My reaction would be that a vaccine should be made for profit; if there are people who can’t afford it there should be a charity to buy the vaccine for them.
Re fraud, etc.: Money doesn’t *force* people to be honest. Nothing can do that. But it is much easier to fudge things that can’t be quantified.
My reaction would be that a vaccine should be made for profit; if there are people who can’t afford it there should be a charity to buy the vaccine for them.
Pay careful attention to this formulation. Note the phrase:
there should be
What does that mean, precisely?
When we speak of whether a vaccine should be made for profit or not, we are, implicitly, speaking from the perspective of decision-makers who are in a position to decide whether a vaccine will be made on a for-profit or a non-profit basis. This may be some level of government (which may choose to contract to get a vaccine made, then distribute it to members of the public—or, may elect not to do so, and leave the matter to the vaccine manufacturers to decide), or it may be a corporation (which may manufacture the vaccine and then choose to make it available for free, instead of selling it).
Now, from the standpoint of those decision-makers, what does it mean to say that the vaccine should be for-profit but that “there should be” a charity to buy the vaccine for those who need it? It could only mean one of two things:
We—i.e., by construction, that decision-making organization—having chosen to sell the vaccine for a profit, will now also spin off a charity whose purpose will be to make the vaccine available on a non-profit basis.
We will sell the vaccine at a profit. Perhaps someone else will found a charity which will purchase our vaccine and make it available on a non-profit basis. Or, perhaps not. Either way, we will merely sell it and make a profit.
And note that option #1 is no different from “make the vaccine on a non-profit basis” in the first place, whereas option #2 is simply a shrug—a refusal to accept any responsibility for the problem of people who can’t afford the vaccine.
Either way, you have not answered leggi’s question/challenge, but evaded it.
We already have the situation that normal vaccines are sold for prices to make a profit to developed countries and then sold for lesser prices to organizations that give out the vaccines to the the of the world.
That’s the established model that works for giving everybody access and the involved companies a way to pay for the vaccine development.
It doesn’t get them to pay for a lot of vaccine factories and as a result we don’t have enough vaccine factories at the moment but I would still call the model for-profit.
My reaction would be that a vaccine should be made for profit; if there are people who can’t afford it there should be a charity to buy the vaccine for them.
Re fraud, etc.: Money doesn’t *force* people to be honest. Nothing can do that. But it is much easier to fudge things that can’t be quantified.
Pay careful attention to this formulation. Note the phrase:
What does that mean, precisely?
When we speak of whether a vaccine should be made for profit or not, we are, implicitly, speaking from the perspective of decision-makers who are in a position to decide whether a vaccine will be made on a for-profit or a non-profit basis. This may be some level of government (which may choose to contract to get a vaccine made, then distribute it to members of the public—or, may elect not to do so, and leave the matter to the vaccine manufacturers to decide), or it may be a corporation (which may manufacture the vaccine and then choose to make it available for free, instead of selling it).
Now, from the standpoint of those decision-makers, what does it mean to say that the vaccine should be for-profit but that “there should be” a charity to buy the vaccine for those who need it? It could only mean one of two things:
We—i.e., by construction, that decision-making organization—having chosen to sell the vaccine for a profit, will now also spin off a charity whose purpose will be to make the vaccine available on a non-profit basis.
We will sell the vaccine at a profit. Perhaps someone else will found a charity which will purchase our vaccine and make it available on a non-profit basis. Or, perhaps not. Either way, we will merely sell it and make a profit.
And note that option #1 is no different from “make the vaccine on a non-profit basis” in the first place, whereas option #2 is simply a shrug—a refusal to accept any responsibility for the problem of people who can’t afford the vaccine.
Either way, you have not answered leggi’s question/challenge, but evaded it.
We already have the situation that normal vaccines are sold for prices to make a profit to developed countries and then sold for lesser prices to organizations that give out the vaccines to the the of the world.
That’s the established model that works for giving everybody access and the involved companies a way to pay for the vaccine development.
It doesn’t get them to pay for a lot of vaccine factories and as a result we don’t have enough vaccine factories at the moment but I would still call the model for-profit.