U.S. Says Russian Hackers Are Trying To Steal Coronavirus Vaccine Research

@izzythepush,

The money they spend to develop this stuff is almost always our tax money. They never take risks or sacrifice a thing.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Exactly.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The money they spend to develop this stuff is almost always our tax money. They never take risks or sacrifice a thing.

That is completely untrue. It is mathematically true.

These drugs are created by corporations and are funded by investors. Novartis is creating this drug, and Novartis is paying the salaries of the researchers, and lab techs and assistance, and all of the other workers.

This costs tens of millions of dollars. The taxpayers are paying a small fraction of this.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You looking for a job with Fox News?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You looking for a job with Fox News?

That depends on the economics.... what can they pay me?

I have great legs (and I know how to use them...).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

If they paid you what you’re worth you’d end up owing them money.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

If they paid you what you’re worth you’d end up owing them money.

My current employer doesn't agree with you. I have worked hard, gotten a good education. I did extra work to get some specialized credentials.

My team is making a crap load of money from sales. I provide a special set of skills that they need that aren't very common. They either pay me well, or I go find someone who will.

If another company wants to pay me significantly more because they urgently need my skills, I will likely switch jobs. I do care about "acclaim" (I would say professional recognition rather than 'fame'). But the way to incentivize me is to offer me money.

The more skill someone has, the more money (and "fame") we need to offer them. This economic principle works because it incentivizes the most talented people to enter the areas where we need them most.

Right now we urgently need a covid-19 vaccine or treatment. This vaccine is worth an "astronomical amount". The people who give us one should make an "astronomical amount". Why not?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Condescending, fascistic and wrong.

There is no rule that says those making medicines have to be paid astronomical amounts.

It’s quite possible for companies to recoup their costs and make a reasonable return without extortionate pricing.

Exactly!

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I see I’ve touched a nerve.

I’m very sorry, I’m sure you’re wonderful.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You guys are making this fantastic fairy-tale claim where drugs can be made on the cheap and everyone and is happy.

Frank, Edgar and Izzy are denying reality.

1. If you don't pay skilled, educated people fairly for doing the difficult research needed to create a vaccine.... the skilled educated people won't create a vaccine instead they will work on something that will pay them for their accomplishments.

2. We will need tens of millions of dollars to pay them, and this money has to be paid whether a vaccine is found or not.

We have a perfectly good solution on how to fund this science. Corporations taking money from investors to pay scientists. The investors are taking a big risk, but it is worth it since they get paid a shitload of money when they guess right.

If you don't like that answer... then what is the alternative. It is very easy to criticize a system that works. But you still have to tell us what you plan to replace it with.

You people are living in a fantasy world.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

There is a thing called altruism.

Lots of science graduates out there too.

Over here we’ve got robots doing the lab work. Not all the work involved top end scientists, a lot is quite mundane.

In the end it comes down to our respective health services, ours is the most efficient and costs less per capita in public funding than yours, and is free.

Yours is profit driven, takes more public funding and still charges.

Our doctors and scientists do alright.

Anyway you’re missing the point, it’s not about the money paid to those who do the work, it’s about the profits creamed off by the board and shareholders.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

What the hell are you talking about Izzy. Have you heard of AstraZeneca?

The best British scientists work for corporations. British people buy and own shares of corporations and British people sit on the boards of these corporations.

Doctors in Britain are a commodity. They get paid for service and make a good living but nothing more. But we aren't asking public service doctors to innovate much, we are just asking them to provide expected care within a set of guidelines to their community.

I agree with the British public health system.

But you are full of **** to claim that British science works that way.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Anyway you’re missing the point, it’s not about the money paid to those who do the work, it’s about the profits creamed off by the board and shareholders

How do you solve the problem of risk? I shouldn't have to explain this basic point, but for Izzy I will (since he touches my nerve so nicely).

1. The scientists are doing work. They need to get paid whether or not the product is successful. This takes money.

2. This means that people have to provide money with no guarantee that there will be success. People aren't generally willing to give money without getting something in return.

3. So corporations sell shares. A share is a possibility of big "profits". Without the possibility of profits there is no reason for anyone to by a share in a corporation (which means no money to pay scientists and no research and no vaccine).

Do you have an alternative?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

You really are condescending, and vague. Controlling excessive profiteering doesn’t stop investment.

If you want a solution make the ultra rich pay.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You really are condescending, and vague. Controlling excessive profiteering doesn’t stop investment.

You are the one who is making the unsupportable claim. How do you control "excessive profiteering" without stopping investment. Are you going to buy shares in a company that can't make big profits? I don't invest in companies that I don't think are going to make a ton of money.

Without "profiteering" there is no reason to make an investment. Profits are the whole point of investment.

Quote:

If you want a solution make the ultra rich pay.

Yes... taxes are a solution, as long as enough money gets put into the research effort. You have to pay the scientists (and their support staffs) very well if you want them to do very important work.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Anyway you’re missing the point, it’s not about the money paid to those who do the work, it’s about the profits creamed off by the board and shareholders

How do you solve the problem of risk? I shouldn't have to explain this basic point, but for Izzy I will (since he touches my nerve so nicely).

1. The scientists are doing work. They need to get paid whether or not the product is successful. This takes money.

2. This means that people have to provide money with no guarantee that there will be success. People aren't generally willing to give money without getting something in return.
A share is a possibility of big "profits". Without the possibility of profits there is no reason for anyone to by a share in a corporation (which means no money to pay scientists and no research and no vaccine).

Do you have an alternative?

You are misunderstanding my response, Max.

I am agreeing with what you are saying.

You are saying it is more important to see that people make lots of money for finding a cure for this pandemic...than to actually get a cure as fast as possible. So...everyone doing work on it should hide their work and results...in order to maximize profits.

**** the people who die or suffer horrible illness because of the illness.

What's not to agree with?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Of course, the problem with tax-funded research and development is that it replaces the profit motive with a politically-connect motive.

If the goal is to make a big profit, you are going to be incentivised choose the scientists and research projects that are most likely to be successful. In this case, the people who are making the decisions have a financial stake in getting it right. It is not a perfect system... but it has clearly been successful.

If the tax-payer money is coming in, the people who are making the decisions can be motivated by all kinds of things. They may choose what fits their politics, or the people they like or any number of things. They no longer have a financial stake in the decisions they make.

Government bureaucracy works for some types of problems. The British healthcare system is a perfect example of system that relies on doctors pretty much all doing the same thing within a regulated system.

Scientific research isn't that... we want the best people with competing ideas taking risks until someone reaches the goal post.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

There are two separate issues here....

1) How to set up an economic system that incentivizes the best scientists and organization to do the work needed to find a vaccine.

2) How to set up an economic system that incentivizes sharing of information.

The problem is that the simplest way to accomplish #2 screws up the economic incentives needed for #1. If people can steal your work, it makes it harder for you to get paid for your successes.

Put yourself in the shoes of a research scientists. How would you want to be compensated?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You people are living in a fantasy world.

Yep.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You fail to understand.

I’m talking about the mega rich, the sort who have addresses in Monte Carlo and bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.

It requires international cooperation.

0 Replies

U.S. Says Russian Hackers Are Trying To Steal Coronavirus Vaccine Research

Quick Links

My Account

able2know