Vaccine Effectiveness: moderna - ~95% effective (developed under capitalism) pfizer - ~95% effective (developed under capitalism)
AstraZeneca ~76% (developed under socialized medicine)
Chineese Vaccine ~50% (developed under communism)
Where did you get these numbers? Afaik the ones for Moderna and Pfizer come from studies that they financed themselves. So yes, capitalism is very efficient when it comes to marketing.
AstraZeneca is a for-profit company from the UK, nothing “socialized” about it.
And these “effectiveness” numbers are very unclear. Do they refer to preventing severe cases, light cases, or some kind of combination of those?
Direct correlation between the quality of product and the incentives the employee receives for making a better product. I find it fascinating.
Strange, the only incentive I ever received as an employee was a salary, and it was the same no matter how good my work was.
I paid $0 for my modern vaccination. I am not really sure where you are going with this thought experiment. Under more normal conditions competition in the marketplace drives down cost.
Meanwhile in the real world, doses of Moderna or Pfizer are at least 3 times more expensive than Sputnik V or Sinovac. Just that the state pays it for you (from tax income).
Edit: Sputnik V and Sinovac are both over 90% effective according to independent trials.
This is another good point. mRNA vaccines have never been used before. On the other hand, Russia and China are using techniques for their vaccines which we have decades of experience with. I suspect that mRNA was used for the simple reason that pharma companies could get more state subsidies for developing this new method.
That depends, are we talking about capitalism in the 19th century or earlier? At that time it definitely sparked a lot of useful innovations (steam engine, railways, airplanes were all invented under capitalism).
But if we are talking about capitalism in the 21st century, the only innovations seem to be in getting more state subsidies for corporations (plus finding tax loopholes and paying lower wages).
Not following. The industrial revolution made those that innovated wealthy. Those countries that did not poor. The innovations being made now will boost the economy of that country for decades. Just like it did before. Tesla, Apple, NASA etc… You can say it’s a waste of time and money, but not too many awesome innovations have been done by government mandate. People just don’t work that way - they need to be excited about their work, their identity.
Tax loopholes are part of doing business and developing new products. You can’t be non profitable for years and expect to pay high taxes. Non-profitability is needed to concentrate on innovations in the beginning of new business.
Innovations make peoples lives better as well as boost the nations economy by creating jobs and new markets. Take a look at the MRI machine. The innovation that made it possible would be considered a waste of time and energy by most. The initial technology came from studying the magnetic resonance of particles on other planets decades before the idea was implemented in human tissue in the 70s. Without “wasteful” spending, but I sure as hell value that invention.
You yourself just wrote that innovation comes from nonprofitability. If that were the case profit should be outlawed and only nonprofits allowed to exist.
This has got to be a bit account lol.
Also tell me what that “initial technology” story, like what were the scientists/researchers that developed it motivations?
Where did you get these numbers? Afaik the ones for Moderna and Pfizer come from studies that they financed themselves. So yes, capitalism is very efficient when it comes to marketing.
AstraZeneca is a for-profit company from the UK, nothing “socialized” about it.
And these “effectiveness” numbers are very unclear. Do they refer to preventing severe cases, light cases, or some kind of combination of those?
Strange, the only incentive I ever received as an employee was a salary, and it was the same no matter how good my work was.
Meanwhile in the real world, doses of Moderna or Pfizer are at least 3 times more expensive than Sputnik V or Sinovac. Just that the state pays it for you (from tax income).
Edit: Sputnik V and Sinovac are both over 90% effective according to independent trials.
deleted by creator
This is another good point. mRNA vaccines have never been used before. On the other hand, Russia and China are using techniques for their vaccines which we have decades of experience with. I suspect that mRNA was used for the simple reason that pharma companies could get more state subsidies for developing this new method.
Fair enough - the model I presented could be bias and is too simple anyway. Would it be fair to say that capitalism sparks innovation then.
That depends, are we talking about capitalism in the 19th century or earlier? At that time it definitely sparked a lot of useful innovations (steam engine, railways, airplanes were all invented under capitalism).
But if we are talking about capitalism in the 21st century, the only innovations seem to be in getting more state subsidies for corporations (plus finding tax loopholes and paying lower wages).
Not following. The industrial revolution made those that innovated wealthy. Those countries that did not poor. The innovations being made now will boost the economy of that country for decades. Just like it did before. Tesla, Apple, NASA etc… You can say it’s a waste of time and money, but not too many awesome innovations have been done by government mandate. People just don’t work that way - they need to be excited about their work, their identity.
Tax loopholes are part of doing business and developing new products. You can’t be non profitable for years and expect to pay high taxes. Non-profitability is needed to concentrate on innovations in the beginning of new business.
Innovations make peoples lives better as well as boost the nations economy by creating jobs and new markets. Take a look at the MRI machine. The innovation that made it possible would be considered a waste of time and energy by most. The initial technology came from studying the magnetic resonance of particles on other planets decades before the idea was implemented in human tissue in the 70s. Without “wasteful” spending, but I sure as hell value that invention.
You yourself just wrote that innovation comes from nonprofitability. If that were the case profit should be outlawed and only nonprofits allowed to exist.
This has got to be a bit account lol.
Also tell me what that “initial technology” story, like what were the scientists/researchers that developed it motivations?