735

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by jeena@jemmy.jeena.net to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

161 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLkbWUNQbgk&t=308s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] bort@sopuli.xyz 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Civil society organizations active in poorer nations, including Doctors Without Borders, expressed discomfort with the notion that Western-dominated groups, staffed by elite teams of experts, would be helping guide life-and-death decisions affecting people in poorer nations. Those tensions only increased when the Gates Foundation opposed efforts to waive intellectual property rights, a move that critics saw as protecting the interests of pharmaceutical giants over people living poorer nations

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/global-covid-pandemic-response-bill-gates-partners-00053969

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Yikes. Do you know what justification was given?

[-] bort@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 months ago

i remember hearing, that their argument was, that a strong profit-incentive would motive the manufacturer to increase production as well as quality. I also remember that the debate around that topic was drowned out by some weirder theories. E.g. during that time q-anon was on the rise, and some people argued, that the gates foundation was using covid to implant microchips into people or something like that

source: my memory from a couple years back

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Thanks. Sounds like the same ol "free market" argument then.

[-] SporeAdic@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

A not insignificant line of reasoning (though probably less important to people in power than the profit incentive) was also to keep the secrets of making the vaccine from bring revealed to other countries, which would apparently erode the USA's pharmaceutical research advantage. An interesting article about this from the former director of NIST is here but I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning.