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

Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 188 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#131

Post by chickenbig »

shridharxp wrote: post #93
stego-tech wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The longer someone lives, the more potential value they can contribute to a society. The opportunity cost is something we've figured out from a medical perspective, but shareholders want returns today, not returns fifty years from now. That is what we need to address.

>The longer someone lives, the more potential value they can contribute to a society. This is questionable. Highly populous countries have worse living conditions than moderately populous ones, currently.

> Highly populous countries have worse living conditions than moderately populous ones, currently.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-density-vs-pro...

There does not look to be a strong correlation between population density and income, at least on a log-log scale across countries. But I would guess that these numbers hide a trend for cities to be richer than rural areas (subsistence farming etc).

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#132

Post by chickenbig »

agumonkey wrote: post #123
PunchyHamster wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make sense if you turn it around "Having permanent patient by treating only symptoms is better than curing them right away" Basically living (comfortably, or at all) as a subscription service

Aren't there ethical committees to avoid that? Health is not a normal business. Goldman Sachs modus operandi is leaning too far on the parasitic side of the spectrum

  In July 2009, journalist Matt Taibbi invoked an indelible image when he described Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
https://jasonzweig.com/wall-street-and-the-vampire-squid-a-b...

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#133

Post by ninetyninenine »

tptacek wrote: post #67
stego-tech wrote: post #22

I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model. What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech…

Saying that curing diseases is a bad business model is like saying discovering the world's largest gold mine would be a bad business because you'd eventually run out of gold. The underlying argument doesn't make sense.

[flagged]

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#134

Post by socalgal2 »

ehnto wrote: post #85
socalgal2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ~public~ transit is not a good business model. ~public~ transit can be a good business model if it's setup correctly. The majority of Japan's 100 train companies are setup such that they own both trains and complementary interests. Office buildings, shopping centers, super markets, apartments. The better their trains are the better their other businesses do by delivering people to them. The better their other busin…

It's fair to note that Japan's private rail networks have often been joint public/private investments, but I don't think that negates your point. I think public transit is something the public should invest in, profitable or not, as a service to ourselves (the public). But it can also be done profitably in certain circumstances.

I think trying to get the incentives right is important and that "public" transit rarely gets it right. It relies on politicians to fund it and they have so many strings being pulled on that they can rarely give it the funding it needs. It will always show up as an expense and as such there will always be an incentive to cut funding to "lower the expense". If they ever have a surplus it will be syphoned off to something else instead of invested.

Of course many cities have great "public" (run by the government) transportation for some definition of "great" but many have issues of funding. IIUC, NYC and London are both seriously underfunded. Conversely, AFAICT, these private Japanese trains in a city of a comparible size are not. If you don't want to compare to Tokyo, then compare to Osaka

https://www.keihan.co.jp/corporate/ir/individual/

https://www.hankyu-hanshin.co.jp/docs/integratedreport2025_j...

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#135

Post by FerretFred »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #28
stego-tech wrote: post #22

I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model. What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech…

If a person dies from a disorder in their 20s, they'll never buy your heart medication in their 70s. Today's patient is tomorrow's patient.

Yeah, maybe not cure them as such, maybe just get them to a healthy-enough state to go back to functioning but still needing The Medication.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#136

Post by jojobas »

bluGill wrote: post #73
jojobas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could use profit in 50 years, but it will possibly be someone else's profit.

If the executive lives longer it is their profit.

It could be a different company's profit.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#137

Post by sam_lowry_ »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #90
socalgal2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ~public~ transit is not a good business model. ~public~ transit can be a good business model if it's setup correctly. The majority of Japan's 100 train companies are setup such that they own both trains and complementary interests. Office buildings, shopping centers, super markets, apartments. The better their trains are the better their other businesses do by delivering people to them. The better their other busin…

This reminds me of the way ski resorts work in the US. One company builds the ski resort (losing) but also develops all the real estate around it (winning). It only works if it's a resort worth living near. Or casinos, which are the reverse. Build hotels, entertainment etc (losing) to support traffic to your casino (winning)

Why company? In France, ski resorts are often built by local authorities, not companies.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#138

Post by stavros »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #137
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the way ski resorts work in the US. One company builds the ski resort (losing) but also develops all the real estate around it (winning). It only works if it's a resort worth living near. Or casinos, which are the reverse. Build hotels, entertainment etc (losing) to support traffic to your casino (winning)

Why company? In France, ski resorts are often built by local authorities, not companies.

That's just not the sort of thing the US believes in.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#139

Post by michihuber »

stego-tech wrote: post #22

I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model. What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech…

Why would curing patients not be a good business model?

Of course it is, if you charge the right price, just like “building and selling (not leasing out) houses” can be a good business model.

No subscription or 2nd order effects needed.

Re: Goldman Sachs asks in biotech Report: Is curing patients a sustainable business? (2018)

#140

Post by robocat »

s0rce wrote: post #115
apparent wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for chiming in. What do you think they do, and why do you think they are perceived as being more effective than they actually are? Any thoughts on the bacteria-morphing one?

I don't know too much about the bacteria stuff. Regarding enamel, the native structure is very intricate and contributes to the properties. Most of the acellular chemical reminalization just deposits disorganized minerals on the teeth. It might be improved vs. doing nothing (I'm not sure but I do use fluoride reminalization from the dentist) but its not regenerating your enamel. Imagine just slapping some concrete or…

Did you see this article which claims "New gel restores dental enamel"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45826995

Post reply on HN