BioNTech alone could lift German economy by 0.5% this year(reuters.com)
reuters.com
BioNTech alone could lift German economy by 0.5% this year
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-biontech-idUSKBN2FB15A
239 comments
I am not worried only about better healthcare. Population growth, climate change, waste, .. so many more thing to worry.
For me humanity is up for a massive shrinking. Either because we do it or (some decades later) mother earth does it.
For me humanity is up for a massive shrinking. Either because we do it or (some decades later) mother earth does it.
What do you make about Elon Musk's prediction that the biggest threat in the future may actually be population collapse [1], rather than overpopulation?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Klhl81K7g
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Klhl81K7g
I'd give it about as much credit as I gave his "COVID will be gone by April 2020" tweets.
The man is phenomenally effective in certain engineering contexts and deserves to be listened to if he's talking about rocket engines or something. He's no more credible in public health and population modeling than any other rando.
The man is phenomenally effective in certain engineering contexts and deserves to be listened to if he's talking about rocket engines or something. He's no more credible in public health and population modeling than any other rando.
I would say that while it is a plausible hypothesis, Elon Musk has no particular reason to be seen as a credible source in this space, and that opening with that citation feels like its asking for discussion on the merits of Elon vs. the idea itself.
Fair enough, I'll refer to his most salient point:
A dwindling youth essentially enslaved to take care of a burgeoning aging population is pretty dystopian. So if life extension technology gets implemented with something like mRNA technology, then it seems like that would have to be balanced out by higher birthrates.
A dwindling youth essentially enslaved to take care of a burgeoning aging population is pretty dystopian. So if life extension technology gets implemented with something like mRNA technology, then it seems like that would have to be balanced out by higher birthrates.
Personally, I think that artificial wombs will be operational before widespread aging reversal.
We don't need to worry about mRNA vaccines doing this. You'd need to actually reverse aging. Stopping diseases one by one will never work. They're simply not preventable in the long term.
The population dynamics of such a situation would be dwarfed, imo, by the political and wealth inequality problems. Society is structured firmly around an average human lifespan.
The population dynamics of such a situation would be dwarfed, imo, by the political and wealth inequality problems. Society is structured firmly around an average human lifespan.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean mRNA technology in the sense of vaccines, but rather gene therapy techniques that could reverse or slow down aging processes. Like the top post in this thread mentioned, there are new mRNA medicines coming out to treat cancer, for example, and if that pans out and the technology is really up and running then I imagine things like life extension would be on the table.
Nah don't get your hopes up. "Treat a cancer" is very different from a general cure for cancer, which is simply never going to be possible with a generic injection or anything like that. These approaches will fundamentally ever work.
Life extension in the sense of average lifespan marginally increasing is possible, but in the sense of reducing aging is a very very different problem.
Life extension in the sense of average lifespan marginally increasing is possible, but in the sense of reducing aging is a very very different problem.
==A dwindling youth essentially enslaved to take care of a burgeoning aging population is pretty dystopian.==
Using the word "enslaved" will successfully paint anything as a dystopian future, that doesn't mean it is the inevitable path of mRNA vaccines. If we have life-extension technology, maybe people will start having more kids, maybe twins/triplets will become more common, maybe the poorest countries will never achieve the technology, nobody knows.
Maybe this puts some context around it. The first nuclear power plant came online in 1951. 70 years later, only 32 countries have nuclear power plants and the content of Africa has 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
Using the word "enslaved" will successfully paint anything as a dystopian future, that doesn't mean it is the inevitable path of mRNA vaccines. If we have life-extension technology, maybe people will start having more kids, maybe twins/triplets will become more common, maybe the poorest countries will never achieve the technology, nobody knows.
Maybe this puts some context around it. The first nuclear power plant came online in 1951. 70 years later, only 32 countries have nuclear power plants and the content of Africa has 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
Worth checking out the book The Great Demographic Reversal
This looks very interesting, just picked a copy on Audible. Thank you for the recommendation.
It depends where in life you gain those two years. Two extra years of being 20 is a lot nicer than two extra years of being 99.
Not enough people realize this early in their life and spend their youth toiling away for some imagined perfect retirement life - only to reach it and have their pensions disappeared by their company's management firm gambling it away on the stock market, being struck with disease and mobility issues that prevent travel, and losing their loved ones early on into their imagined golden years.
Life doesn't last forever; keeping your head down and being a "good worker" doesn't get you shit. You need to actively fight to make sure those years in your youth are worth it - since it's always quite possible that cancer strikes you down in your thirties.
Life doesn't last forever; keeping your head down and being a "good worker" doesn't get you shit. You need to actively fight to make sure those years in your youth are worth it - since it's always quite possible that cancer strikes you down in your thirties.
True, but cancer is typically a disease of the old age. I do not remember it exactly, but your chances of developing cancer at 70 are several thousand times higher than at 20.
It's not quite that dramatic. Globally [1] it's closer to 100x-200x for an early 20 something vs early 70 something.
For the US [2] it's 3.4 per 100k at 20-24 years of age, and 659 per 100k at 70-74 years of age (call it 200x).
A large number of people 50-70 die of cancer however. For the 60-64 group, the rate spikes to 331 per 100k. 50 to 70 can be high quality years for a person. In response to the parent comment that mentioned solving cancer only adding a few years, the lives to be saved in the 50-70 group is a very potent counter argument for the economic value and considerable high-quality years that can be added rather than dying at eg 55 or 63.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer-death-rates-by-age...
[2] https://rivercountrynews.com/an-update-on-cancer-deaths-in-t...
For the US [2] it's 3.4 per 100k at 20-24 years of age, and 659 per 100k at 70-74 years of age (call it 200x).
A large number of people 50-70 die of cancer however. For the 60-64 group, the rate spikes to 331 per 100k. 50 to 70 can be high quality years for a person. In response to the parent comment that mentioned solving cancer only adding a few years, the lives to be saved in the 50-70 group is a very potent counter argument for the economic value and considerable high-quality years that can be added rather than dying at eg 55 or 63.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer-death-rates-by-age...
[2] https://rivercountrynews.com/an-update-on-cancer-deaths-in-t...
> That said, the economic impact of such cures isn't clear to me. If your population gains, on average, say, a year or two of life, the pay-as-you go pension systems that are already under strain in greying Europe will come under even bigger strain.
And the alternative is? I mean people keep doing this "A is bad" ... okay what's B? Sometimes there's this implied, horrible option B. Sometimes there's just nothing.
Never mind that there is still pretty decent child mortality from cancer. And if you count every disease that mRNA can fight ... there's a few really bad ones in there.
> So it seems that each discovery like that will be balanced by us working longer. Personally, I as a 42 y.o. in Czechia, do not expect to get any meaningful state pension ever. There will be just too many of us.
If medicine can keep us in a fit enough state, physically and mentally, I say bring it on!
If not, there isn't a discussion to be had, because it won't happen.
And the alternative is? I mean people keep doing this "A is bad" ... okay what's B? Sometimes there's this implied, horrible option B. Sometimes there's just nothing.
Never mind that there is still pretty decent child mortality from cancer. And if you count every disease that mRNA can fight ... there's a few really bad ones in there.
> So it seems that each discovery like that will be balanced by us working longer. Personally, I as a 42 y.o. in Czechia, do not expect to get any meaningful state pension ever. There will be just too many of us.
If medicine can keep us in a fit enough state, physically and mentally, I say bring it on!
If not, there isn't a discussion to be had, because it won't happen.
Of course we won't stop medicating people who can be saved just to protect the pension systems. At least democratic states won't, the politicians would be eaten alive by the grey voting bloc. And in this case rightly so.
But that means that we really need to push with certain research forward. If you can live to be 90 and in good health, you won't mind working longer. (Though some people may mind if that means that, say, judges stay in their offices for 60 years).
It is the intermediate stage that is bad. In that stage, people suffer from chronic diseases and bad health for decades, unable to enjoy life fully and work.
I know that this isn't easy to solve. Biology of aging is complicated like hell, to the degree that not too long ago, aging was considered inevitable, untreatable and incurable, thus attracting almost no funding and scientific attention.
This has been changing lately, but it will take some time before we see results in humans and not just in mice.
But that means that we really need to push with certain research forward. If you can live to be 90 and in good health, you won't mind working longer. (Though some people may mind if that means that, say, judges stay in their offices for 60 years).
It is the intermediate stage that is bad. In that stage, people suffer from chronic diseases and bad health for decades, unable to enjoy life fully and work.
I know that this isn't easy to solve. Biology of aging is complicated like hell, to the degree that not too long ago, aging was considered inevitable, untreatable and incurable, thus attracting almost no funding and scientific attention.
This has been changing lately, but it will take some time before we see results in humans and not just in mice.
> Of course we won't stop medicating people who can be saved just to protect the pension systems. At least democratic states won't, the politicians would be eaten alive by the grey voting bloc. And in this case rightly so.
Why rightly so?
Up until now, the number young people has been increasing in pretty much all societies such that society continuously had a greater supply of labor to continue meeting the bed pan changing demands of increasing number of old people.
You introduce women’s independence and easy to use, cheap birth control (IUD), and that very well can change the parameters under which society operates, which necessitate changed to how it can operate.
We are nowhere near technology where 50+ year olds are regularly able to contribute to the workforce in manual labor jobs, especially turning people over, bathing them, and otherwise laborious work it takes to take care of extremely old populations.
We are already seeing this tussle in the US, where there are vast nursing and nursing aide “shortages”, or another way to look at it is society trying to figure out how many of its resources (pay for that kind of labor) to allocate to caring for sick/old people.
It very well may be that society could be better off investing more in its young rather than old.
Why rightly so?
Up until now, the number young people has been increasing in pretty much all societies such that society continuously had a greater supply of labor to continue meeting the bed pan changing demands of increasing number of old people.
You introduce women’s independence and easy to use, cheap birth control (IUD), and that very well can change the parameters under which society operates, which necessitate changed to how it can operate.
We are nowhere near technology where 50+ year olds are regularly able to contribute to the workforce in manual labor jobs, especially turning people over, bathing them, and otherwise laborious work it takes to take care of extremely old populations.
We are already seeing this tussle in the US, where there are vast nursing and nursing aide “shortages”, or another way to look at it is society trying to figure out how many of its resources (pay for that kind of labor) to allocate to caring for sick/old people.
It very well may be that society could be better off investing more in its young rather than old.
"rightly so" because I feel that denying people life saving treatments (and I really mean life saving, not prolonging life by a bare month in pain and misery) just for demographic reasons is immoral.
Society does not have unlimited resources, so I think a more useful way of characterizing it would be a better allocation of resources to accomplish society's goals.
For example, my one of my grandparents' kidneys stopped working when they were mid 90s. In the US, they were entitled to taxpayer funded healthcare benefits which allowed them to receive dialysis. So US taxpayers paid for a van to come pick them up in a wheelchair 3x a week, perform the dialysis at the center for a few hours, bring them back. And they had to have a translator available since they did not speak English.
This went on for 4 years until they died at 99. Even though it was my grandparent, I still think that was a ludicrous waste of society's resources. They should be given an option for assisted suicide.
I hope that I can figure out a way to take myself out if I ever come into that kind of situation. I see no purpose for me to burden others with providing me with chronic care.
For example, my one of my grandparents' kidneys stopped working when they were mid 90s. In the US, they were entitled to taxpayer funded healthcare benefits which allowed them to receive dialysis. So US taxpayers paid for a van to come pick them up in a wheelchair 3x a week, perform the dialysis at the center for a few hours, bring them back. And they had to have a translator available since they did not speak English.
This went on for 4 years until they died at 99. Even though it was my grandparent, I still think that was a ludicrous waste of society's resources. They should be given an option for assisted suicide.
I hope that I can figure out a way to take myself out if I ever come into that kind of situation. I see no purpose for me to burden others with providing me with chronic care.
I love how we are now seeing suggestions to just skip the whole communism part and go straight to almost mass-murder "to keep society stable", and claim that such is reasonable to make life easier for young people. So while we're not doing communism, we're still using the same reason and central decision making to do the mass-murder bit.
If you want to see real "medical waste", by the way, you should see how much is spent on a 2 year old that gets diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. Or, up until 10 years ago, a kid born with HIV. Now THAT is wasting money. In their case, the kid has never worked, will need MUCH more (essentially constant) medical attention for 30 years, expensive medicines for all that time, the treatment will fail, it's just a matter of when, and they still won't ever be able to contribute to society. By the time they're of working age they'll be so disabled they can't work (ok maybe the HIV baby could work for 10 years, tops). It's not reasonable to even have them type on a keyboard after maybe 14 years of age.
Let's kill em all! (especially now with mRNA vaccines we're pretty close to a cure) ...
If you want to see real "medical waste", by the way, you should see how much is spent on a 2 year old that gets diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. Or, up until 10 years ago, a kid born with HIV. Now THAT is wasting money. In their case, the kid has never worked, will need MUCH more (essentially constant) medical attention for 30 years, expensive medicines for all that time, the treatment will fail, it's just a matter of when, and they still won't ever be able to contribute to society. By the time they're of working age they'll be so disabled they can't work (ok maybe the HIV baby could work for 10 years, tops). It's not reasonable to even have them type on a keyboard after maybe 14 years of age.
Let's kill em all! (especially now with mRNA vaccines we're pretty close to a cure) ...
How is giving someone the option of dying peacefully, as I suggested, equivalent to mass murder?
Do you think societies have unlimited resources to spend on everyone? Should they be directed only to people with healthcare problems? What about people that suffer non healthcare tragedies?
Not spending $2M of resources to keep a baby alive that has a 99% chance of not having any quality of life is not “killing people”.
Do you think societies have unlimited resources to spend on everyone? Should they be directed only to people with healthcare problems? What about people that suffer non healthcare tragedies?
Not spending $2M of resources to keep a baby alive that has a 99% chance of not having any quality of life is not “killing people”.
Child cancer treatments are going to be driven by fundamentally different causes and require totally different treatments, fyi.
The cost savings in medical expenses can balance out a lot, this becomes even more apparent as aging itself is cured and the costs associated with diseases brought on by aging, especially expensive end-of-life care, disappear.
Since your attitude is already set, there's less resistance to ending such pension plans for younger people now even as they continue paying in to support their elders. The sentiment with social security in the US is the same. If an administration ever actually tries to gracefully end it, I think it will be easier to pull off than they expect.
Since your attitude is already set, there's less resistance to ending such pension plans for younger people now even as they continue paying in to support their elders. The sentiment with social security in the US is the same. If an administration ever actually tries to gracefully end it, I think it will be easier to pull off than they expect.
Moderna as well: https://www.modernatx.com/pipeline
> BioNTech has a lot of potentially groundbreaking mRNA therapies in its pipeline, some of them against various forms of cancer.
This is good news. In the last year I've lost 2 close ones to cancer.
This is good news. In the last year I've lost 2 close ones to cancer.
For me, too.
In my family, we rarely suffer from heart attacks and we only had one dead in last 40 years or so that died from cardiovascular disease. He was a heavy smoker and his non-smoking brother outlived him by almost thirty years.
But cancer is our faithful family enemy, even though it mostly comes late in life. Every tool against it will meet my approval.
In my family, we rarely suffer from heart attacks and we only had one dead in last 40 years or so that died from cardiovascular disease. He was a heavy smoker and his non-smoking brother outlived him by almost thirty years.
But cancer is our faithful family enemy, even though it mostly comes late in life. Every tool against it will meet my approval.
Thankfully cancer doesn't run in my family, but somehow (bad luck I guess) I have lost a shocking amount of young friends or acquaintances to cancer now (all 40 years or younger). All were very healthy too (none were smokers, heavy drinkers, etc...).
I'm dreading hearing about more cases since Covid restrictions included delaying a lot of cancer screenings.
I'm dreading hearing about more cases since Covid restrictions included delaying a lot of cancer screenings.
We should be increasing the retirement age for public pensions as quality-adjusted life years increase. Unfortunately people don’t want to spend extra years working, or contribute more to pensions during their working years, so we wind up in this unsustainable system.
I don't think we should increase age for public pension.
Life is made to be lived, not for working.
We should increase taxes income by making everybody pay their fair share, and these include multinational corporations, and implement some sort of UBI. Where people can have a decent life without being forced to work if it is not a choice.
Life is made to be lived, not for working.
We should increase taxes income by making everybody pay their fair share, and these include multinational corporations, and implement some sort of UBI. Where people can have a decent life without being forced to work if it is not a choice.
when i go with a friend to get pizza and we each eat half pizza, we each pay one half bill, fair share. why then have we seen some concept of "fair share" in tax change to fit budget needs? "fair share" is fixed amount but i hear no fixed amount proposed.
Because in public services everyone is worse off if someone doesn't get a good care - the pizza is infinite.
The whole point of taxes is solidarity. If you don't understand basic principles of being civil then good luck in your life.
The whole point of taxes is solidarity. If you don't understand basic principles of being civil then good luck in your life.
Then you make a new contention that you want more money past a "fair share" because you have the policy goal. Fairness has not its definition set by government budget needs. What mean you here with "solidarity"? What has this to do with "civility" or its lacking?
I mean if my friend is Jeff Bezos or Rhianna, I might be a little surprised if they suggest we split the bill.
If it was Jeff Bezos, I wouldn't be surprised.
Then here we have core difference: I would have no such suprise. I think there is some fundamental difference in our understandings of fairness.
>pay their fair share
Define fair share, it's not clear to me what that is.
Define fair share, it's not clear to me what that is.
At the very least the same percentage that a small business, less than 50 employees, pays in taxes.
There has to be more to it than that. You haven't even argued why this is fair by the way. "Fair share" is an emotionally charged political slogan that means something different to everyone. Probably why it's used by so many politicians.
I don't have to convince you.
That it is my opinion, and you can discard it.
But I believe that if we tax small business a certain amount, big corporations should pay, at the very least, the same amount.
Again, it is not a scientific argument, it is a political one, and honestly I don't want to be dragged in a technical discussion about taxation.
That it is my opinion, and you can discard it.
But I believe that if we tax small business a certain amount, big corporations should pay, at the very least, the same amount.
Again, it is not a scientific argument, it is a political one, and honestly I don't want to be dragged in a technical discussion about taxation.
You say political, I say emotional.
And I suppose your political views are based purely on reason and logic?
Of course emotions are involved. That isn't inherently bad.
Of course emotions are involved. That isn't inherently bad.
>And I suppose your political views are based purely on reason and logic?
Yes actually. And I definitely don't try to couch my political views in moral stupidity like "fairness" which you are not even capable of explaining.
>Of course emotions are involved. That isn't inherently bad.
Of course it's not inherently bad. It's definitely bad when you can't even explain your position coherently but feel strongly enough about it to get into heated arguments.
Yes actually. And I definitely don't try to couch my political views in moral stupidity like "fairness" which you are not even capable of explaining.
>Of course emotions are involved. That isn't inherently bad.
Of course it's not inherently bad. It's definitely bad when you can't even explain your position coherently but feel strongly enough about it to get into heated arguments.
It's delusional to believe you can form political beliefs without emotion coloring the decision in any way. In fact, a rational, logical being would be well aware of how emotions guide our behavior at a subconscious level, and that we can never be totally free from emotion-based decision-making.
That doesn't mean we've slaves to our emotions, or must make irrational decisions based on our whims.
But it is a foolish thing to say you are 100% free of emotions in your views, especially when that incorrect view is wielded as a cudgel against opposing viewpoints (which we apparently aren't even "capable of explaining").
That doesn't mean we've slaves to our emotions, or must make irrational decisions based on our whims.
But it is a foolish thing to say you are 100% free of emotions in your views, especially when that incorrect view is wielded as a cudgel against opposing viewpoints (which we apparently aren't even "capable of explaining").
> But it is a foolish thing to say you are 100% free of emotions in your views
No it's not. You just make all these statements that are baseless. I can say my political beliefs are based on rationality because my political beliefs are simple.
I never said my views are free from emotion. I said my views are 100% based on reason. I vote in my direct self interest, my values are based on my self interest, my goals are to advance my self interest.
No it's not. You just make all these statements that are baseless. I can say my political beliefs are based on rationality because my political beliefs are simple.
I never said my views are free from emotion. I said my views are 100% based on reason. I vote in my direct self interest, my values are based on my self interest, my goals are to advance my self interest.
[deleted]
> Life is made to be lived, not for working.
> Where people can have a decent life without being forced to work if it is not a choice.
Who will choose to work rather than get something for free?
I'll tell you: the same people who would pay taxes if it were not mandated by the threat of jail - that is, people who contribute to charity.
That is typically less than 1% of earnings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...
I believe very few people will choose to work, and therefore "decent lives" for the masses can not be maintained with this little work.
> Where people can have a decent life without being forced to work if it is not a choice.
Who will choose to work rather than get something for free?
I'll tell you: the same people who would pay taxes if it were not mandated by the threat of jail - that is, people who contribute to charity.
That is typically less than 1% of earnings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...
I believe very few people will choose to work, and therefore "decent lives" for the masses can not be maintained with this little work.
This will be challenging since the epidemic of obesity (which kills far more than covid) now effects > 50% of society and leads to disability at younger and younger ages.
Obesity is a critical risk factor for COVID-19. And obesity also increases the risk of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and hypovitaminosis D which are all co-morbid conditions that further increase COVID-19 risk.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm
if obesity was tackled with the same intensity as covid, we would have seen far better outcomes...
but too many financial hurdles in its way...
but too many financial hurdles in its way...
But I don't get a heart attack if you're obese.
But if you're under 60 and yourself fit and healthy, you'd probably not even notice if you caught covid and recovered. Everyone getting fitter is a huge collective win. Even outside the context of a pandemic--fat people have a hugely disproportional impact on national healthcare spend. All of our insurance would get cheaper and cheaper if we reduced the national BMI.
And, if you do get a heart attack, which happened to my very fit professor when he died right before finals, you might not have the specialists available immediately for care because they are crunched for time dealing with a health crisis (obesity has made COVID much worse for example).
You still can get damages in heart, kidney and lungs from corona, even if you are asymptomatic and didn't feel anything. The first cases were reported from italian divers you can't work in their job anymore because of lung damages.
And the costs wouldn't really get lower, you just change the illness. If you are healthier, you live longer and your final illness most probably will be cancer. Expensive long te treatment. Obese people die faster and cheaper.
And the costs wouldn't really get lower, you just change the illness. If you are healthier, you live longer and your final illness most probably will be cancer. Expensive long te treatment. Obese people die faster and cheaper.
Organ damage is definitionally symptom for a disease.
Maybe I am now paying for your health care heart attack? Costing me more, so I have some interest in weight of other people now. Maybe I am getting more financial trouble, which cause stress, which linked to heart disease: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/stress-...
I think cancer treatment is more expensive. Heart attacks have a pretty death rate.
But you get a fatter bill because of the obese population due to the way health care and insurance is structured.
this means, in the current world, you get to fat-shame the obese people, have color coded id cards based on their BMI, have them off flights etc till they prove that they ran on their treadmill today...
this means, in the current world, you get to fat-shame the obese people, have color coded id cards based on their BMI, have them off flights etc till they prove that they ran on their treadmill today...
The financial hurdles do exist - but it is mostly the political lobbying that prevents a real attack on obesity in the US. Sugar is big business and, by extension, obesity greases a lot of people's palms.
The US could take a serious look at addressing massive over consumption - but the last serious take on that was the sugary drink ban in NYC and that turned into a "you'll pry my big gulp from my cold dead hands" affair pretty quickly. The US is in too deep celebrating the exploitation of the health of their populace to turn things around - but other countries might have a chance.
The US could take a serious look at addressing massive over consumption - but the last serious take on that was the sugary drink ban in NYC and that turned into a "you'll pry my big gulp from my cold dead hands" affair pretty quickly. The US is in too deep celebrating the exploitation of the health of their populace to turn things around - but other countries might have a chance.
Covid is hardly a benchmark for lethality. Since the official start of the COVID-19 pandemic, more people have died of diarrhoea. (comparing official numbers for both)
Diarrhea isn't comparable to COVID, as it is a symptom of numerous other causes (both infectious agents and otherwise) not a single infectious agent.
If there is actually productivity growth (which I strongly believe there is) - then this can be shared between 4 groups - the workers, the non-workers, the retired, and the capitalists.
I think most workers would like to see 100% of these gains go to workers. I think most shareholders would like to see 100% of the gains go to them. I think it'd be fair to share these evenly - and so higher taxes could make it so that the non-workers and retirees get some of the benefits of productivity increases.
I think most workers would like to see 100% of these gains go to workers. I think most shareholders would like to see 100% of the gains go to them. I think it'd be fair to share these evenly - and so higher taxes could make it so that the non-workers and retirees get some of the benefits of productivity increases.
Many countries already (plan to) do that. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/a05b71b5-en/index.html?i...:
“The normal retirement age of men will increase in 20 out of 36 OECD countries by an average of 3.5 years based on current legislation. The highest increase is projected for Turkey, from 51 currently to 62 years. Assuming that legislated life expectancy links are applied, also Denmark, from 65 to 74 years, and Estonia, from 63.3 to 71 years, will rapidly raise the retirement age.“
“The normal retirement age of men will increase in 20 out of 36 OECD countries by an average of 3.5 years based on current legislation. The highest increase is projected for Turkey, from 51 currently to 62 years. Assuming that legislated life expectancy links are applied, also Denmark, from 65 to 74 years, and Estonia, from 63.3 to 71 years, will rapidly raise the retirement age.“
Life expectancy maybe increased a few months, but it is extremely bad science that you can just increase pension in consequence. The age is rising because fewer people die prematurely because of better medicine. Doesn't mean people can now work until a later age, they will suffer the exact same health problems.
You can bet that some parts of life even became more unhealthy. I don't expect to live longer than my grandparents that were children in WW2.
You can bet that some parts of life even became more unhealthy. I don't expect to live longer than my grandparents that were children in WW2.
Just because some don't work physically demanding jobs doesn't mean you can raise the retirement age for everyone. Even so, many hardly reach retirement age in good health.
Before that, it would be better to ensure that all incomes and all gainfully employed persons are taken into account for the pension fund and that such pointless things as a contribution assessment ceiling are eliminated.
Then the contribution could even decrease.
Why? As productivity increases, shouldn’t some be allocated to leisure?
Any gains are generally directed towards chasing status. Rather than being allocated towards leisure activities, they end up being used to push up property prices and the profits of luxury goods companies.
I guess this might be the case in America but seriously? Economic gains up here in Canada tend to either go into reinvestment or leisure since life is your thing and having a fancier car than your neighbor is silly. I think that due to limits on the supply of leisure goods you will find that your second sentence is accurate - but I think that's due to the increased demand of leisure, not due to the increased demand of status (outside of a small portion of the population).
No. Housing prices are even higher in Canada than the US, despite lower wages. Canadians are funneling almost every dollar into housing.
This is sad but I feel probably true in some sense.
Leisure itself is a marker of status.
If only... I think generally the people who have achieved the means to enjoy leisure time are the people who are driven by ambition to keep attaining higher status. It takes someone with the ability to step back and assess what's important in life.
the link proposed is not not clear to me. Wouldn’t requiring people retire later keep them in jobs near the end of their career, giving them even more money to “push up prices”?
Probably massively oversimplifying things here, but why does the government have to provide us pensions anyway?
Can't they just reduce the tax we pay and instead state that everyone is responsible for their own pensions, so if you save up enough you don't have to work longer...
Can't they just reduce the tax we pay and instead state that everyone is responsible for their own pensions, so if you save up enough you don't have to work longer...
Because then too many people will not actually prepare their own pension. And sure, that is on them for being irresponsible stupid young people (i.e. young people), but then it becomes a societal / national problem when every old person is destitute, straining all other systems in the country. If I, selfishly, do not want to be surrounded by destitute old people that lower my quality of life, I have to ensure that there is some (national) system that ensures these people prepare a pension for themselves.
Also, on the more utopic/hippy views, it is just nice to help others, so why not institutionalize/codify helping others.
Also, on the more utopic/hippy views, it is just nice to help others, so why not institutionalize/codify helping others.
> Because then too many people will not actually prepare their own pension.
It is worth noting that if your goal is just to handle the people who didn't make wise decisions when young, the current system does more than needed, and there's a much better way to accomplish that. You can simply force people to save n% in a retirement savings account, managed by the government; ie. take the current system, but keep everyone's money separate rather than merging it into a common pool. This is how Singapore's Central Provident Fund works.
The current system really solves 2 problems: people who choose not to save enough, and people who didn't earn enough to save enough. You can solve the 2 separately: the first with the solution mentioned above, and the second with something like a negative income tax.
Now, the problem with separating the 2 is that there may not be enough political will for the second system, because it makes it obvious that the amount you receive in retirement is not in proportion with what you contributed. That's the case now too, but it's obscured by the structure of the program.
It is worth noting that if your goal is just to handle the people who didn't make wise decisions when young, the current system does more than needed, and there's a much better way to accomplish that. You can simply force people to save n% in a retirement savings account, managed by the government; ie. take the current system, but keep everyone's money separate rather than merging it into a common pool. This is how Singapore's Central Provident Fund works.
The current system really solves 2 problems: people who choose not to save enough, and people who didn't earn enough to save enough. You can solve the 2 separately: the first with the solution mentioned above, and the second with something like a negative income tax.
Now, the problem with separating the 2 is that there may not be enough political will for the second system, because it makes it obvious that the amount you receive in retirement is not in proportion with what you contributed. That's the case now too, but it's obscured by the structure of the program.
Because people generally cannot work anymore at a certain age, and most western countries do not think it is acceptable to let elderly people starve, even if they could have taken decisions to prevent that.
Because you cannot expect all of the population to individually make wise financial decisions spanning multiple decades well past the years they can even generate income if they wanted. A lot of people already have problems budgeting for next month.
Because spreading out the "risk" of living much longer than you anticipated prevents destitute 95 year olds.
Because you cannot expect all of the population to individually make wise financial decisions spanning multiple decades well past the years they can even generate income if they wanted. A lot of people already have problems budgeting for next month.
Because spreading out the "risk" of living much longer than you anticipated prevents destitute 95 year olds.
If I make dollars, I am trading time for money, some part from my life. I am never regain these years I spend earning. Now some other person is saying hunger from no good financial decision, means I now must give some of my dollars (years)? No, these policys are taking part of my life. I will give charity if such is my choosing but no government can take some from my life for sustaining of others.
Because economics be a cruel mistress that leaves a lot of people in permanent financial distress and working people into the grave because they still haven't saved up sufficiently is incredibly dismal and depressing. Pension related taxes exist to both ensure that everyone acts responsibly and to redistribute the wealth created over our lifetimes to ensure that everyone gets a chance at a pleasant retirement.
Life is about happiness - it isn't about work.
Life is about happiness - it isn't about work.
Then what happens to the people who choose not to invest in their pension? Are we comfortable allowing these elderly people to live on the streets?
> don't want to spend extra years working
How many 60+ people do you know? Do you honestly think they should still be working?
How many 60+ people do you know? Do you honestly think they should still be working?
Both my parents are 60+, my father is in his mid seventies, and they are as productive as ever.
Congratulations to them. My dad has worked manual labour since he left school aged 15 - first as a shipbuilder and then in the oil industry. My mum retired from teaching a year ago then developed lymphoma.
Both of these people are in their 60s and have earned their retirement - we need not extract any more "productivity" from them. Leave them be.
Both of these people are in their 60s and have earned their retirement - we need not extract any more "productivity" from them. Leave them be.
So instead we should extract a few more percent of productivity out of everybody who is pre-retirement age for every additional year of life expectancy?
The alternative seems to be keeping the young under employed
Are you referring to the "lump of labor" fallacy?
https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2021/january/refuting-...
https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2021/january/refuting-...
No, that refers to job openings across industries, specifically mentions agriculture jobs declining as other industries grow. Look at the median age of say politicians or tenured professors to see what I'm talking about.
We don't need to extract more productivity, sure, but it would lead to decreased medical costs.
I know many people in their sixties who choose and want to work, including my parents. They are lucky in being able to choose to work at a reduced level and not out of absolute necessity so that changes the implications, but they do not want to retire completely.
It's not clear that retirement is particularly healthy, longevity wise.
It's not clear that retirement is particularly healthy, longevity wise.
My grandpa is 89 and refuses not to work. He thinks he'll fall apart once he does.
My grandpa is 94 and still enjoys working. Drives to Home Depot every day to pick up supplies for our family company, and other errands around the city. His view is that he enjoys it and helps him stay active.
> It's not clear that retirement is particularly healthy, longevity wise.
You're essentially saying that not working may not be healthy. That's one of the strangest things I've read today.
You may not view it as "not particularly healthy" because of the frame of reference, not because of "a fact" that not working is unhealthy.
If people "retired" at the age of 25, could you reasonably argue that we'd have an unhealthy population?
You're essentially saying that not working may not be healthy. That's one of the strangest things I've read today.
You may not view it as "not particularly healthy" because of the frame of reference, not because of "a fact" that not working is unhealthy.
If people "retired" at the age of 25, could you reasonably argue that we'd have an unhealthy population?
> You're essentially saying that not working may not be healthy. That's one of the strangest things I've read today.
But it is true. An internal study at a megacorp I worked at showed that people who didn't retire ended up living longer.
It makes a ton of sense. Intellectual work keeps your mind stimulated and your body moving. Inaction ends up killing old people.
But it is true. An internal study at a megacorp I worked at showed that people who didn't retire ended up living longer.
It makes a ton of sense. Intellectual work keeps your mind stimulated and your body moving. Inaction ends up killing old people.
> Intellectual work keeps your mind stimulated and your body moving. Inaction ends up killing old people.
Nobody argues with this. But thinking that paid work is the only source of mind stimulation and body movement is just silly.
Nobody argues with this. But thinking that paid work is the only source of mind stimulation and body movement is just silly.
If anything that proves inactivity is unhealthy, not a life without work.
Not all activity has to be done in the service of providing value to a corporation. You can retire and take up fishing or rock climbing, play chess, write a book.
This idea that we've been conditioned to, that the only valid life is the life we trade for money, is insidious.
Not all activity has to be done in the service of providing value to a corporation. You can retire and take up fishing or rock climbing, play chess, write a book.
This idea that we've been conditioned to, that the only valid life is the life we trade for money, is insidious.
could it be explained as a generational gap?
that generation tied a lot of value to the ability to work.
the current generation looks for all possibilities to not work.
that generation tied a lot of value to the ability to work.
the current generation looks for all possibilities to not work.
If the current generation is looking for all possibilities to not work they're sure doing a crap job at it - the number of people working multiple jobs has shot up... Or did you mean that stereotypical millennials are lazy and thus all young people are lazy?
the people working multiple jobs is due to how the jobs have gotten 'securitized' - people have become specialists in low skill jobs, leading to no growth at all.
A person who is a Uber driver and a dog sitter is unable to display much skill addition after years on these jobs.
i can only quote anecdotal data about the attitude to work among generations. On the other hand, because of the changing nature of the work, it is completely understandable.
A person who is a Uber driver and a dog sitter is unable to display much skill addition after years on these jobs.
i can only quote anecdotal data about the attitude to work among generations. On the other hand, because of the changing nature of the work, it is completely understandable.
> the current generation looks for all possibilities to not work.
You're getting downvoted for this statement, which is utterly ridiculous.
From what I see around me, the current generations work as much, if not way more, than previous generations (such as boomers).
You're getting downvoted for this statement, which is utterly ridiculous.
From what I see around me, the current generations work as much, if not way more, than previous generations (such as boomers).
i differentiated between between people working and people wanting to work.
it is also true that if a generation is chronically overworked, they will not be interested at all in working till their death.
it is also true that if a generation is chronically overworked, they will not be interested at all in working till their death.
Current 60 year olds aren’t relevant to the hypothetical of “what if we cure more stuff?”, rather “what will 60 year olds be like if we cure more stuff?”
Hell yes.
My parents are in their mid-60s. They are both full of energy, in great health, and very productive. As a teacher he's not allowed to work past 65, even when the classes he teaches have no suitable replacements.
We should differentiate between blue-collar and white-collar work in retirement age. I would never wish someone who's worked in a factory or doing manual labor to keep on working. But if you've been sitting in an air-conditioned office all your life there's still plenty to go.
My parents are in their mid-60s. They are both full of energy, in great health, and very productive. As a teacher he's not allowed to work past 65, even when the classes he teaches have no suitable replacements.
We should differentiate between blue-collar and white-collar work in retirement age. I would never wish someone who's worked in a factory or doing manual labor to keep on working. But if you've been sitting in an air-conditioned office all your life there's still plenty to go.
Just the pension plan? Imagine a world where 50%+ of the people voting were born 1 century ago.
To the downvoters: if we don't also manage to improve neuroplasticity decrease in old age as well as breaking generational cultural norms, we're doomed, don't fool yourself. Especially since older people are politically more active, as a group.
Everything is a trade-off.
On one side, old people are less likely to support new trends, starting with fashion and ending with political causes.
On the other side, they carry a lot of experience. If a sizable minority personally knows the misery of war or hyperinflation, repetition of those miseries becomes less likely. Plenty of political criminals built their careers on naivete of the young.
I think that we will end up with the best of both worlds eventually. If longevity tech succeeds, brains will stay young, but memories will accumulate regardless.
On one side, old people are less likely to support new trends, starting with fashion and ending with political causes.
On the other side, they carry a lot of experience. If a sizable minority personally knows the misery of war or hyperinflation, repetition of those miseries becomes less likely. Plenty of political criminals built their careers on naivete of the young.
I think that we will end up with the best of both worlds eventually. If longevity tech succeeds, brains will stay young, but memories will accumulate regardless.
> . If your population gains, on average, say, a year or two of life, the pay-as-you go pension systems that are already under strain in greying Europe will come under even bigger strain.
But if these tools can also dramatically lessen the cost for medical care, wouldn't that more than balance out?
But if these tools can also dramatically lessen the cost for medical care, wouldn't that more than balance out?
[deleted]
Similar to how smokers actually cost the healthcare system less, since they get cancer early and die closer to retirement age, which is cheap compared to long term care spanning an extra decade or two before a major illness sets in.
If you can actually cure some cancers, it will probably be a net positive economically.
For example, in medical circles in my home country, smoking-related cancer prevention campaigns are widely believed to pay for themselves easily, despite low efficacy. (Sorry, I have no citation for that, but it is what is taught to students in medical school.)
In countries where the social safety net fully pays for such health issues (this includes Germany), the cost of cancer patients is itself a tremendous strain on the system.
Additionally, the decision for social security to reimburse (i.e. cover) such drugs typically involves long term economic impact computations. Access to such treatment is almost surely a win for everyone.
For example, in medical circles in my home country, smoking-related cancer prevention campaigns are widely believed to pay for themselves easily, despite low efficacy. (Sorry, I have no citation for that, but it is what is taught to students in medical school.)
In countries where the social safety net fully pays for such health issues (this includes Germany), the cost of cancer patients is itself a tremendous strain on the system.
Additionally, the decision for social security to reimburse (i.e. cover) such drugs typically involves long term economic impact computations. Access to such treatment is almost surely a win for everyone.
> In countries where the social safety net fully pays for such health issues (this includes Germany), the cost of cancer patients is itself a tremendous strain on the system.
This is a great point, and there are also knock-on effects to consider. Say, the parent, child or sibling that removes themselves from the workforce to give daily care and ferry a patient to and from treatments.
This is a great point, and there are also knock-on effects to consider. Say, the parent, child or sibling that removes themselves from the workforce to give daily care and ferry a patient to and from treatments.
[deleted]
This is the problem, all pension systems are pyramid schemes. Plus you add extra overhead to administer over direct benefit contributions. You can claw some back by keeping the shares of those who die early but it isn't enough. Additionally, dying early should still benefit your family and would do so under direct benefit schemes. You mask ask "what happens when people run out?" and the answer is the largely the same, it becomes a social program that is needs based just like it does for all the people today who have no pension.
Surely the economic impact is mainly in providing thousands of jobs in the health industry. We may be able to afford less in others areas.
Don't worry, they are working on population reduction... I think it's more likely most of us are not around in 20 years. So we don't have to worry about it. :)
Sell ads plastered over your friends gossip: $86B
Extend the life of millions of people: $18B
Level of wrongness of priorities: Infinite
Extend the life of millions of people: $18B
Level of wrongness of priorities: Infinite
There is a hypothesis in the room why the Chinese consumer tech crackdown is happening - for exactly that reason.
Big consumer tech with negative net value is not only bombarding users with ads, making them addictive to kill time with useless swiping, liking and forwarding and is also binding the most talented resources to make this happen instead of building semiconductors, rocket engines and biotech stuff.
If Chinese is not doing the crackdown (only) for interal power struggle reasons but is playing that 6D chess, then kudos.
Big consumer tech might become less attractive, people will stopp swiping in weibo, tiktok and weixin; bright talent might start to design stuff that actually benefits the society.
Big consumer tech with negative net value is not only bombarding users with ads, making them addictive to kill time with useless swiping, liking and forwarding and is also binding the most talented resources to make this happen instead of building semiconductors, rocket engines and biotech stuff.
If Chinese is not doing the crackdown (only) for interal power struggle reasons but is playing that 6D chess, then kudos.
Big consumer tech might become less attractive, people will stopp swiping in weibo, tiktok and weixin; bright talent might start to design stuff that actually benefits the society.
Regimes like the CCP are known to justify power grabs as being for the good of their society.
This is almost universally true.
This is almost universally true.
Not disagreeing but do keep in mind that "sell ads" include various industries and businesses that contribute to the economy. Even with word of mouth and SEO traffic, 40+% of our total visitors were from ads. It's a legitimate way of reaching your target audience who wouldn't otherwise hear about you. This could make or break some businesses.
It's legitimate to the extent in which the big tech ads positively increase awareness of your product. It's illegitimate to the extent where big tech acts like a gatekeeper effectively preventing all other ways for random people to discover your product. You can no longer just put your product in a rack in a store or in a lemon stand and expect people to see it, in online world it has to go through their paid channels. The lock-in effect is real. E.g. in the tourist sector, restaurants no longer can rely on tourists randomly passing by, here in europe tripadvisor makes or breaks their business. Only exceptional products can create word of mouth, and customer attention is limited. I think the profitability of these companies relies more on the gatekeeping effect
We have to ask ourselves if that makes sense. Are the products that are being marketed heavily so much better than their competitors? Is a world of dropshipping generic rebranded products progress? In the end will any competition survive, or just monopolies?
We have to ask ourselves if that makes sense. Are the products that are being marketed heavily so much better than their competitors? Is a world of dropshipping generic rebranded products progress? In the end will any competition survive, or just monopolies?
Facebook is at a ridiculous scale though, since they're reporting to have 2.85 billion active users. That's what, like a third of the world population and a bit?
pfizer/biontech are going to produce something like 3 billion vaccines this year. I think this only underscores OP's point.
Cue the annual Flu & COVID "vaccine as a service" business model, and BioTechs can join the dystopia too!
I'm afraid this company is already cashflow positive and (gasp) profitable, therefore it has been cursed to not enter the unicorn valhalla
Great story all around. A company made a product that massively benefited people and is getting a lot of money for it.
Even though they are making $18 Billion, it is likely that the vaccine is actually worth trillions due to the number of lives saved and because vaccination is allowing the economies to open up again.
You hear a lot of about companies making money from developing and selling stuff that is a net harm to society, but it is good to hear about a company making money from developing and selling something that is a massive benefit to society.
Even though they are making $18 Billion, it is likely that the vaccine is actually worth trillions due to the number of lives saved and because vaccination is allowing the economies to open up again.
You hear a lot of about companies making money from developing and selling stuff that is a net harm to society, but it is good to hear about a company making money from developing and selling something that is a massive benefit to society.
It's also pretty interesting how the vaccine development was funded, and the timeline:
- Dec 2019: €50 million loan from the European Commission/EIB
- Jun 2020: Additional €100 million loan from the EIB
- Jun 2020: €250 million from a Singaporean holding in a fairly regular investment activity
- March 2020: $135 million from the Chinese company Fosun in exchange for shares and a manufacturing license
- April 2020: $185 million from Pfizer as part of an equity partnership
- Sept 2020: €375 million of taxpayer money from the German gov in
- Dec 2019: €50 million loan from the European Commission/EIB
- Jun 2020: Additional €100 million loan from the EIB
- Jun 2020: €250 million from a Singaporean holding in a fairly regular investment activity
- March 2020: $135 million from the Chinese company Fosun in exchange for shares and a manufacturing license
- April 2020: $185 million from Pfizer as part of an equity partnership
- Sept 2020: €375 million of taxpayer money from the German gov in
Your timeline messed up.
I'm curious what you find interesting about this? Nothing seems especially remarkable here to me.
Not GP, but what I find uplifting is that sensible institutions (the European Investment Bank) could fund things that turned out to be immensely important before the need was obvious.
I agree its uplifting, but not especially surprising. Biotech is a fairly hot sector.
There's also the IPO proceeds of ~$350mm IIRC.
And what is the actual value to Germany, or to German citizens, that one company makes so much money? Maybe all of the 1323 employees get a bonus? Wow, that will make for some great trickle-down effect there...
If anything, the value of this is going to be negative: Germany will have to pay more to things like the EU, NATO, and 3rd-world aid, all of which are defined as a fixed percentage of GDP.
If anything, the value of this is going to be negative: Germany will have to pay more to things like the EU, NATO, and 3rd-world aid, all of which are defined as a fixed percentage of GDP.
Yeah and that bonus is taxed 35-40% and there is a health care premium of around 17%. It is a net positive for german society
So magically BioNTech don’t get taxed?
If you read the article,
> [BioNTech] now expects to accrue 15.9 billion euros ($18.63 billion) in revenue from the vaccine this year <...> “Since BioNTech procures relatively few preliminary products from abroad, this is almost entirely domestic added value,” Dullien said. “So this has a direct impact on economic growth.”
> [BioNTech] now expects to accrue 15.9 billion euros ($18.63 billion) in revenue from the vaccine this year <...> “Since BioNTech procures relatively few preliminary products from abroad, this is almost entirely domestic added value,” Dullien said. “So this has a direct impact on economic growth.”
I hate this logic.
I'm from a developing country with few independent local companies. We're basically the reductio ad absurdum for your comment.
Well, life does not magically become better if most of your local companies fail.
Don't root for local companies to fail and don't be exclusively a "trickle down economics" cynic. Companies still pay salaries, still pay taxes, still contribute to the development of related local industries.
I'm from a developing country with few independent local companies. We're basically the reductio ad absurdum for your comment.
Well, life does not magically become better if most of your local companies fail.
Don't root for local companies to fail and don't be exclusively a "trickle down economics" cynic. Companies still pay salaries, still pay taxes, still contribute to the development of related local industries.
I'm honestly not sure how you got to the idea that I want them to fail.
The news article is jubilant about a half procent growth to the German GDP because of the corona vaccin. I'm asking what the _value_ of that half procent is.
I can totally understand if Germany has built new factories, or had some other economic activity that spread whatever new income is generated over a significant part of the population. But that's not the case here: it's a single company, making a shitload of money, but mostly abroad, from vaccins that are mostly produced abroad as well. That money goes into a very small number of pockets. It may boost the economic indicator called GDP but it does not represent wealth for the average German.
The news article is jubilant about a half procent growth to the German GDP because of the corona vaccin. I'm asking what the _value_ of that half procent is.
I can totally understand if Germany has built new factories, or had some other economic activity that spread whatever new income is generated over a significant part of the population. But that's not the case here: it's a single company, making a shitload of money, but mostly abroad, from vaccins that are mostly produced abroad as well. That money goes into a very small number of pockets. It may boost the economic indicator called GDP but it does not represent wealth for the average German.
You're still not getting my point.
That "small number of pockets" is probably still mostly German. It could have been Chinese or Romanian or Botswanan and no German would have seen an eurocent. Plus, again, taxes, local development in adjacent industries, local talent staying local, a million other benefits.
Their gain is not necessarily your loss, especially since their product is a high tech product that doesn't seem to be based on technology stolen from anyone else, they created it.
It's still a victory for Germany and Germans, even if it wasn't achieved by the Grand-German-Workers-Collective-Where-All-1-Million-Employees-Are-Also-Shareholders (German probably has 1 big compound word for this :-D ).
That "small number of pockets" is probably still mostly German. It could have been Chinese or Romanian or Botswanan and no German would have seen an eurocent. Plus, again, taxes, local development in adjacent industries, local talent staying local, a million other benefits.
Their gain is not necessarily your loss, especially since their product is a high tech product that doesn't seem to be based on technology stolen from anyone else, they created it.
It's still a victory for Germany and Germans, even if it wasn't achieved by the Grand-German-Workers-Collective-Where-All-1-Million-Employees-Are-Also-Shareholders (German probably has 1 big compound word for this :-D ).
> Grand-German-Workers-Collective-Where-All-1-Million-Employees-Are-Also-Shareholders (German probably has 1 big compound word for this :-D ).
Google tells me its Arbeitsgenossenschaft
Google tells me its Arbeitsgenossenschaft
how would you go about calculating whether or not their stock is overpriced or a buy at the moment?
i'd assume that any future potential has been probably overly enthusiastically priced in already.
i'd assume that any future potential has been probably overly enthusiastically priced in already.
I was amazed to learn that if you bought the stock in Dezember of last year after approval in the EU and US you would look roughly at a 4x gain this year.
I work(ed) for a mRNA therapeutics company and bought stock in Moderna in Nov 2020. Sold not too shortly after for what I thought was a sweet 150% gain.
If I had just held I would be up over 500% right now, kicking myself.
If I had just held I would be up over 500% right now, kicking myself.
You can’t. Even if you could, you’d still be speculating.
I'm not sure how to express this economic problem but I personally am no longer surprised that companies with government funding are highly profitable. You may call it tax Seigniorage (I honestly don't know if it already has a name) but it's a more general concept.
Income taxes compound based on distance to government spending.
A receives money from the government directly and pays 20% tax, A spends all his money. B gets 80% of the initial government money, B spends all his money on C who gets 64%. At a distance of 10 only 10% of the original money is left in the economy. You essentially have to work 10x as hard for the same wage.
The fundamental problem is that everyone has a distance of 0 to the government when it comes to tax collection but only A has a distance of 0 when it comes to government spending.
So, the fact that BioNTech has a big share of the economy isn't surprising. It's simply that much easier to earn money directly from the government than from the rest of the private economy.
What is the solution to this problem? Well, an approximation would be welfare. Consumers now have a distance of 0 to government spending. Of course it's just a hack. A better solution would be to create a "tax coupon" i.e. you pay 3000€ in taxes. Rather than straight up 3000€ the government gets a coupon worth 3000€ of your time. The coupon will have your name written on it. This forces the government to buy your products directly which reduces the distance to the government to 0. Alternatively the government could deposit the coupon at a bank and the coupon money would pass through the economy untaxed. In either case you would always receive your full wage rather than a wage that was diminished by tax compounding the further away you are from government spending.
This doesn't apply to governments exclusively. A payment processor gets to charge a fee with a distance of 0 on every transaction meanwhile when the revenue is spent the fees get to compound until they have reached you, meaning it is much easier to earn money off the payment processor than from the rest of the economy.
Does the tech/advertising industry perpetuate the same form of inequality? It definitively has a distance of 0 to every single individual and it centralizes the profits but does it extract a fee out of every individual? Is advertising a hidden tax on every purchase?
This might be true of everything that is either a basic need (food, shelter) or forced upon every member of society without their consent (i.e. car dependence as a hidden tax on everything).
By the way I am not questioning that the governments or companies in question don't produce value. They certainly do. The problem isn't the individuals, it's about the unintended consequences of supposedly simple concepts on a societal scale. Individuals may feel that the rules are fair on an individual level but what if they are thoroughly unjust on a societal scale?
If relative poverty is certain then isn't it just the logical consequence of the system we have built?
Income taxes compound based on distance to government spending.
A receives money from the government directly and pays 20% tax, A spends all his money. B gets 80% of the initial government money, B spends all his money on C who gets 64%. At a distance of 10 only 10% of the original money is left in the economy. You essentially have to work 10x as hard for the same wage.
The fundamental problem is that everyone has a distance of 0 to the government when it comes to tax collection but only A has a distance of 0 when it comes to government spending.
So, the fact that BioNTech has a big share of the economy isn't surprising. It's simply that much easier to earn money directly from the government than from the rest of the private economy.
What is the solution to this problem? Well, an approximation would be welfare. Consumers now have a distance of 0 to government spending. Of course it's just a hack. A better solution would be to create a "tax coupon" i.e. you pay 3000€ in taxes. Rather than straight up 3000€ the government gets a coupon worth 3000€ of your time. The coupon will have your name written on it. This forces the government to buy your products directly which reduces the distance to the government to 0. Alternatively the government could deposit the coupon at a bank and the coupon money would pass through the economy untaxed. In either case you would always receive your full wage rather than a wage that was diminished by tax compounding the further away you are from government spending.
This doesn't apply to governments exclusively. A payment processor gets to charge a fee with a distance of 0 on every transaction meanwhile when the revenue is spent the fees get to compound until they have reached you, meaning it is much easier to earn money off the payment processor than from the rest of the economy.
Does the tech/advertising industry perpetuate the same form of inequality? It definitively has a distance of 0 to every single individual and it centralizes the profits but does it extract a fee out of every individual? Is advertising a hidden tax on every purchase?
This might be true of everything that is either a basic need (food, shelter) or forced upon every member of society without their consent (i.e. car dependence as a hidden tax on everything).
By the way I am not questioning that the governments or companies in question don't produce value. They certainly do. The problem isn't the individuals, it's about the unintended consequences of supposedly simple concepts on a societal scale. Individuals may feel that the rules are fair on an individual level but what if they are thoroughly unjust on a societal scale?
If relative poverty is certain then isn't it just the logical consequence of the system we have built?
Let alone the economic damage that was prevented by being able to vaccinate people now instead of requiring more severe measures to keep the pandemic in check...
At first I thought it was the only way that they could even represent such a fraction of Germany's gdp. It seems not.
A combination of ability to have profit from purely national resources and the miracle of intelectual property fees.
I guess this redefines the concept of unicorn, as this is not market valuation but actual profits.
I guess this redefines the concept of unicorn, as this is not market valuation but actual profits.
It's practically a religion at HN that early-stage companies that are not currently earning profits are somehow 'lesser' than more-mature profitable companies. However, this misconception is neatly illustrated in BioNTech.
BioNTech went public with a market value of ~$3.5B, solidly into unicorn territory, despite losing a tad over $100m the prior two years. Through the typical business lens, this makes sense as they were in investment phase hoping for a potentially large payoff as their product matured. The IPO gave them the capital they needed to realize their vision.
Obviously, they are worth a lot more now because that narrative was correct. Should they have been more conservative and only expanded R&D at a pace supported by their revenue?
BioNTech went public with a market value of ~$3.5B, solidly into unicorn territory, despite losing a tad over $100m the prior two years. Through the typical business lens, this makes sense as they were in investment phase hoping for a potentially large payoff as their product matured. The IPO gave them the capital they needed to realize their vision.
Obviously, they are worth a lot more now because that narrative was correct. Should they have been more conservative and only expanded R&D at a pace supported by their revenue?
You're right, but this kind of stuff is actually much more rare in "tech". Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple were all quite profitable (GAAP) at their IPO time, which was also earlier than today's standards. Look up the old S-1s if you want to verify. It is very common in biotech, though.
Yes, companies used to wait until they were making money to go public, but they have more options now. My larger point is the capital stack a company chooses to fund its growth is a function of its particular business and market, along with the investment climate. (For example: companies stay private longer now because there's far more private capital available than in 1980 when Apple went public. There's no one right answer. Amazon would likely be a much smaller company if it had maintained profitability all along. Perhaps would not have produced AWS, which bled oceans of money for a long time.
For every Google or Facebook (arguably two of the best business models in history), you can name an Amazon, Netflix, Broadcom, DocuSign, Square, or Tesla. Success comes in different flavors.
(Tesla notably spent something like $10B before getting to profitability. This is an artifact of the intersection of their market and their global ambitions. Unlikely they would have had the impact on major auto manufacturers as a much smaller, profitable, boutique firm.)
For every Google or Facebook (arguably two of the best business models in history), you can name an Amazon, Netflix, Broadcom, DocuSign, Square, or Tesla. Success comes in different flavors.
(Tesla notably spent something like $10B before getting to profitability. This is an artifact of the intersection of their market and their global ambitions. Unlikely they would have had the impact on major auto manufacturers as a much smaller, profitable, boutique firm.)
It's just a shame they didn't offer at cost like AstraZeneca have [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/28/astrazeneca...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/28/astrazeneca...
AZ had to offer the vaccine at cost because they didn't develop it themselves. It was a condition of the license from Oxford University.
I have been dosed with both AZ and Pfizer/BioNTech and I almost feel like I should have been paid to take the AZ. Brutal side-effects.
I also think I should've been paid for how brutal (and sudden) the effects of covid were on me - And that was something I didn't have any choice in the matter in...
I had zero side effects from the AZ vaccine. There is apparently a correlation with age and side effects.
Not necessarily a bad thing. If your body reacts strongly to a vaccine that is a sign that your immune system has taken notice. As a reductio-ad-absurdum argument: if you were injected with a saline solution you'd have no side effects (assuming a clean needle!) but also no protection at all.
Re: not a bad thing -
I had a really bad reaction to the second shot of Moderna and I was rather pissed about it until I realized that the symptoms were almost exactly the same as those of my father who actually had Covid. Except he had it twice as bad.
So the take-away for me was that if you have a bad reaction to a vaccine, consider yourself lucky, because it would’ve been much worse if you were to contract the actual virus.
I had a really bad reaction to the second shot of Moderna and I was rather pissed about it until I realized that the symptoms were almost exactly the same as those of my father who actually had Covid. Except he had it twice as bad.
So the take-away for me was that if you have a bad reaction to a vaccine, consider yourself lucky, because it would’ve been much worse if you were to contract the actual virus.
There doesn't appear to be any real correlation between the severity of vaccine side effects versus long term protection. Those are separate parts of the immune system.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/what-covid-vaccine-side-...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/what-covid-vaccine-side-...
Thank you!
Are they really selling vaccines for $19/dose?
Seems like bad business when plenty of countries would have paid $1000/dose if they could get the first deliveries and open their economy a few months earlier.
And those higher prices could have supported more factories being built to make more doses quicker.
Where there backdoor payments to decide who got which doses first?
Seems like bad business when plenty of countries would have paid $1000/dose if they could get the first deliveries and open their economy a few months earlier.
And those higher prices could have supported more factories being built to make more doses quicker.
Where there backdoor payments to decide who got which doses first?
When people ask for the difference between US and EU business thinking I'll send them that comment.
This shit simply doesn't fly in Germany, it's so insane that no one would ever think about pricing life saving drugs that high
This shit simply doesn't fly in Germany, it's so insane that no one would ever think about pricing life saving drugs that high
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. It's tedious, poisonous, and off topic. Moreover, you don't know anything about where the other user was posting from.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It costs the same in the US and Germany, $19.50. There will always be a scummy Martin Shkreli[1] type and Germany is not immune to this. See VW and Wireguard. BaFin seemed to ignore red flags presumably because it was another darling of the German economy similar to VW.
The US also moves very slow legally but the reckoning is coming for Pharmaceutical price gouging. Lots and lots of hype in the past few years about it.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/03/09/martin-shkre...
The US also moves very slow legally but the reckoning is coming for Pharmaceutical price gouging. Lots and lots of hype in the past few years about it.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/03/09/martin-shkre...
> There will always be a scummy Martin Shkreli[1] type and Germany is not immune to this. See VW and Wireguard.
I assume you are referring to Wirecard [0] and not privy to information which I am not about the stellar Wireguard [1]? :)
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard_scandal
[1] - https://www.wireguard.com/
I assume you are referring to Wirecard [0] and not privy to information which I am not about the stellar Wireguard [1]? :)
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard_scandal
[1] - https://www.wireguard.com/
Yes autocorrect on my phone.
How did you figure out it was 19.50 a dose in the US? As far as I've seen, Pfizer has all but ensured their contracts with various governments are not publicly available.
It’s mentioned in this article[1] but they won’t tell you the specific contract. I assumed it was universal but I guess Federal and State agencies negotiate their own contracts.
My state will pay for it wether or not you have insurance.
> Pfizer's agreement with the federal government is the most lucrative to date. The government agreed to buy 100 million doses of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, being developed with German biotech firm BioNTech, for $1.95 billion. That works out to about $20 per dose.[2]
[1]https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/pfizer-eyes-higher-covid...
[2] https://www.gpb.org/news/shots-health-news/2020/08/08/prices...
My state will pay for it wether or not you have insurance.
> Pfizer's agreement with the federal government is the most lucrative to date. The government agreed to buy 100 million doses of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, being developed with German biotech firm BioNTech, for $1.95 billion. That works out to about $20 per dose.[2]
[1]https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/pfizer-eyes-higher-covid...
[2] https://www.gpb.org/news/shots-health-news/2020/08/08/prices...
> See VW and Wireguard
You probably meant Wirecard.
You probably meant Wirecard.
What VW did was dirty, but didn't really include a component of price gouging.
Wiregard was straight-up fraud, by an agent working for Russia and greediness paired with stupidity on part of the CEO etc.
Not to diminish the negative effects for the reputation of Germany of these two cases, but they both aren't an expression of libertarianism like the idea that a company has no moral obligations to offer an important drug for an affordable price, but should make as much money as possible from it, which wouldn't fly in Germany.
Not to diminish the negative effects for the reputation of Germany of these two cases, but they both aren't an expression of libertarianism like the idea that a company has no moral obligations to offer an important drug for an affordable price, but should make as much money as possible from it, which wouldn't fly in Germany.
> by an agent working for Russia
You're talking about Jan Marsalek, right? That he worked for Russia is new to me.
According to [1], he did business in Russia, but that doesn't make him work for Russia. If you have more information in that, I'd be interested to hear.
[1] https://thebell.io/en/what-links-russia-to-germany-s-wirecar...
You're talking about Jan Marsalek, right? That he worked for Russia is new to me.
According to [1], he did business in Russia, but that doesn't make him work for Russia. If you have more information in that, I'd be interested to hear.
[1] https://thebell.io/en/what-links-russia-to-germany-s-wirecar...
Hard to find an English speaking source for it (we know how friendly the UK and Russian governments are lately), but for example, here https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/wirecard-jan-marsaleks-spuren-... are claims that Marsalek himself admitted relations with the FSB.
> When people ask for the difference between US and EU business thinking I'll send them that comment.
The comment you refer to is also a good summary of US healthcare practices and billing.
The comment you refer to is also a good summary of US healthcare practices and billing.
It does not work because of our insurance system. In all other businesses it would work.
Ask yourself what a security package in any German car brand costs extra. Camera in the rear, extra airbags, lidar/ai, speed sign scanning,.. that is not default but a very expensive extra.
Ask yourself what a security package in any German car brand costs extra. Camera in the rear, extra airbags, lidar/ai, speed sign scanning,.. that is not default but a very expensive extra.
I think countries would simply threaten with nationalizing the company if the company tried something ridiculous during a global pandemic.
I agree that they shouldn’t charge that much, but it’s definitely worth that much, and probably a lot more.
Maybe they should have done a charity auction of a few doses at the beginning to billionaires to show what it’s really worth, for the marketing value of “you’re getting a medicine worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for free.” Maybe that would convince the anti-vaxers?
Maybe they should have done a charity auction of a few doses at the beginning to billionaires to show what it’s really worth, for the marketing value of “you’re getting a medicine worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for free.” Maybe that would convince the anti-vaxers?
I agree on the worth part. I could afford to spend hundreds of euros to go to a nearby country and get an EU-approved vaccine months ago. Overall I estimate those hundreds of euros got me vaccinated about six months earlier than I would be in my own country.
During that time months ago one of our politicians came out and said that thousands of my fellow citizens that did the same were "wasting money on something that only costs €10", but that means nothing when you can't get to that something that only costs €10.
During that time months ago one of our politicians came out and said that thousands of my fellow citizens that did the same were "wasting money on something that only costs €10", but that means nothing when you can't get to that something that only costs €10.
Why the US? The poster you reply to is from London. It's even in his user name. Did any US companies price their vaccines high either?
Even Germany bought from Pfizer, not from Biontech, which indicates that the differences can't be as wide as you suggest (or as gp suggests)
It may help to know that BioNTech were in fact the developers of the Pfizer vaccine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-...
> It may help to know that BioNTech were in fact the developers of the Pfizer vaccine
It may help to know that Pfizer directly helped with the development - not just the manufacturing & distribution - and deserves some credit as well (even if not as much as BioNTech).
From their March 27, 2020 co-development press release:
"Pfizer and BioNTech to Co-develop Potential COVID-19 Vaccine"
"Builds on 2018 agreement to jointly develop an mRNA-based influenza vaccine"
"The collaboration aims to accelerate development of BioNTech’s potential first-in-class COVID-19 mRNA vaccine program, BNT162, which is expected to enter clinical testing by the end of April 2020. The rapid advancement of this collaboration builds on the research and development collaboration into which Pfizer and BioNTech entered in 2018 to develop mRNA-based vaccines for prevention of influenza."
It may help to know that Pfizer directly helped with the development - not just the manufacturing & distribution - and deserves some credit as well (even if not as much as BioNTech).
From their March 27, 2020 co-development press release:
"Pfizer and BioNTech to Co-develop Potential COVID-19 Vaccine"
"Builds on 2018 agreement to jointly develop an mRNA-based influenza vaccine"
"The collaboration aims to accelerate development of BioNTech’s potential first-in-class COVID-19 mRNA vaccine program, BNT162, which is expected to enter clinical testing by the end of April 2020. The rapid advancement of this collaboration builds on the research and development collaboration into which Pfizer and BioNTech entered in 2018 to develop mRNA-based vaccines for prevention of influenza."
Pfizer surely did help monetarily (investments) and offers global distribution, but that doesn't mean they had any hand in developing the science and the product.
Any big pharmaceutical company, like Bayer, could have done the same, but randomly Pfizer got lucky this time.
Pfizer played a major role in the trials, which is an enormous part of the process.
Which, again, any big pharmaceutical company would have offered to a drug developer, and was in no way a special attribute of Pfizer.
I mean yeah, but it's still a large complicated task. I don't think executing major projects like this should be handwaved because there's alternative options.
This is equivalent to saying there's nothing special about biontech as any specialist in novel MRNA vaccines could have developed these. Which did happen, at moderna.
This is equivalent to saying there's nothing special about biontech as any specialist in novel MRNA vaccines could have developed these. Which did happen, at moderna.
They started working together even before Covid.
https://biontech.de/sites/default/files/2019-08/20180816_Bio...
The Pfizer head of vaccine research seems to be from Germany as well.
https://biontech.de/sites/default/files/2019-08/20180816_Bio...
The Pfizer head of vaccine research seems to be from Germany as well.
That’s discounting the difficulty of manufacturing these new vaccines, which only a few companies know how to do, and also required many subcontractors.
If it were easy, it wouldn’t have taken so long to scale up manufacturing, even by the largest pharmaceutical companies.
If it were easy, it wouldn’t have taken so long to scale up manufacturing, even by the largest pharmaceutical companies.
What's the endgame here - to point out "Pfizer is awesome!!"? Seems a little strange.
Sure, and they can be proud of it and make all that money, but if you are in the market to ramp up a vaccination programme, you talk to Pfizer and not to Biontech. Almost like you'd go to Apple and not to FHG IIS for buying an iPod.
(I'm pretty sure that this comparison is a wild exaggeration of what actually happened and that Biontech representatives were very much involved in all the talks, but I assume more in an expert advisor role than as someone with actual influence on the outcome)
(I'm pretty sure that this comparison is a wild exaggeration of what actually happened and that Biontech representatives were very much involved in all the talks, but I assume more in an expert advisor role than as someone with actual influence on the outcome)
> This shit simply doesn't fly in Germany, it's so insane that no one would ever think about pricing life saving drugs that high
A sizeable portion of my friends and coworkers managed to work the system to gain access to vaccines well before they otherwise would have. I'd strongly prefer the honest version of that system, wherein we wouldn't pretend that elites wouldn't cut the queue to finagle vaccines for themselves and their families. One option would have been setting aside ~5% of the total supply and putting it on the open market. I'd guess early doses would have gone for a few thousand dollars and we could have used the money to support vaccinations elsewhere.
A sizeable portion of my friends and coworkers managed to work the system to gain access to vaccines well before they otherwise would have. I'd strongly prefer the honest version of that system, wherein we wouldn't pretend that elites wouldn't cut the queue to finagle vaccines for themselves and their families. One option would have been setting aside ~5% of the total supply and putting it on the open market. I'd guess early doses would have gone for a few thousand dollars and we could have used the money to support vaccinations elsewhere.
Just a reminder it was the US that blocked vaccine exports.
While we in the EU let the free market handle things.
Of course, EU countries were smart enough to buy vaccines collectively :)
While we in the EU let the free market handle things.
Of course, EU countries were smart enough to buy vaccines collectively :)
>Just a reminder it was the US that blocked vaccine exports.
There is and has never been a US vaccine export ban, and the US has not seized vaccines meant for other countries.
The Trump administration last year signed gigantic contracts for every planned vaccine, because no one knew which ones would work. Like, enough for every American from one manufacturer, let alone the current four major available ones. More importantly, the contracts guaranteed the US the earliest deliveries.
By early June 2020 (<https://web.archive.org/web/20200603171013/https://www.nytim...>) the Trump administration had already identified and was planning to sign the aforementioned huge contracts with Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J, Merck, and Pfizer. (An 80% success rate is fantastic in drug discovery.) By that time the US had already paid $2.2 billion to three of the companies. (Also note the skepticism throughout that any vaccines could be delivered anywhere within the timeframe the administration was promising.)
The UK signed a similar contract for the AstraZeneca vaccine. The EU and Canada did not assure themselves of such quantities. Canada also bet on CanSino because it was afraid that the US would ban vaccine exports (which, again, never happened). Of course, the Chinese did not live up to the contract.
Before you say "But what about—", the Trump executive order from December 2020 merely sets up the legal framework to prohibit exports if desired. But that does not mean that the framework is invoked. Let me repeat: The US signed contracts that were a) huge in size/scope and b) from every pharmaceutical company working on a vaccine, which c) got the country the largest and among the first deliveries. The UK did the same thing with the AstraZeneca vaccine, and spent a lot of money to retool domestic plants to produce it in addition to the non-UK doses it bought.
(I don't disagree that to country B waiting on doses, the outcome is the same whether or not the cause is country A implementing an export ban or country A having bought up all the doses by having signed the contract first. But there is a difference.)
If the situation were different, might the US have implemented a ban on exports, similar to what the EU did implement toward Australia? Perhaps. But, fortunately, the US never faced this issue, because of the huge amounts of money it invested a year ago and the contracts it signed with said money.
>While we in the EU let the free market handle things.
Except Italy as I mentioned, blocking export of vaccine to Australia that the latter had paid for. More to the point, the EU did not ban vaccine exports more widely because it was afraid that the US would cut off component supply chains.
>Of course, EU countries were smart enough to buy vaccines collectively :)
... and because the aforementioned collective effort was delayed relative to the US and UK, the EU saw significant vaccine shortages earlier this year.
There is and has never been a US vaccine export ban, and the US has not seized vaccines meant for other countries.
The Trump administration last year signed gigantic contracts for every planned vaccine, because no one knew which ones would work. Like, enough for every American from one manufacturer, let alone the current four major available ones. More importantly, the contracts guaranteed the US the earliest deliveries.
By early June 2020 (<https://web.archive.org/web/20200603171013/https://www.nytim...>) the Trump administration had already identified and was planning to sign the aforementioned huge contracts with Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J, Merck, and Pfizer. (An 80% success rate is fantastic in drug discovery.) By that time the US had already paid $2.2 billion to three of the companies. (Also note the skepticism throughout that any vaccines could be delivered anywhere within the timeframe the administration was promising.)
The UK signed a similar contract for the AstraZeneca vaccine. The EU and Canada did not assure themselves of such quantities. Canada also bet on CanSino because it was afraid that the US would ban vaccine exports (which, again, never happened). Of course, the Chinese did not live up to the contract.
Before you say "But what about—", the Trump executive order from December 2020 merely sets up the legal framework to prohibit exports if desired. But that does not mean that the framework is invoked. Let me repeat: The US signed contracts that were a) huge in size/scope and b) from every pharmaceutical company working on a vaccine, which c) got the country the largest and among the first deliveries. The UK did the same thing with the AstraZeneca vaccine, and spent a lot of money to retool domestic plants to produce it in addition to the non-UK doses it bought.
(I don't disagree that to country B waiting on doses, the outcome is the same whether or not the cause is country A implementing an export ban or country A having bought up all the doses by having signed the contract first. But there is a difference.)
If the situation were different, might the US have implemented a ban on exports, similar to what the EU did implement toward Australia? Perhaps. But, fortunately, the US never faced this issue, because of the huge amounts of money it invested a year ago and the contracts it signed with said money.
>While we in the EU let the free market handle things.
Except Italy as I mentioned, blocking export of vaccine to Australia that the latter had paid for. More to the point, the EU did not ban vaccine exports more widely because it was afraid that the US would cut off component supply chains.
>Of course, EU countries were smart enough to buy vaccines collectively :)
... and because the aforementioned collective effort was delayed relative to the US and UK, the EU saw significant vaccine shortages earlier this year.
> the Trump executive order from December 2020 merely sets up the legal framework to prohibit exports if desired.
Not how I understood it. But it seems you're right, the US only used war time powers to force companies to fill their orders first. The effect is quiet similar, the EU (not even UK) employed such powers.
In either case, it was argued that this made negotiations easier for US.
And yes, it's a fair point that it didn't matter, because the US would have bought the vaccines at whatever price point :)
> Except Italy as I mentioned, blocking export of vaccine to Australia that the latter had paid for.
Fair point :)
> ... and because the aforementioned collective effort was delayed relative to the US and UK
The UK (and probably the US) invested in supporting research, but EU closed contracts for vaccine purchases sooner. (I suspect the EU also sponsored research, but didn't attach strings the same way the UK did)
-----
To be clear, I don't think I would argue that the EU did fantastically well here. Nor that it couldn't have done much better. Namely because it doesn't have a powerful administration, like the US does. (I'm not arguing that it should have one)
Whether or not all this was unfair is hard to tell. Lots of countries poured money into R&D. (Also not sure how relevant it is).
But it is a bit funny that the EU largely let the free market forces play out, while the US didn't.
Not how I understood it. But it seems you're right, the US only used war time powers to force companies to fill their orders first. The effect is quiet similar, the EU (not even UK) employed such powers.
In either case, it was argued that this made negotiations easier for US.
And yes, it's a fair point that it didn't matter, because the US would have bought the vaccines at whatever price point :)
> Except Italy as I mentioned, blocking export of vaccine to Australia that the latter had paid for.
Fair point :)
> ... and because the aforementioned collective effort was delayed relative to the US and UK
The UK (and probably the US) invested in supporting research, but EU closed contracts for vaccine purchases sooner. (I suspect the EU also sponsored research, but didn't attach strings the same way the UK did)
-----
To be clear, I don't think I would argue that the EU did fantastically well here. Nor that it couldn't have done much better. Namely because it doesn't have a powerful administration, like the US does. (I'm not arguing that it should have one)
Whether or not all this was unfair is hard to tell. Lots of countries poured money into R&D. (Also not sure how relevant it is).
But it is a bit funny that the EU largely let the free market forces play out, while the US didn't.
>Not how I understood it. But it seems you're right, the US only used war time powers to force companies to fill their orders first.
No. The US did invoke the Defense Production Act for certain medical equipment, to further ensure that its vaccine contracts are fulfilled first (<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-24/biden-use...>). (But, let me quote for others' benefit (<https://www.ft.com/content/82fa8fb4-a867-4005-b6c2-a79969139...>): "The DPA does not allow the administration to block exports overseas".)
The US's contracts would have been fulfilled first regardless (albeit more slowly) without the DPA, because (as I said) the US was the first and paid the most. We know this because the US's Pfizer contract explicitly prohibited the company from exporting US-produced vaccine doses until March 31, but the company only began to export US-produced doses at the end of April because it still had to fulfill said US contract first (<https://www.barrons.com/articles/pfizer-to-export-u-s-made-v...>).
No. The US did invoke the Defense Production Act for certain medical equipment, to further ensure that its vaccine contracts are fulfilled first (<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-24/biden-use...>). (But, let me quote for others' benefit (<https://www.ft.com/content/82fa8fb4-a867-4005-b6c2-a79969139...>): "The DPA does not allow the administration to block exports overseas".)
The US's contracts would have been fulfilled first regardless (albeit more slowly) without the DPA, because (as I said) the US was the first and paid the most. We know this because the US's Pfizer contract explicitly prohibited the company from exporting US-produced vaccine doses until March 31, but the company only began to export US-produced doses at the end of April because it still had to fulfill said US contract first (<https://www.barrons.com/articles/pfizer-to-export-u-s-made-v...>).
EU's vaccine program was a shit show:
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/03/31/why-the-eus-co...
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/03/31/why-the-eus-co...
The EU did the right thing ethically and let vaccines be exported to their allies. In the long run they caught up though.
Amazing that Canada was forced to import from the EU because we were prevented from importing from our nearest neighbour and "closest ally" and so were set back by two months on vaccinations.
Amazing that Canada was forced to import from the EU because we were prevented from importing from our nearest neighbour and "closest ally" and so were set back by two months on vaccinations.
>Amazing that Canada was forced to import from the EU because we were prevented from importing from our nearest neighbour and "closest ally" and so were set back by two months on vaccinations.
There was never a vaccine export ban by the US (see my other comment for more on this). If I purchase an item before others, purchase by far the most quantities of that item, pay by far the most overall, and pay a considerable amount of money toward funding its development, I should expect that item before others. Any Kickstarter backer knows this; it's what the US and UK did, and what Canada and the EU did not.
By early June 2020 (<https://web.archive.org/web/20200603171013/https://www.nytim...>) the Trump administration had already identified and was planning to sign the aforementioned huge contracts with Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J, Merck, and Pfizer. (An 80% success rate is fantastic in drug discovery.) By that time the US had already paid $2.2 billion to three of the companies. (Also note the skepticism throughout that any vaccines could be delivered anywhere within the timeframe the administration was promising.)
By contrast, look at Canada as counterexample. Consider Maclean's desperate attempt to spin its procurement difficulties (<https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/where-did-canadas-vaccin...>). If you look past the predictable false eliding of the US's firstest-with-the-mostest contracts as an "export ban", the best the magazine can do is admit that
* all Canadian contracts with vaccine providers that actually delivered were signed between late July and late September
* all contracts were signed after the collapse of the CanSino deal, which Canada had loudly bragged about as proof of its savviness at obtaining vaccines ASAP and circumvent any perfidious US vaccine export ban (which, again, never happened), and which it has done its best since the collapse to pretend that said contract never existed
* the other contracts that the magazine cites as proof that CanSino wasn't the only basket Ottawa was putting all its eggs in are with VBI (Who?) and USask. They may or may not yet deliver effective vaccines, but it's all now a bit beside the point, eh?
There was never a vaccine export ban by the US (see my other comment for more on this). If I purchase an item before others, purchase by far the most quantities of that item, pay by far the most overall, and pay a considerable amount of money toward funding its development, I should expect that item before others. Any Kickstarter backer knows this; it's what the US and UK did, and what Canada and the EU did not.
By early June 2020 (<https://web.archive.org/web/20200603171013/https://www.nytim...>) the Trump administration had already identified and was planning to sign the aforementioned huge contracts with Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J, Merck, and Pfizer. (An 80% success rate is fantastic in drug discovery.) By that time the US had already paid $2.2 billion to three of the companies. (Also note the skepticism throughout that any vaccines could be delivered anywhere within the timeframe the administration was promising.)
By contrast, look at Canada as counterexample. Consider Maclean's desperate attempt to spin its procurement difficulties (<https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/where-did-canadas-vaccin...>). If you look past the predictable false eliding of the US's firstest-with-the-mostest contracts as an "export ban", the best the magazine can do is admit that
* all Canadian contracts with vaccine providers that actually delivered were signed between late July and late September
* all contracts were signed after the collapse of the CanSino deal, which Canada had loudly bragged about as proof of its savviness at obtaining vaccines ASAP and circumvent any perfidious US vaccine export ban (which, again, never happened), and which it has done its best since the collapse to pretend that said contract never existed
* the other contracts that the magazine cites as proof that CanSino wasn't the only basket Ottawa was putting all its eggs in are with VBI (Who?) and USask. They may or may not yet deliver effective vaccines, but it's all now a bit beside the point, eh?
> The EU did the right thing ethically and let vaccines be exported to their allies.
no, it thought it had control over the situation and started virtue signalling that it was being ethical and that vaccine nationalism was only the sort of thing the Trump administration would do
and at the point it became apparent that it had lost control: the nationalistic flailing began
no, it thought it had control over the situation and started virtue signalling that it was being ethical and that vaccine nationalism was only the sort of thing the Trump administration would do
and at the point it became apparent that it had lost control: the nationalistic flailing began
> no, it thought it had control over the situation and started virtue signalling...
As I understood it, the US had laws necessary to administratively enact export restrictions during emergencies.
I suspect the EU didn't have the same leaver it could just magically pull. Some individual countries might, but that's no use when production is distributed across the EU.
Unlike the US the EU doesn't have disasters management agencies, many things are left for individual countries.
Generally, there is no administrative authority in the EU that can really do much -- where as the US president can take a lot of actions. The EU would like have had to draft laws stopping exports, and those could be challenged in courts, etc.
More likely, the EU just didn't have an easy button to push, and nobody has agreed upfront on which cases such button should be used.
As I understood it, the US had laws necessary to administratively enact export restrictions during emergencies.
I suspect the EU didn't have the same leaver it could just magically pull. Some individual countries might, but that's no use when production is distributed across the EU.
Unlike the US the EU doesn't have disasters management agencies, many things are left for individual countries.
Generally, there is no administrative authority in the EU that can really do much -- where as the US president can take a lot of actions. The EU would like have had to draft laws stopping exports, and those could be challenged in courts, etc.
More likely, the EU just didn't have an easy button to push, and nobody has agreed upfront on which cases such button should be used.
> As I understood it, the US had laws necessary to administratively enact export restrictions during emergencies.
> I suspect the EU didn't have the same leaver it could just magically pull.
it was given these powers after it was obvious it had lost control of the situation:
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-gets-new-power...
then it attempted to use the new powers against the UK
this backfired badly: if it had been enacted it would have created a border across Ireland, when the EU had spent the previous 5 years arguing that a border of exactly this type could never be created any circumstances
at which point it was forced politically to withdraw the measures
> I suspect the EU didn't have the same leaver it could just magically pull.
it was given these powers after it was obvious it had lost control of the situation:
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-gets-new-power...
then it attempted to use the new powers against the UK
this backfired badly: if it had been enacted it would have created a border across Ireland, when the EU had spent the previous 5 years arguing that a border of exactly this type could never be created any circumstances
at which point it was forced politically to withdraw the measures
> it was given these powers after it was obvious it had lost control of the situation...
> this backfired badly: if it had been enacted it would have created a border across Ireland...
Yeah, creating such measures overnight probably wouldn't workout well.
Had consistent and thought-out policy existed upfront maybe it would have been a different story.
Of course Brexit probably would have ruined many such plans with factories distributed throughout EU and UK.
> this backfired badly: if it had been enacted it would have created a border across Ireland...
Yeah, creating such measures overnight probably wouldn't workout well.
Had consistent and thought-out policy existed upfront maybe it would have been a different story.
Of course Brexit probably would have ruined many such plans with factories distributed throughout EU and UK.
Really? We got the most vulnerable population vaccinated pretty quickly.
And today we have plenty of vaccines. Is it really a catastrophe that it took 2 months longer?
(Two summer months with weather slightly less conductive to virus transmission)
And today we have plenty of vaccines. Is it really a catastrophe that it took 2 months longer?
(Two summer months with weather slightly less conductive to virus transmission)
Nothing like people throwing rocks from the US where they had lots of vaccine supply but also an obscene supply of people who refuse to get it. Having advance supply has hardly done them any good, judging from this week's new case and hospitalization rates.
For much of the world there is no difference between $20, $1000, and $100,000.
This vaccine should be free. Covid is the biggest threat to the future of humanity that has existed since the development of nuclear weapons and we're holding back the solution over $20.
It's pathetic.
This vaccine should be free. Covid is the biggest threat to the future of humanity that has existed since the development of nuclear weapons and we're holding back the solution over $20.
It's pathetic.
Oh really? The first million dollar drug came out of Europe.
https://bioengineeringcommunity.nature.com/posts/45406-1-mil...
“The first gene therapy approved in the Western world is set to go on sale in Germany at a cost close to $1 million per treatment. The record-breaking price tag came to light in November 2014, when Amsterdam-based Uniqure and its marketing partner Chiesi, of Parma, Italy, filed a pricing dossier with German authorities to launch Glybera.”
https://bioengineeringcommunity.nature.com/posts/45406-1-mil...
“The first gene therapy approved in the Western world is set to go on sale in Germany at a cost close to $1 million per treatment. The record-breaking price tag came to light in November 2014, when Amsterdam-based Uniqure and its marketing partner Chiesi, of Parma, Italy, filed a pricing dossier with German authorities to launch Glybera.”
I've worked with some top level executives of major pharma companies. This may come as a surprise, but they are, in fact, not monsters, and are concerned with the availability of their products to normal people.
$19 is about $18 gross margin on each vaccine dose based on a quick google, which is still an exceptionally lucrative opportunity for something that is desired by several billion people.
$19 is about $18 gross margin on each vaccine dose based on a quick google, which is still an exceptionally lucrative opportunity for something that is desired by several billion people.
I don't know why this is downvoted... the question legitimately opens the door to a fundamental phenomena in markets...
The answer is, corporations seek long term profits. Short term gouging tends to make customers angry and seek alternatives, and the same is true for large buyers/government agents.
If this were a single transaction, it would make sense to extract as much revenue as possible. But Pfizer/BioNTech have to balance that against their long term relationships and how to maximize profit over long time scales.
The answer is, corporations seek long term profits. Short term gouging tends to make customers angry and seek alternatives, and the same is true for large buyers/government agents.
If this were a single transaction, it would make sense to extract as much revenue as possible. But Pfizer/BioNTech have to balance that against their long term relationships and how to maximize profit over long time scales.
As someone who watched people from afar try to scale the mRNA vaccine process, the limiting factor was not manufacture of the RNA (BioNTech), but incorporation into lipid nanoparticles. That is not BioNTech's business (they are a subsidiary manufacturer for Pfizer)... it also is not Moderna's business since they outsource, but at least they are a direct source of funding rather than a cost center.
Money was not an object to scaling the manufacture of the vaccines. It was people, knowledge, and equipment that had to be designed, built and tested. That all happened in parallel with statistical evaluation and approval processes.
Nine people can't make a baby in 1 month no matter how much you pay them.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Money was not an object to scaling the manufacture of the vaccines. It was people, knowledge, and equipment that had to be designed, built and tested. That all happened in parallel with statistical evaluation and approval processes.
Nine people can't make a baby in 1 month no matter how much you pay them.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Here is a documentary about BioNTechs facility in Mainz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWedf3mhLwQ
The lipid process at shown at 3:00m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWedf3mhLwQ
The lipid process at shown at 3:00m
Excellent point to clarify. It is the materials (and equipment) for the encapsulation process that are the limiting step. Those are provided by Croda in the UK (in the case of Pfizer/BioNTech) not by BioNTech in Mainz as implied. BioNTech has very sophisticated manufacturing and packaging equipment there for sure, just not the limiting step. Or to be still more clear many labs have the ability to manufacture small quantities for initial studies, but not the volumes necessary to scale to 100M/mo capacity.
https://blog.jonasneubert.com/2021/01/10/exploring-the-suppl...
https://blog.jonasneubert.com/2021/01/10/exploring-the-suppl...
Interesting blog article, but it seems to represent the supply chain before the Mainz facility went into operation?
I read somewhere* that original materials and the process that is being used by Croda is from a small Austrian company:
https://www.polymun.com/liposomes/reference-projects/
Maybe they have also licensed their process elsewhere?
*found it: https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-one-leading-coronavirus-vacc...
I read somewhere* that original materials and the process that is being used by Croda is from a small Austrian company:
https://www.polymun.com/liposomes/reference-projects/
Maybe they have also licensed their process elsewhere?
*found it: https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-one-leading-coronavirus-vacc...
It is possible that some countries paid more: EU negociated hard, but maybe Dubai or Israel who go them first paid more, we'll probably never know.
Israel has paid only a bit more than that.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-be-paying-avera...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-be-paying-avera...
$1000/dose is too high when everyone knows the unit costs aren't that high, and there are several other suppliers. And there wouldn't be much willingness for developed nations to pay for doses for developing nations at that price.
The bottleneck in Covid vaccine production has never really been a lack of money. No matter how much money you throw at the problem, it would still take years to build up the necessary supply chains and get the raw materials you need. This is especially true for mRNA vaccines, which are a new technology that require different ingredients and manufacturing processes.
They were probably worried about border seizures or even forced nationalisation.
No, you're obviously not understanding simple economic concepts.
- They are not the only ones making a vaccine: There is also Moderna, J&J, AZ. So there is competition.
- It's more profitable to sell 1 Billion vaccines for $19 than selling 1 Million vaccine for $1000 dollars.
- They are not the only ones making a vaccine: There is also Moderna, J&J, AZ. So there is competition.
- It's more profitable to sell 1 Billion vaccines for $19 than selling 1 Million vaccine for $1000 dollars.
Martin, is that you?
[deleted]
> Are they really selling vaccines for $19/dose?
Where did you get that number?
> Seems like bad business when plenty of countries would have paid $1000/dose if they could get the first deliveries...
This is probably why all EU countries bought vaccine collectively.
(A) To avoid member states pushing up prices competing against each other.
(B) To ensure they could demand some of the first doses, due to increased bargaining power given the sheet size of their order.
Finally, keep in mind that with the US blocking exports of vaccines, the only free capitalist market for vaccines was the EU. Lol, one could even say the US went borderline communist :)
Overall, it all worked out pretty reasonable. And I seriously doubt lack of capital have kept vaccine manufacturers from increasing production :)
Where did you get that number?
> Seems like bad business when plenty of countries would have paid $1000/dose if they could get the first deliveries...
This is probably why all EU countries bought vaccine collectively.
(A) To avoid member states pushing up prices competing against each other.
(B) To ensure they could demand some of the first doses, due to increased bargaining power given the sheet size of their order.
Finally, keep in mind that with the US blocking exports of vaccines, the only free capitalist market for vaccines was the EU. Lol, one could even say the US went borderline communist :)
Overall, it all worked out pretty reasonable. And I seriously doubt lack of capital have kept vaccine manufacturers from increasing production :)
ITT: Nobody is allowed to say anything even slightly critical of BioNTech lest they get flagged or downvoted to oblivion. You really have to wonder what is going on here.
I went through the dead and down voted comments prompted by this but couldn't find any gray/dead entries that I'd consider good. Can you maybe make a few examples of comments that have been unfairly down voted in your opinion?
It’s a massive conspiracy! Somehow bad comments keep getting downvoted into oblivion! Everybody is in on it!
https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...
https://biontech.de/science/individualized-cancer-medicine
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03072-8
I am really looking forward for such solutions, fuck cancer.
That said, the economic impact of such cures isn't clear to me. If your population gains, on average, say, a year or two of life, the pay-as-you go pension systems that are already under strain in greying Europe will come under even bigger strain.
So it seems that each discovery like that will be balanced by us working longer. Personally, I as a 42 y.o. in Czechia, do not expect to get any meaningful state pension ever. There will be just too many of us.