Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Documents Reveal Behind-the-Scenes Ebola Vaccine Issues
sciencehabit writes Extensive background documents from a meeting that took place today at the World Health Organization (WHO) have provided new details about exactly what it will take to test, produce, and bankroll Ebola vaccines, which could be a potential game changer in the epidemic. ScienceInsider obtained materials that vaccinemakers, governments, and WHO provided to the 100 or so participants at a meeting on 'access and financing' of Ebola vaccines. The documents put hard numbers on what until now have been somewhat fuzzy academic discussions. And they make clear to the attendees—who include representatives from governments, industry, philanthropies, and nongovernmental organizations—that although testing and production are moving forward at record speed, knotty issues remain.
If an F35 costs $337M* and "27 million doses of vaccine" would cost $151 million (half to produce and half to deliver as per TFA), then one F35 would be worth about 60 million doses of vaccine? * (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398)
And the ethics around live human trials are tricky, because some participants in the trial will die from ebola.
Which isn't surprising. If someone can think of alternative which delivers a better result, then I'm all ears. The framing of this as if the documents reveal some sort of 'scandal' is a bit troubling.
I'm sure the world's most average Ob/Gyn [Ron Paul] - and most successful living American cult leader - is also a highly qualified expert on Ebola.
That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?
Shouldn't we be debating the things he says? Shouldn't we be considering the merits of his argument, rather than his background?
Obama's Ebola czar (Ron Klain) is a lawyer and former chief-of-staff. Do you think *he's* qualified to tell us what we're doing wrong?
What the heck are you getting at? What's your purpose in posting this? Is there some way in which you gain by posting such drivel?
You're right about being modded down - your post does nothing to inform the discussion.
That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?
I am using that because his followers make a huge deal about the number of babies he has delivered. However considering how long he was a practicing Ob/Gyn, that number is actually not particularly impressive - particularly if he was the main or only practicing Ob for a moderately populated area.
Shouldn't we be considering the merits of his argument, rather than his background?
From what I have seen, so far all he has been saying is that we're doing it wrong. I haven't seen anything from him about how to do it right. Naturally, his followers jump all over it as gospel.
Obama's Ebola czar (Ron Klain) is a lawyer and former chief-of-staff. Do you think *he's* qualified to tell us what we're doing wrong?
The Ebola czar is supposed to help manage the response. Just as the Surgeon General does not perform surgeries while a member of the cabinet, the Ebola czar is just a manager.
What the heck are you getting at? What's your purpose in posting this?
My point is that there are a lot of people - including one particular cult leader / politician / retired physician - telling us that we're doing it wrong. I have not seen any of these people do anything other than bitch and moan about it being done wrong; I most certainly have not seen them propose anything other than what we are doing.
Hell any proposal for the government to do anything would be automatically rejected as "the wrong thing" by Ron Paul as he is against all forms of government spending, regardless of how many lives are at stake (excluding, of course, his own).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It's kind of hilarious that a bunch of self-styled libertarians need to have a leader cult, isn't it?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
$151M or $337M is not such a large sum of money that the US, UK, or French government couldn't unilaterally pick it up. The issue is with the politics. Voters and politicians in a single country are more okay with joining an international effort than seeing that they're the only ones footing a big bill.
In this regard, the UK's strategy shows a lot of leadership combined with practical politics:
"As far as financing, the U.K. government contends that a “multi-donor club” should pay for the vaccine development in “the medium term.” But for now, the United Kingdom says it will “unilaterally” cover the costs for purchasing vaccines in Sierra Leone, and it asks the governments of the United States and France to make the same commitment for Liberia and Guinea, respectively."
It's a good play that let's the more xenophobic groups feel that the UK isn't propping up the whole world, but also allows hawks to see this as the UK exercising leadership/dominance internationally.