Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 39 posts

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#5

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

> Remdesivir, developed by Gilead Sciences Inc.,

This is the same Gilead Sciences that developed a cure for Hepatitis C, but was crucified in the press because of the high upfront cost.

I want pharma to makes lots of money so they care hire lots of smart people. I want developing cures for viruses and diseases to be at least as a good a career path for smart kids in the future as working for a Silicon Valley company writing the next chat app or developing the next advertising platform.

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#7

Post by frandroid »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #5

> Remdesivir, developed by Gilead Sciences Inc., This is the same Gilead Sciences that developed a cure for Hepatitis C, but was crucified in the press because of the high upfront cost. I want pharma to makes lots of money so they care hire lots of smart people. I want developing cures for viruses and diseases to be at least as a good a career path for smart kids in the future as working for a Silicon Valley company…

Or you know, we can determine that the cost of keeping people healthy is a social good and invest in that. I don't think we need market indicators to show that we don't want people to die. And we know that that market signal distorts the needs addressed so that chronic alleviation things get more attention than one-time cures...

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#8

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

frandroid wrote: post #7
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #5

> Remdesivir, developed by Gilead Sciences Inc., This is the same Gilead Sciences that developed a cure for Hepatitis C, but was crucified in the press because of the high upfront cost. I want pharma to makes lots of money so they care hire lots of smart people. I want developing cures for viruses and diseases to be at least as a good a career path for smart kids in the future as working for a Silicon Valley company…

Or you know, we can determine that the cost of keeping people healthy is a social good and invest in that. I don't think we need market indicators to show that we don't want people to die. And we know that that market signal distorts the needs addressed so that chronic alleviation things get more attention than one-time cures...

> Or you know, we can determine that the cost of keeping people healthy is a social good and invest in that.

Social goods that we ostensibly invest in, often are crappy career paths in terms of pay. If you don't believe me, talk with a teacher. We know that few things contribute to the social good as much as a good education, but tell me honestly. If you knew a poor, smart, hard working kid, what career path would you suggest, teacher or software developer?

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#10

Post by pradn »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #5

> Remdesivir, developed by Gilead Sciences Inc., This is the same Gilead Sciences that developed a cure for Hepatitis C, but was crucified in the press because of the high upfront cost. I want pharma to makes lots of money so they care hire lots of smart people. I want developing cures for viruses and diseases to be at least as a good a career path for smart kids in the future as working for a Silicon Valley company…

There's a difference between ensuring companies creating beneficial products are financially rewarded and asking the customers to pay the full cost. The government can step in to pay for serious illnesses so we don't let people die from newly cured diseases. This already happens with Medicare/Medicaid, and it is tough to ask state governments to spend millions to cure a handful of people, but the alternative is capping drug margins or reducing the financial reward for developing drugs.

Also recall that in the current system not everyone who contributes to a new drug is rewarded. The basic research that scientists conduct using public money is not financially rewarded when its used by new drugs. Why do only people at the end of the pipeline get to profit?

Post reply on HN