Comment Re:49 people + 180 days = proof?? (Score 1) 554
That would actually probably do more harm than good.
1. It would fork the R&D road and dillute the present efforts at finding a universal vaccine.
2. It would shunt money into the big pharma marketing machine in the meantime.
3. It would create competition among similar products, adding unneeded confusion to a complicated situation where simplicity is very important. You don't want patients having even a little doubt or question about whether they're getting the "right" vaccine.
4. When something more universal DID come out, the competition would become even more fierce and you would end up with a more convoluted and charged atmosphere.
Vaccines have been rejected which are 99% effective in most people, or which are 100% effective in specific subsets of the population. It's because when you're dealing with 6 billion people, small percentages translate to real problems. Economies of scale are not just for server farms and the stock market.
1. It would fork the R&D road and dillute the present efforts at finding a universal vaccine.
2. It would shunt money into the big pharma marketing machine in the meantime.
3. It would create competition among similar products, adding unneeded confusion to a complicated situation where simplicity is very important. You don't want patients having even a little doubt or question about whether they're getting the "right" vaccine.
4. When something more universal DID come out, the competition would become even more fierce and you would end up with a more convoluted and charged atmosphere.
Vaccines have been rejected which are 99% effective in most people, or which are 100% effective in specific subsets of the population. It's because when you're dealing with 6 billion people, small percentages translate to real problems. Economies of scale are not just for server farms and the stock market.
