If IP waivers cause biotech companies to not be incentivized to create vaccines, but if there is a huge need for vaccines, public funding will take the place of IP incentives.
How well does public funding for antibiotics where selling newly developed one’s for profit is effectively outlawed work at the moment?
It seem to me that it works pretty poorly and I see no reason for it to be different with government funded vaccines.
That’s...not a great comparison. There are pretty good public health reasons NOT to be hasty in developing new antibiotics, regardless of the funding model.
I don’t think any new drug development (outside developing vaccine’s against a targeted that’s easy to vaccinate against because of prior research) is well described as ‘hasty’. While I think it’s worth arguing that developing antibiotics is stupid, the policy circles who care about the topic do think that it’s valuable to develop new antibiotics.
If they would change the regulations to allow for phage therapy and fund it I would also be okay with that, but they do neither.
How well does public funding for antibiotics where selling newly developed one’s for profit is effectively outlawed work at the moment?
It seem to me that it works pretty poorly and I see no reason for it to be different with government funded vaccines.
That’s...not a great comparison. There are pretty good public health reasons NOT to be hasty in developing new antibiotics, regardless of the funding model.
I don’t think any new drug development (outside developing vaccine’s against a targeted that’s easy to vaccinate against because of prior research) is well described as ‘hasty’. While I think it’s worth arguing that developing antibiotics is stupid, the policy circles who care about the topic do think that it’s valuable to develop new antibiotics.
If they would change the regulations to allow for phage therapy and fund it I would also be okay with that, but they do neither.