• @sugar_in_your_tea
    link
    English
    224 days ago

    I’m honestly okay with patents for vaccines, but if they take government money, they should be obligated to license those patents very openly. The more money they accept, the less restrictive the patents ought to be.

    Patents should be able protecting first mover advantage and nothing more. Once they’ve established themselves, third parties should be empowered to compete on price and availability.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      Keep in mind the fact that the slow vaccine rollout gave the virus the chance to multiply in poor countries and develop vaccine resistance, which then fucked everyone else too. If everyone in the world had been vaccinated quickly, we could have wiped out covid and we wouldn’t be dealing with long covid brain damage and immune system compromise now. These patents have killed millions of people and will continue to ruin millions of lives. There is blood on the hands of these people on a scale greater than any terrorist attack, and they knew full well the consequences.

      • @sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        I don’t think we ever could’ve wiped out COVID once it left Wuhan, that’s just not the way these vaccines work. In most cases you’ll still get the disease and be a carrier (and thus spread it), but you’ll spread it more slowly because your symptoms are much less severe. It’s a harm reduction strategy, not an eradication strategy.

        That said, they absolutely should’ve been made widely available because of the harm reduction nature of the vaccines.

        Here’s an article about how COVID will likely never be eradicated from 2020. The issue isn’t our response (which was woefully insufficient), but the actual way the virus family works. It’s not like smallpox or polio, it’s more like the various viruses that make up the “common cold.” The more likely scenario is for it to mutate into something like the common cold that’s less deadly but quite infectious.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          124 days ago

          The reason that covid would benefit from evolving to be less deadly is that people don’t want a deadly disease and take steps to prevent it. But people don’t care about long covid, and that means there isn’t an evolutionary pressure for long covid to get less severe. I think covid is going to be our generation’s equivalent to lead poisoning until we take it seriously.

          • @sugar_in_your_tea
            link
            English
            124 days ago

            You can think what you like, but the scientific literature says otherwise.

            Diseases get less severe over time because, it turns out, the more deadly ones have a lower chance of spreading vs less deadly ones. Virus strains that inhibit the host less have a longer time in contact with potential new hosts spread faster than the ones that have severe, early-onset symptoms. So without human intervention, viruses trend toward being less severe.

            Long COVID is a separate thing, any I’m honestly not that knowledgeable on it. I personally think we need a better understanding of what’s going on because I’m not convinced COVID actually caused all of those cases, and maybe not even a majority. I think doctors have just been throwing the label at it when there’s not a ready explanation and the patient had COVID recently. Vaccines do seem effective at reducing the chances of that diagnosis though, which makes sense since they’re designed to reduce the severity of the disease.