• richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You don't understand my point.

    • Sick people receive vaccines for free or very cheap
    • Sick people gets hope of survival to disease, hope which wasn't previously available.
    • Sick people ask their governments to continue receiving vaccines.
    • People providing vacciones now are charging a lot more to said governments.
    • Profit (which was the whole point, and not any "humanitarian" notions.)

    And the market wasn't there, because unless there's some way to create high demand and guaranteed payment in poor countries, there's no profit in said vaccines (or any medication, for that matter; do you see any multinational farmaceutical companies giving much thought to the creation of medicine to cure Chagas disease? And it's endemic in many areas of South America. But those are poor areas, so the is no profit there).

    • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problem with your argument is that the Gates foundation is a non-profit. They aren't trying to make a profit, they've burned through tens of billions of dollars in the past 20 years.

      Are you arguing that countries should just let people die from polio rather than accept humanitarian aid or am I missing something?