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

USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 127 posts

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#31

Post by bmmayer1 »

kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#32

Post by bearjaws »

sjg007 wrote: post #19
kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

Countries can nationalize the patent in times of pandemics and produce it locally. But this drug is hard to make.

This, I work in specialty pharmacies and Remdesivir is a complicated drug to produce.

Currently Gilead believe they can bring down their production time from 8-12 months 6-8 months, that means we won't see a large supply of this drug until 2021.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#33

Post by [deleted] »

kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

[deleted]

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#34

Post by sitkack »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #31
kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.

That said arguably that there are many kinds of methods for funding the creation of drugs. The existing system isn't the only way. Your statement is literally, "stick with the status quo". The NIH should fund and produce these drugs, no patents, free for all to produce.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#35

Post by ianleeclark »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #31
kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.

Just because it is doesn't mean it ought to be. This, in fact, seems to be a pretty clear indication of why alternative funding methods should be considered.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#36

Post by jamisteven »

mmm_grayons wrote: post #29

Sounds like the Guardian isn't happy its home country got out-bid. Did it expect that America would buy less of a potentially life-saving drug, effectively prioritizing the welfare of foreigners over her own? I'd expect any government to act in such a manner.

exactly.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#37

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

bearjaws wrote: post #32
sjg007 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries can nationalize the patent in times of pandemics and produce it locally. But this drug is hard to make.

This, I work in specialty pharmacies and Remdesivir is a complicated drug to produce. Currently Gilead believe they can bring down their production time from 8-12 months 6-8 months, that means we won't see a large supply of this drug until 2021.

I have a noobish question. Looking at Remdesivir wiki page to try to get a feeling for why it's hard to make, their are some really odd chemicals used like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimethylsilyl_triflate

Why is something like this, with its silicon and sulphur atoms as part of the backbone, needed? Why wouldn't the same but with a more typical fully-carbon backbone work? If it's too complex a question, skip it, but thanks if you can shed light.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#38

Post by sokoloff »

sitkack wrote: post #34
bmmayer1 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.

That said arguably that there are many kinds of methods for funding the creation of drugs. The existing system isn't the only way. Your statement is literally, "stick with the status quo". The NIH should fund and produce these drugs, no patents, free for all to produce.

What second or third order effects might happen? I’m not saying the status quo is the only reasonable equilibrium, but if you take the profit motive out of something (anything), I worry that you’ll get fewer of society’s resources directed towards that area. Maybe that’s money, attention of the brightest/most creative thinkers, willingness to do the outright drudgery required to invent, perceived status of the field, etc.

If you want a lot of drug research, you probably want to ensure that successful drug research is lucrative. (Maybe less than today, maybe making unsuccessful research or negative reproduction more lucrative than today.)

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#39

Post by jkinudsjknds »

sitkack wrote: post #34
bmmayer1 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.

That said arguably that there are many kinds of methods for funding the creation of drugs. The existing system isn't the only way. Your statement is literally, "stick with the status quo". The NIH should fund and produce these drugs, no patents, free for all to produce.

What are the other kinds of methods

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#40

Post by lotsofpulp »

sokoloff wrote: post #38
sitkack wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said arguably that there are many kinds of methods for funding the creation of drugs. The existing system isn't the only way. Your statement is literally, "stick with the status quo". The NIH should fund and produce these drugs, no patents, free for all to produce.

What second or third order effects might happen? I’m not saying the status quo is the only reasonable equilibrium, but if you take the profit motive out of something (anything), I worry that you’ll get fewer of society’s resources directed towards that area. Maybe that’s money, attention of the brightest/most creative thinkers, willingness to do the outright drudgery required to invent, perceived status of the field,…

The scientists doing the work could be getting paid the exact same by the government as opposed to investors looking to make 1000x returns.

In fact, I’m pretty sure the taxpayers are subsidizing investors with all the free research and knowledge they get from taxpayer funded higher educational facilities.

Post reply on HN