Mass Producing A Coronavirus Vaccine?

[BFritz21]

Everyone is in a rush to produce a vaccine for Covid-19, and who knows if it will ever pan out but it looks promising.

Then again, you hear different projections from day-to-day with some (most) saying one will be ready by December or January, I saw one recently saying October, some say never, or various other timelines.

They're all saying that they're ramping up production to be able to produce x number of vaccines by a certain date, but why don't they just join together once a vaccine is ready and combine efforts to produce said vaccine? I get it that they're all trying to make money, but this is a global pandemic, so why wouldn't they say "you produce this and we'll give you 10% of the profit"?

That means that they're still making money but producing more of it, which means more money and a better outcome for the public?

Or even if they just rent out other factories (if they're produced in factories) from other drug makers where they could produce the vaccine in mass quantities.

Does anyone know why this isn't being considered or is it not possible?

Is capitalism and greed the simple answer?

[Vas Deferens]

Where did you see October?


Also, sounds like you’re advocating socialized healthcare. Nothing wrong with it, just seems in conflict with some of your previously espoused beliefs.

[HarleyDog]

I think corporations get a raw deal when it comes to the opinions of people. Having been involved in a few and having meetings, safety and people were by far the #1 priority. Why? Well, I like to hope it was because the people I was talking to genuinely cared, or it could have been, "do the right thing or fear being sued?" I'm not sure, but I feel they cared.

When it comes to mass distribution, I think it's more of a legal thing like patents, etc. There is a lot of debt companies acquire when doing all the research which is why I think, not sure, but think that's why whenever there is a drug out there people need, there is a period of time before generic drugs like it can be produced or other companies can profit from it. Now, with a pandemic, I think other companies should be able to mass produce as long as they take on a portion of the debt the maker incurred while doing the research, trials, etc.

I'm sure once a vaccine is completed, due to the state of the country, there might be deals made to help get this out to the people as quickly as possible. However, keep in mind that although companies care about people, they care about money too.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Does Tesla give away 10% of profits so GM can produce Teslas? No.

Does a board of directors answer to the shareholders or the people? The shareholders.

Why don’t hospitals care for people for free?

[Benton]

(07-12-2020, 06:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Everyone is in a rush to produce a vaccine for Covid-19, and who knows if it will ever pan out but it looks promising.  

Then again, you hear different projections from day-to-day with some (most) saying one will be ready by December or January, I saw one recently saying October, some say never, or various other timelines.  

They're all saying that they're ramping up production to be able to produce x number of vaccines by a certain date, but why don't they just join together once a vaccine is ready and combine efforts to produce said vaccine?  I get it that they're all trying to make money, but this is a global pandemic, so why wouldn't they say "you produce this and we'll give you 10% of the profit"?  

That means that they're still making money but producing more of it, which means more money and a better outcome for the public?

Or even if they just rent out other factories (if they're produced in factories) from other drug makers where they could produce the vaccine in mass quantities.  

Does anyone know why this isn't being considered or is it not possible?

Is capitalism and greed the simple answer?

Yes. It really is that simple. 

Capitalism and greed aren't evil things, they've resulted in some pretty amazing feats. But what you're asking won't happen because people have been trained that anything other than capitalism leads to anarchy and poverty.

So you'll get a vaccine when and if it's profitable for you to get a vaccine. 

[BFritz21]

(07-12-2020, 06:36 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Where did you see October?


Also, sounds like you’re advocating socialized healthcare.   Nothing wrong with it, just seems in conflict with some of your previously espoused beliefs.

Here.

And I'm not advocating for socialized healthcare because I'm still saying it should be in the hands of the businesses but they could work together to help the entire population because it's not like a virus like this comes around too often.  

(07-12-2020, 06:41 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I think corporations get a raw deal when it comes to the opinions of people. Having been involved in a few and having meetings, safety and people were by far the #1 priority. Why? Well, I like to hope it was because the people I was talking to genuinely cared, or it could have been, "do the right thing or fear being sued?"  I'm not sure, but I feel they cared.

When it comes to mass distribution, I think it's more of a legal thing like patents, etc. There is a lot of debt companies acquire when doing all the research which is why I think, not sure, but think that's why whenever there is a drug out there people need, there is a period of time before generic drugs like it can be produced or other companies can profit from it. Now, with a pandemic, I think other companies should be able to mass produce as long as they take on a portion of the debt the maker incurred while doing the research, trials, etc.  

I'm sure once a vaccine is completed, due to the state of the country, there might be deals made to help get this out to the people as quickly as possible. However, keep in mind that although companies care about people, they care about money too.

I get that but I'm saying they could still work together and not see the bottom line drop too incredibly far because they'd be producing more and only giving a small percentage to the companies that were helping to produce it with their factories.

(07-12-2020, 11:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Does Tesla give away 10% of profits so GM can produce Teslas? No.

Does a board of directors answer to the shareholders or the people? The shareholders.

Why don’t hospitals care for people for free?

This is different though because it has effected the way of life for the entire population and caused a lot of deaths and illnesses.

(07-13-2020, 12:43 AM)Benton Wrote: Yes. It really is that simple. 

Capitalism and greed aren't evil things, they've resulted in some pretty amazing feats. But what you're asking won't happen because people have been trained that anything other than capitalism leads to anarchy and poverty.

So you'll get a vaccine when and if it's profitable for you to get a vaccine. 

Damn shame because I feel like more money could be made with it being mass produced and offset the cost of manufacturing it at another company's factory.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 06:41 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: or it could have been, "do the right thing or fear being sued?"  I'm not sure, but I feel they cared.

This is a good point.

Jails don't like their prisoners, and they don't treat them that great, but the last thing they want is for someone to get injured or die of an illness in their care because that leads to getting sued.

[fredtoast]

BTW teh argument that pharma companies all spend millions on research is not exactly true. Many medical breakthroughs are the result of federal funding through the National Institue of Health (NIH).

The bets example of this is all the new "genetic treatments" using CRISPER to modify DNA. Companies are charging over half a million dollars for treatments for some horrible childhood dieases, but almost all of the research and development was done under NIH grants mostly to the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) and other labs.

[Benton]

(07-13-2020, 01:01 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: .

Damn shame because I feel like more money could be made with it being mass produced and offset the cost of manufacturing it at another company's factory.

Supply and demand.

Let's say you've got a drug company. A couple powerful legislators are heavily invested in your company. You've got a vaccine in high demand they can help fast track a parent for. And they do it, because they're going to make a fortune.

So you've got the patent. You've got the vaccine everyone wants.

You can either a- charge whatever you want for the drug because supply and demand; or b- partner with another company and produce more vaccine but get to charge less for it because there's enough supply... And have to share the profits.

If your job is to make money, do you go with a or b?

[Goalpost]

(07-13-2020, 09:47 AM)fredtoast Wrote: BTW teh argument that pharma companies all spend millions on research is not exactly true.  Many medical breakthroughs are the result of federal  funding through the National Institue of Health (NIH).

The bets example of this is all the new "genetic treatments" using CRISPER to modify DNA.  Companies are charging over half a million dollars for treatments for some horrible childhood dieases, but almost all of the research and development was done under NIH grants mostly to the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) and other labs.

I think the small biotech companies are the ones that most benefit from the grants.  One quick look at Johnson and Johnson...the largest drug company in the world with 80 billion in yearly revenue....shows that they spent about 11 billion in research and development last year.  If that is listed as an expense, I wouldn't think that's a grant.  Most of the other big pharma companies...Eli Lilly, Phizer, Bristol Myers, Roche, etc listed their expenses at similar expense ratios percentages.  A lot of these small bios need and rely on private and federal funding and I think it's great that they get it.  You are free to fact check me.  I'm just looking at the quarterly reports which are of public domain.  These big pharma companies survive by generating new drugs beyond their patents, which expire on them.  They need pipelines of new products, and for both medical and of course profit reasons expense billions yearly.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2020, 11:01 AM)Goalpost Wrote: I think the small biotech companies are the ones that most benefit from the grants.  One quick look at Johnson and Johnson...the largest drug company in the world with 80 billion in yearly revenue....shows that they spent about 11 billion in research and development last year.  If that is listed as an expense, I wouldn't think that's a grant.  Most of the other big pharma companies...Eli Lilly, Phizer, Bristol Myers, Roche, etc listed their expenses at similar expense ratios percentages.  A lot of these small bios need and rely on private and federal funding and I think it's great that they get it.  You are free to fact check me.  I'm just looking at the quarterly reports which are of public domain.  These big pharma companies survive by generating new drugs beyond their patents, which expire on them.  They need pipelines of new products, and for both medical and of course profit reasons expense billions yearly.  

This is all true, however, a ton of the R&D costs for the COVID-19 vaccine are being covered by government funding. That should help lower the costs at market. Should, but doesn't necessarily mean it will. I saw one price estimate at $3k a pop.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-13-2020, 01:01 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Here.

And I'm not advocating for socialized healthcare because I'm still saying it should be in the hands of the businesses but they could work together to help the entire population because it's not like a virus like this comes around too often.  
I get that but I'm saying they could still work together and not see the bottom line drop too incredibly far because they'd be producing more and only giving a small percentage to the companies that were helping to produce it with their factories.
This is different though because it has effected the way of life for the entire population and caused a lot of deaths and illnesses.

Damn shame because I feel like more money could be made with it being mass produced and offset the cost of manufacturing it at another company's factory.

I know I’ll regret opening this can of worms . . .

In the past you have claimed pharmaceutical companies won’t market a cancer cure because they make more from treatments. First, that’s false, but assuming pharmaceutical companies are so uncaring they value profits over cancer patient’s lives, why would they give away their profits for a Covid 19 vaccination?

[Belsnickel]

One of the things I learned from a doctor friend is something that is happening with the vaccines to make things get out, faster. Usually, what you will find is an elongated timeline where production facilities aren't set up until after all the rounds of testing and approvals. However, with the COVID-19 vaccine, many of these companies are already setting up productions facilities while testing is ongoing, so that when they have FDA approval they can hit the ground running.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2020, 11:01 AM)Goalpost Wrote: These big pharma companies survive by generating new drugs beyond their patents, which expire on them.  They need pipelines of new products, and for both medical and of course profit reasons expense billions yearly.  

They make money more on selling what they already have than developing new drugs.

That is why J&J spent 250% more on marketing (31% of revenue) than on R&D (12.5%)

[Goalpost]

(07-13-2020, 12:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They make money more on selling what they already have than developing new drugs.

That is why J&J spent 250% more on marketing (31% of revenue) than on R&D (12.5%)

And that's fair.  Most pharma companies spend more on marketing than R and D.  Of J and J's 80 billion revenue, half of it is from drugs, and the other half is from consumer products.....J and J is that ultra conglomerate beyond just drugs as they do band aids, shampoos, etc etc and even more etcs.  I don't know how their marketing of consumer goods compares to a P and G for example. 

[BFritz21]

(07-13-2020, 11:58 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I know I’ll regret opening this can of worms . . .

In the past you have claimed pharmaceutical companies won’t market a cancer cure because they make more from treatments. First, that’s false, but assuming pharmaceutical companies are so uncaring they value profits over cancer patient’s lives, why would they give away their profits for a Covid 19 vaccination?

Drug companies aren't making billions of dollars of drugs for Cov-19 treatment.

How's that false, by the way?  Drugs to counter cancer treatments is a billion dollar industry, whereas a cure would be a one time thing and companies would just keep outdoing themselves to make a cheaper cure.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-13-2020, 10:15 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Drug companies aren't making billions of dollars of drugs for Cov-19 treatment.

How's that false, by the way?  Drugs to counter cancer treatments is a billion dollar industry, whereas a cure would be a one time thing and companies would just keep outdoing themselves to make a cheaper cure.

They can make billions from a Covid 19 vaccination. The US and the U.K. governments alone spent $2B to stockpile Tamiflu for the flu. A Covid 19 treatment would be worth billions as well.

What drug does a billion in sales just to counter cancer treatments?

[BFritz21]

(07-13-2020, 11:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: They can make billions from a Covid 19 vaccination. The US and the U.K. governments alone spent $2B to stockpile Tamiflu for the flu. A Covid 19  treatment would be worth billions as well.

What drug does a billion in sales just to counter cancer treatments?

You really couldn't Google it to find out?

[/url]

Quote:1. Revlimid

Celgene
Type of Drug: Thalidomide analogue
2018 Sales: $9.685 billion
2017 Sales: $8.187 billion
% Change: 18.3%
 

There's NINE more listed with AT LEAST A BILLION IN SALES.

Or [url=https://chemoth.com/economics]there's this:

Quote:The Chemotherapy Drug Industry

The National Institutes of Health estimates direct medical costs for cancer will be at least $158 billion in 2020.   One industry analyst put the size of the global chemotherapy market at $97 billion in 2017.  The analysis group EvaluatePharma estimated total oncology sales in 2018 is $123.8 billion (out of a total prescription medicine market of $864 billion).  Deloitte projects global sales of pharmaceuticals to excess $900 billion in 2020.

The flu is a lot more common and affects a lot more people, so a vaccine was necessary.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-14-2020, 12:39 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You really couldn't Google it to find out?

[/url]

There's NINE more listed with AT LEAST A BILLION IN SALES.

Or [url=https://chemoth.com/economics]there's this:

That doesn’t counter cancer treatments. It is a cancer treatment.

Quote:The flu is a lot more common and affects a lot more people, so a vaccine was necessary.

Relative to what? I don’t understand your point.

[BFritz21]

(07-14-2020, 01:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That doesn’t counter cancer treatments. It is a cancer treatment.

Ok but then the second link.

(07-14-2020, 01:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Relative to what? I don’t understand your point.

Relative to cancer.  

The flu would be a lot more common if they were a vaccine than cancer is.