suffering badly, you'll see him change his tune VERY quickly. As long as it's mostly in the cities, you can expect almost nothing except window dressing from the executive branch.
Elections have consequences. We don't get the best leaders. We don't get the leaders we deserve. We get the leaders we ask for. We, the people, asked for this. And hoo boy did we get it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much true of any national level elections in the world. I"m pretty sure more than 50M people worldwide are affected by the French elections, for instance....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We, the people, asked for this. And hoo boy did we get it.
We, meaning the 46.1% of voters that voted for Trump, got what they asked for. We, meaning the 53.9% majority of voters, didn't get what they asked for. Yes, it's all according to the US electoral system and the Constitution, so it's legal. However, let's not pretend that the majority asked for this president.
Re: (Score:2)
Elections have consequences. We don't get the best leaders. We don't get the leaders we deserve.
No, I'm pretty sure we got the leader we deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
We got the leader the party leaders (Democrat and Republican) deserve. The rest of us got shafted---as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
If the red states start suffering badly, you'll see him change his tune VERY quickly.
Not really. Trump was more than willing to leave the agricultural sector hanging while getting into a pissing contest with China. The notion that he's particularly unique in regards to serving a limited group or his own self interests is rather silly on the face of it. Most politicians are the same. In an odd way he's been unusually honest in the sense that he's generally tried to do what he campaigned on even though I and a lot of others had just written it off as absurd rhetoric to appeal to his base. He
Re: (Score:2)
Elections have consequences. We don't get the best leaders. We don't get the leaders we deserve. We get the leaders we ask for. We, the people, asked for this. And hoo boy did we get it.
Exactly. Trump is not the problem, he is just an indicator. The real problem is those that voted for him and a long history of those that made sure no appealing candidates were available because of how they voted before.
Re:O'rly ? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's isolationist. Other forms of conservatism are quite happy to adventure off our shores (neo-cons).
He's a rabble rousing populist. There are definitely conservatives that take a more thoughtful, internally consistent approach to the world.
Not only is he sexist, he's quite abusive towards any woman who isn't in his immediate circle. There are conservatives who believe that women are to be respected and protected. Liberals would call this simply another form of paternal sexism, but it's quite distinctive from Trumpian attitudes toward women.
He's as "out" as a blatant racist can be in today's American politics. While my liberal relatives would dispute this, I know plenty of conservatives who simply aren't racist.
As for your second comment about how Obama only represented liberals. This is true only inside the Fox, Infowars world. Outside of your little box, there was this president named Obama who tried as hard as he could to be a middle-of-the-road leader. The country he was leading was (and still is) unbelievably politically polarized, so he never really succeeded in bridging the gap. But.... my god man, at least he tried to calm things down. The current guy is pouring as much gasoline on the fire as he possibly can. If you see no difference, there really isn't anything I can say that's going to change your mind. Do your homework, think for yourself, and pay just a tad less attention to the talking heads. I understand, cause I've been there. 5 years ago, I used to let every little CNN outrage piece get under my skin. Now I read with a VERY skeptical eye. I barely even pay attention to the daily news and the daily talk shows - they're just too noisy as a reliable info source. Try the weekly and monthly magazines.
Politicize ALL the things, right? Ok .... (Score:2)
Look ... As far as I'm concerned, it's government control over medicine that causes most of the issues we have with healthcare today in America.
The entire patent system is horribly broken, just like copyright is ridiculous in the world of computer software.
IMO, instead of letting drug companies get a monopoly on sale of any new drug they create, we should simply be requiring others pay royalties to the first inventor if they want to manufacture the drug themselves. That way, pharmaceutical firms still get r
Re:O'rly ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of them have left the party. There are now more registered "independents" than Republicans in the USA (29.09% versus 28.87%). Democrats: 39.66%.
This is a good thing. It means people are starting to think for themselves.
What is the proposal? (Score:5, Interesting)
So what the articles are worried about is once a vaccine is found, in the space of time before there is enough vaccine for everyone, who should get the vaccine first? And it seems really obvious that vaccines manufactured in China will be used in China, vaccines manufactured in the USA will be used in the USA, and the same for Europe; until there are enough to cover local needs and spread them elsewhere. (whether that's fair or not, that is the default.)
I'm definitely open to something different, but the articles linked don't give any alternative. They just criticize the USA because *reasons*. The US has 30 formal treaty allies with leading scientific research communities. So what exactly do the authors of these articles propose?
Re: (Score:2)
>"So what the articles are worried about is once a vaccine is found, in the space of time before there is enough vaccine for everyone, who should get the vaccine first? And it seems really obvious that vaccines manufactured in China will be used in China, vaccines manufactured in the USA will be used in the USA"
+1 Bingo. A rational posting.
>"They just criticize the USA because *reasons*."
Because, "feelings"
"America First" doesn't mean "nowhere else, ever." I am sure data and info will be freely exc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Works both ways Donald. (Score:3)
Re:Works both ways Donald. (Score:5, Insightful)
the UK gets there first and decides to give Trump a taste of his own medicine.
They would have done that regardless of Trump's actions. The British are not going to develop a vaccine and then ship it overseas while their own people are dying. No democratic country would do that.
Re:Works both ways Donald. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If the UK decides who gets a -taste of the medicine-, trump won't be high on the list.
Or jared, or eric, or princess, or junior, or..
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Pay up or die healthcare model (Score:5, Informative)
The very idea of altruism, cooperation, being open and transparent, and helping the most people while reducing the cost runs against the principles of capitalism and don’t figure in at all unless it directly and immediately affects the bottom line. This is why civilized countries temper capitalism with heavy regulation, especially in healthcare where the goal of maximizing profits is in a whole other boat from doing the most good. It’s also why Americans pay double of any other country for substandard medical care that has worse outcomes than at least the leading twenty to thirty countries of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Other vaccines are fairly priced. Nearly all of the "shocker" drug prices are for diseases that only affect a small number of people. The alternative to those high prices is usually no drug at all.
If you really believe that altruism and cooperation help poor countries more than competition, then you need to read some history books.
Profit-seeking capitalists have done far more good for developing countries than well-intentioned do-gooders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that we have been reading about shocker prices on Epipens in America.
The drug in EpiPens (epinephrine) has been manufactured for more than a century.
There is no patent on autoinjectors.
So if you feel the price should be lower, why aren't you making it happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Or the Government could do (Score:2)
This works great literally everywhere else on earth but here in America where we pretend the outside world doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"The very idea of altruism, cooperation, being open and transparent, and helping the most people while reducing the cost runs against the principles of capitalism"
First, there is "public relations." That can greatly affect consumers' feelings and actions regarding a company. Or are you saying you NEVER consider what a company does before consuming their products? Then there is the "if people die or are treated badly, we will have no customers and also go out of business" dilemma. And then there is t
Re: (Score:3)
First, there is "public relations." That can greatly affect consumers' feelings and actions regarding a company. Or are you saying you NEVER consider what a company does before consuming their products?
It would be a monopoly, that’s the point of not sharing information, not cooperating, not making it open and transparent. Here’s an example, where I live, if I want actual broadband internet (not overpriced cellular or satellite), my choices are Comcast or xfinity. They screw me on the cost, I pay perhaps 5-10 times more for 1/10th the bandwidth of other developed nations. I know I’m getting screwed, but outside of voting there isn’t much I can do about it as broadband service is
Re: (Score:2)
>"It would be a monopoly, thatâ(TM)s the point of not sharing information, not cooperating, not making it open and transparent. Hereâ(TM)s an example, where I live, if I want actual broadband internet (not overpriced cellular or satellite), my choices are Comcast or xfinity."
Guess what? Most healthcare monopolies are there BECAUSE the government created them with "certificates of need." And your example of broadband? Also a monopoly created by government. By the way, I have *ONE* choice onl
Re: (Score:2)
This is /.. I think you just basically turned 1/2 of us into anti-vacxxers...
If I had a biggest “fear” (it’s more of a concern) it’s that the vaccine will be rushed due to political and economic pressure before proper testing is done, and resulting side effects will throw gas onto the antivaxxer fire exploding their never ending nonsense and false fear mongering at perhaps the worst possible time.
Re: (Score:2)
>"If I had a biggest âoefearâ (itâ(TM)s more of a concern) itâ(TM)s that the vaccine will be rushed due to political and economic pressure before proper testing is done, and resulting side effects will throw gas onto the antivaxxer fire"
That would be my fear, too. I would much prefer to see an effective treatment for COVID-19 than a rushed vaccination. But we might have to settle for whatever we get.
Anti-vaxxers (Score:2)
When I read the headline, my first thought was the anti-vaxxer nutjobs who have been coddled for decades by extremely lax laws in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
the anti-vaxxer nutjobs who have been coddled for decades by extremely lax laws in the US.
Many European countries have more anti-vaxxers than America [buzzfeednews.com].
Stupidity transcends borders.
So what are they suggesting? (Score:2)
Open sourcing the technology by force and allowing it to be mass produced so anyone can get it? Of course not ... they just want to have some global NGO be the one to say who gets the artificially limited number of vaccines.
Capitalism is bad when it benefits a nation, it is Holy Scripture when it benefits a multinational.
Oh easy answer there. Steal this drug. (Score:2)
Just like has been done with HIV medication. If you can't afford it, then just steal it. Make tons of it and give it away for nearly free.
Sharing is commie, health is wealth (Score:3)
It doesn't take a mastermind to look at the US health system and see that it's been monetised beyond ludicrous mode.
However it's been a great example to the world of what not to do...
High prices and profits for drugs (Score:2)
Pay or die (Score:2)
1. World pandemic
2. Privatize vaccine creation
3. Profit!
Conservatives want to privatize everything because PROFIT! Betsy Devos [wikipedia.org] is the poster child for corrupt business practice. She scammed millions of students with useless and overpriced education and left them mired in debt. Now she is Secretary of Education and is obstructing efforts to help the very
They can have my dose! (Score:2)
I'll be glad to donate my dose of Corona vaccine to some poor dumb slob. Let him be the guinea pig. Hopefully he won't get GBS like the Swine Flu vaccine caused in record numbers.
Failure to implement these nationalist tactics (Score:2)
I'm waiting (Score:2)
To see if the human trials produce fast zombies (28 Days Later) or nocturnal vampire creatures (I am Legend).
Re:Bill Gates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Bill and Melinda Gates have given the majority of their fortune to the Gates Foundation where it does exactly all of that"
He's shifted his influence to another sphere. He still calls the shots on all the money he "gave" to his own foundation, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not any more. Vaccine efforts are now completely beyond anything CCP really can exert influence over. They slowed the initial progress down with their initial response, but ever since virus broke out, every major player had their own national vaccine programs get on the issue.
With those now being a matter of top tier national security concern, any Chinese nationals getting close to those programs would be likely to be addressed by people who have very apolitical attitudes toward such things. Don't confuse "