#COVID19 | Page 895 | Vital Football

#COVID19

Calvin Plummer said:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...chief-backs-patent-waiver-to-boost-production

Tend to agree with him.
Click to expand...
I don't think its been thought through that well.
Say some poor African country decides to copy the vaccine. What's stopping the pharma companies just putting their prices for other basic meds up through the roof to compensate themselves for the loss?

Essentially its a way people in developed countries to benefit from the losses incurred by countries who have no sway with the pharmaceutical industry. We benefit because the virus is lessened worldwide.
 
i am a tree said:
I don't think its been thought through that well.
Say some poor African country decides to copy the vaccine. What's stopping the pharma companies just putting their prices for other basic meds up through the roof to compensate themselves for the loss?

Essentially its a way people in developed countries to benefit from the losses incurred by countries who have no sway with the pharmaceutical industry. We benefit because the virus is lessened worldwide.
Click to expand...

So your argument is we shouldn't do more because pharmaceutical companies might retaliate? Sure they can be naughty but we don't know how they'll respond. Why not deal with an actual crisis than an imaginary one?
 
Calvin Plummer said:
So your argument is we shouldn't do more because pharmaceutical companies might retaliate? Sure they can be naughty but we don't know how they'll respond. Why not deal with an actual crisis than an imaginary one?
Click to expand...
Sure, ignore what happens every single time you try and restrict massive international companies.

Just close your eyes, stick your head in the sand, and pretend they won't do anything at all about the costs they would incur from this kind of policy.

Maybe they'll decide that profits don't matter and all simultaneously turn themselves into charities.
 
i am a tree said:
Sure, ignore what happens every single time you try and restrict massive international companies.

Just close your eyes, stick your head in the sand, and pretend they won't do anything at all about the costs they would incur from this kind of policy.

Maybe they'll decide that profits don't matter and all simultaneously turn themselves into charities.
Click to expand...

What are you babbling on about? We have over 2.5 million deaths, with the virus not remotely under control and a very real threat it will mutilate and render current vaccines useless but you're more concerned about possible future reprisals???

Nobody is saying pharmaceutical companies are suddenly going to turn into charities but this I'm all right Jack attitude from you is selfish and shortsighted.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
What are you babbling on about? We have over 2.5 million deaths, with the virus not remotely under control and a very real threat it will mutilate and render current vaccines useless but you're more concerned about possible future reprisals???

Nobody is saying pharmaceutical companies are suddenly going to turn into charities but this I'm all right Jack attitude from you is selfish and shortsighted.
Click to expand...
You seem to have no idea what i am saying at all. Its probably your habit of assigning the worst possible motive to anyone you are arguing against. Its both disingenuous and a little bit sad.

All I'm trying to say is I don't think this particular course of action is a good one, because the long term consequences of doing something like this would be disastrous.

Failing to consider the long term consequences of our actions is what left us so horribly underprepared for this virus in the first place, I'm suggesting that maybe we start considering them around now...

This is for you:
https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742

As writer Robin Sloan explains, the steel man requires a debater to find the best form of her opponent's argument and then argue with this. Explain what you think your opponent means to them, ask them if they agree this is what they mean, and then argue with that. This is a tougher debate tactic because it allows for fewer shady arguments, but the result is a stance that holds up to scrutiny
Click to expand...

I admit my previous response to you was shitty.

So given that, what do you think the pharma companies will do to mitigate the losses they will get as a result of this kind of policy? Who would be the victims? Do you think its worth it regardless?
 
Last edited:
i am a tree said:
You seem to have no idea what i am saying at all. Its probably your habit of assigning the worst possible motive to anyone you are arguing against. Its both disingenuous and a little bit sad.

All I'm trying to say is I don't think this particular course of action is a good one, because the long term consequences of doing something like this would be disastrous.

Failing to consider the long term consequences of our actions is what left us so horribly underprepared for this virus in the first place, I'm suggesting that maybe we start considering them around now...

This is for you:
https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742



I admit my previous response to you was shitty.

So given that, what do you think the pharma companies will do to mitigate the losses they will get as a result of this kind of policy? Who would be the victims? Do you think its worth it regardless?
Click to expand...

I think with millions dead and the very real possibility of further mutations we have more pressing concerns than your guesswork as to possible consequences.

Your argument firmly is predicated on selfishness, you can't see the problem elsewhere so you close your eyes to it on the grounds that there are some imaginary consequences that are far worse.

Do you have any actual evidence for your flight of fantasy thar a subsequent price rise will cost millions more lives than this would save?
 
i am a tree said:
Sure, ignore what happens every single time you try and restrict massive international companies.

Just close your eyes, stick your head in the sand, and pretend they won't do anything at all about the costs they would incur from this kind of policy.

Maybe they'll decide that profits don't matter and all simultaneously turn themselves into charities.
Click to expand...
they should all be forced non profit
 
Old Red Fart said:
We are lucky in Oz in that we are manufacturing the AZ vaccine in Melbourne and will be getting local supplies in a couple of weeks. That does not excuse Italy and the EU though, if you lived in the middle of Africa or South America it would be a very different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...
All seems a bit upside down tho, the only reason its happening is because the deal has already been broken
 
i am a tree said:
Sure, ignore what happens every single time you try and restrict massive international companies.

Just close your eyes, stick your head in the sand, and pretend they won't do anything at all about the costs they would incur from this kind of policy.

Maybe they'll decide that profits don't matter and all simultaneously turn themselves into charities.
Click to expand...

The thing is tho, this 100% shows that we are all held to ransome by these giants and all deciding to close our eyes and stick heads in the sand and call it failings of the system.
I mentioned non profits several times over the years, most people really think they are just silly but they forget the NHS is in principle a non profit and its one of our biggest employers, one of our proud industries, theres a wage structure and routes to the top. The only thing removed is the fat cat shareholders taking out all the money from local society.
If I was labour with a serious desire for change, Id be looking at ways to get many industries non profit, the food and energy sectors for example.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
So no evidence then, just corporate paranoia and to hell with the millions dying...
Click to expand...
No I've just decided not engage with your terrible style of argument. I typed something out but can't be arsed with the tedium of being called a terrible person for daring to have an opinion on something that contradicts yours.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
So no evidence then, just corporate paranoia and to hell with the millions dying...
Click to expand...


It always happens:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15919632/
This article seeks to shed light on the reasons for the lack of correlation between the price of drugs in this very poor sub-Saharan country and the population's ability to pay for them. The analysis is based on: (i) a comparison between the wholesale (exclusive of VAT and other taxes) and government-fixed retail prices and the corresponding prices of the same drugs in their country of origin (France)
Click to expand...
You regulate in a way that causes their profits to go down, and prices rise elsewhere.

And you call me selfish. The price rise won't affect you, so you think its a great idea. All done in a way that'll only kill people far away.
Of course, I don't think you really think that way, that's your thing.
 
i am a tree said:
It always happens:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15919632/

You regulate in a way that causes their profits to go down, and prices rise elsewhere.

And you call me selfish. The price rise won't affect you, so you think its a great idea. All done in a way that'll only kill people far away.
Of course, I don't think you really think that way, that's your thing.
Click to expand...

You started the shitty attitude...also that isn't causing profits to drop. They'll maintain the same levels of profits on existing products. Research costs on this have largely been subsidised by governments and philanthropic organisations. So try again...

Again even if your scenario is correct you haven't presented a shed of evidence that any future costs rises will outweigh the millions of lives being lost right now, nor the risk of further mutations - of which we have already seen a number of worrying variables.

Use evidence, not guesswork when you make an assertion.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
You started the shitty attitude...also that isn't causing profits to drop. They'll maintain the same levels of profits on existing products. Research costs on this have largely been subsidised by governments and philanthropic organisations. So try again...

Again even if your scenario is correct you haven't presented a shed of evidence that any future costs rises will outweigh the millions of lives being lost right now, nor the risk of further mutations - of which we have already seen a number of worrying variables.

Use evidence, not guesswork when you make an assertion.
Click to expand...

ok
https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/december-2016-march-2017/dying-lack-medicines
Approximately 1.6 million Africans died of malaria, tuberculosis and HIV-related illnesses in 2015. These diseases can be prevented or treated with timely access to appropriate and affordable medicines, vaccines and other health services. But less than 2% of drugs consumed in Africa are produced on the continent, meaning that many sick patients do not have access to locally produced drugs and may not afford to buy the imported ones.
Click to expand...

So we know that lack of access to meds is already causing many deaths.
If we assume that drugs companies will respond to regulation that causes a massive reduction in their projected profits from covid vaccines (which they 100% will do, they always have), then we can assume that will mean even more deaths in Africa.
Sad times.

Since the new year Africa has had 103 718 deaths from covid (source: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases#:~:text=America: 1 217 574 deaths,and Argentina (52 077)).

It is definitely worth considering which one will be worse affected by drug companies putting up the prices of medication.

More people in Africa will die from lack of access to non covid medications this year than will die from covid. If we're just trading one source of deaths for another it means there would have be agreements with drug companies before this regulation could go through, and that would be difficult to get.

Of course, if you want to suspend all drug patents and allow Africa to manufacture copies of all drugs using their own companies I would be happy to do that, but I can't imagine any politician in the north hemisphere would allow it.

And you haven't provided me with a shred of evidence about anything at all yet, just an assertion, so stop making me chase around the internet for things that you could easily find on your if you actually wanted them. Please. Its boring.
 
We are now past 500 tests in school....

Zero positives

Thank god that magical force field that magically protects schools from the laws of physics and biology is firmly in place.
 
i am a tree said:
ok
https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/december-2016-march-2017/dying-lack-medicines


So we know that lack of access to meds is already causing many deaths.
If we assume that drugs companies will respond to regulation that causes a massive reduction in their projected profits from covid vaccines (which they 100% will do, they always have), then we can assume that will mean even more deaths in Africa.
Sad times.

Since the new year Africa has had 103 718 deaths from covid (source: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases#:~:text=America: 1 217 574 deaths,and Argentina (52 077)).

It is definitely worth considering which one will be worse affected by drug companies putting up the prices of medication.

More people in Africa will die from lack of access to non covid medications this year than will die from covid. If we're just trading one source of deaths for another it means there would have be agreements with drug companies before this regulation could go through, and that would be difficult to get.

Of course, if you want to suspend all drug patents and allow Africa to manufacture copies of all drugs using their own companies I would be happy to do that, but I can't imagine any politician in the north hemisphere would allow it.

And you haven't provided me with a shred of evidence about anything at all yet, just an assertion, so stop making me chase around the internet for things that you could easily find on your if you actually wanted them. Please. Its boring.
Click to expand...

Lol no, why are you only focused on Africa? Your working out is also nonsense, you now claim pharmaceutical companies will provide no medication to Africa so you're counting all those deaths? OK :)

Astra have said they'll make the drug at cost, so what profit are they losing if they share their patent?

I've quoted a world leading expert and you've refuted him with supposition and nonsense. Sorry you don't consider the WHO organisation to be evidence...

You've also clearly ignored the economic cost of a global pandemic which will mean many more lives are lost. Not to mention the human cost. All irrelevant to you.

A global pandemic isn't beaten until it's controlled globally. We've spent millions in the last week looking for just one person who arrived here with the Brazil variant.

I get you're anti pharmaceutical companies, perfectly reasonable to have huge reservations about them. However your anti-capitalism student vibe is completely divorced from reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.