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

FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 228 posts

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#71

Post by dragonwriter »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #54
esturk wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a crass statement. What if you're the patient? Would you spend 2 million to live 30-40 more years? It's so easy to step back and weight the lives of other as if you're making the decision for others.

The $2M represents a certain portion of society’s productivity, which is not unlimited.

Yes, but spending it preventing debilitating disease that would cost about the same amount over the lifetime of the sufferer is a no-brainer, even in net econonic output, terms.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#72

Post by Scene_Cast2 »

soulbadguy wrote: post #61
lotsofpulp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the collective probability of rare, but expensive health issues is basically 100%, I would describe it less as insurance and more as wealth redistribution. Hence the (typical) requirement to purchase insurance and lack of ability to price it based on risk. Of course, insurance and taxation can be viewed as similar things anyway, but it is different from things like term life insurance or motor vehicle insurance…

> Since the collective probability of rare, but expensive health issues is basically 100%, I would describe it less as insurance and more as wealth redistribution. Humm no... It's just risk amortization...

Is it risk amortization because we just can't predict certain health issues? Let's suppose that we had a "health oracle" (or something not too far off) to predict medical issues in individuals. How would you structure health insurance in that case?

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#73

Post by esturk »

soulbadguy wrote: post #60
esturk wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a crass statement. What if you're the patient? Would you spend 2 million to live 30-40 more years? It's so easy to step back and weight the lives of other as if you're making the decision for others.

> What if you're the patient? What if you are on those 10 poor kids he mentioned ? I don't agree that OP statement is "crass". It's a very pragmatic and important question we have wrestle with.

Except those 10 poor kids aren't spending their own money to save themselves. The patient is though which is the point.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#74

Post by lotsofpulp »

trident5000 wrote: post #14
csdvrx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Id like to see the flood gates really open up for gene editing for diseases, preventative treatments, and even cosmetic. Me too, because it's fun to consider DNA as some code we can edit to get outcomes we want! However, some people are ethically opposed to that - but piggybacking on the preference people have for having children should be able to move the Overton window!

It really is inspiring. Yeah I take the opposite side, ethically speaking. I think its cruel to not allow people to fix their bodies in the ways they want and in many cases need. Im in the max body-editing camp. Also this should resolve race issues once and for all which is fun to think about.

> Also this should resolve race issues once and for all which is fun to think about.

I doubt it. One of the root causes of “race” issues is humans using prior probabilities. Unless that changes, then the priors will simply move on from being skin tone based. I would suggest they already have for some portions of the population.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#75

Post by monero-xmr »

ponector wrote: post #37
ericmay wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Day 1 so the price and how well it works today is almost certainly the worst it will ever be. Insurance will likely cover the cost. It's a very bad, painful, and outright deadly genetic mutation and $2.2 million is practically nothing compared to doubling someone's lifespan or giving them an extra 10 years. More info I found relevant regarding cost for typical treatment and out of pocket estimated costs: http…

I don't agree that it is nothing. 2 millions, if applied properly, could do good for many people. Take ten children from poverty, give ten children chance to get a good education, etc. There is always a some kind of moral dilemma: should you spent millions to try to extend extremely I'll person or help with that money to some healthy poor children?

This is the effective altruism / utilitarianism insanity. If we only thought about "what the best use of $2 million is" we would still be living in huts.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#76

Post by BurningFrog »

coldpie wrote: post #26
SamBam wrote: post #21

> Vertex set the price of Casgevy at $2.2 million > Patients must spend weeks, even months, in the hospital before and after the therapy is administered. Yoiks. So how many actual people are going to be able to get this treatment?

Indeed. The good news is, it actually turns out to be about the same or cheaper than ongoing treatment of a untreated sickle cell: """Each treatment is an individualized “one-off” treatment. For this reason, a single treatment for a single patient is expensive. At present it is estimated that in the UK treatment will cost £1 million or more. In the US the estimated cost is $2 million. That may seem prohibitive, but w…

Not quite true: Identical twins/triplets/etc, can reuse the same cure.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#77

Post by SoftTalker »

huytersd wrote: post #55
jabbany wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. That second one reminds me of the Flavr Savr ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr ). More shelf life in exchange for likely worse taste...

Worse taste but probably healthier in this case.

Yeah potatoes will fill your stomach and better than starving but they aren't really healthy food. Eat them in moderation, and prefer sweet potatoes/yams.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#78

Post by freeone3000 »

lostlogin wrote: post #69
w0mbat wrote: post #44

The gene that causes sickle cell anaemia actually provides partial immunity to malaria, which is why this gene has not been bred out of the population over time.

> which is why this gene has not been bred out of the population over time. Is that why? Or is it just the people with it aren’t sick enough to die before procreating?

In regions where malaria was endemic, this mutation was selected for, as malaria kills children.

Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease

#80

Post by soulbadguy »

Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #72
soulbadguy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since the collective probability of rare, but expensive health issues is basically 100%, I would describe it less as insurance and more as wealth redistribution. Humm no... It's just risk amortization...

Is it risk amortization because we just can't predict certain health issues? Let's suppose that we had a "health oracle" (or something not too far off) to predict medical issues in individuals. How would you structure health insurance in that case?

If we had a health oracle, what would be the point of health insurance ? I think with a 100% health oracle, health inssurance will become more like group buys for negotiating better prices with health providers.
Post reply on HN