AIDS export says what I've been saying for ages

[yesthattom]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/12/25/aids.vaccine.ap/index.html I hate the way the world works.

Comments

[gulfie.livejournal.com]

For all intents and purposes a vaccine is a cure, well not for the .6 % currently positive but for the other 99.4 %. But yes it does change the math , but only superficially. Full vaccination costs less than 1 - current % * population * cost.

For the hypothetical $100,000 aid maintenance case. There are 300 or so not infected. $100,000 / 300 = $330 $330 at best in america. The cost per person goes up as vaccination rates go down. 100% vaccination isn't needed to stem an outbreak. But even at $330, as a prophylactic measure, is going to he a very hard sell to patients who can rationalize away that they are not ever going to need it.


I'm not saying that a company could not 'take' revenue from another company, I'm asking 'why would they'? Economics and business tactics agree. Fighting, or competition in the market, does not serve the interests of the shareholders. Even without collusion, players in the market can come to the same conclusion that economic combat only wares down the economic machine and lowers profits. In market that is open ended there is little reason to fight, not much profit in it.


As to the discounted value of future money, sure. It's an actuarial problem balancing any decrease in production cost vs inflation for the 20 + year life cycle of the patented therapy vs the spread of the epidemic. Insurance companies run this sort of problem all the time. Medical companies have the understanding of it. Currently they are on the winning side. The time value of an epidemic is that it will grow.


My hope for an AIDS cure/vaccine is based in Asia. eventually a large and funded government will step in and attempt to solve the problem.