The COVID-19 Vaccines Shouldn’t Have Been Free

Published

6 months ago

June 2, 2024

admin

In a recent essay in the journal Monash Bioethics Review, oncologist Vinay Prasad and health researcher Alyson Haslam provide a comprehensive after-the-fact assessment of the federal government’s rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Their basic takeaway is that the vaccines were a “scientific success”tarnished by flawed federal vaccine policy.

The two argue the tremendous benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines for the elderly were undercut by government guidance and messaging that pushed vaccines on the young, healthy, and previously infected when data suggested that wasn’t worthwhile (and was in some cases counterproductive).

Worse still, the government even pushed vaccine mandates when it was increasingly clear the vaccines did not stop COVID-19 transmission, they argue.

To correct these errors for future pandemic responses, Prasad and Haslam recommend performing larger vaccine trials and collecting better data on vaccine performance in lower-risk populations. They also urge policy makers to be more willing to acknowledge the tradeoffs of vaccination.

That’s sound advice. We’ll have to wait and see if the government adopts it come the next pandemic.

There is one policy that they don’t mention and doesn’t totally depend on the government getting better at judging the risks of new vaccines: Charge people for them.

Had the government not provided COVID-19 vaccines for free and shielded vaccine makers and administrators from any liability for adverse reactions, prices could have better rationed vaccine supply and better informed people about their risks and benefits.

Without prices, people were instead left with flawed government recommendations, incentives, and rationing schemes.

Those who recall early 2021 will remember the complex, often transparently silly eligibility criteria state governments set up to ration scarce vaccine supplies. This often involved prioritizing younger, healthier, often politically connected “essential workers” over elderly people.

Prasad and Haslam criticize this as a government failure to prioritize groups at most risk of dying from COVID-19.

“While the UK prioritized nursing home residents and older individuals…the US included essential workers, including young, resident physicians,” write Prasad and Haslam. “Health care workers face higher risks of acquiring the virus due to occupation (though this was and is offset by available personal protective equipment), but this was less than the elevated risk of death faced by older individuals.”

Yet if the government hadn’t assigned itself the role of distributing vaccines for free, it wouldn’t have been forced into this position of rationing scarce vaccine supplies.

Demand for the vaccine is a function of the vaccine’s price. Since the vaccine’s price was $0, people who stood to gain comparatively less from vaccination and people for whom a vaccine would be lifesaving were equally incentivized to receive it.

Consequently, everyone rushed to get in line at the same time. The government then had to decide who got it first and predictably made flawed decisions.

Had vaccine makers been left to sell their product on an open market (instead of selling doses in bulk to the federal government to distribute for free), the elderly and those most at risk of COVID-19 would have been able to outbid people who could afford to wait longer. Perhaps more lives could have been saved.

Over the course of 2021, the supply of vaccines outgrew demand.

At the same time, as Prasad and Haslam recount, an increasing number of people (particularly young men) were developing myocarditis as a result of vaccination. Nevertheless, the government downplayed this risk, continued to urge younger populations to get vaccinated, and failed to collect data about the potential risks of vaccination.

That’s all a failure of the government policy. Even if the government was slow to adjust its recommendations, prices could have played a constructive role in informing people about their own risk-reward tradeoff of getting vaccinated.

If a 20-year-old man who’d already had COVID-19 had to spend something to get vaccinated, instead of nothing, fewer would have. Prasad and Haslam argue that would have been the right call healthwise.

Without prices, that hypothetical 20-year-old’s decision was informed mostly by government guidance, and, later, government mandates.

The government compounded this lack of prices by giving liability shields to vaccine makers. As it stands right now, no one is able to sue the maker of a COVID-19 vaccine should they have an adverse reaction. (Unlike standard, non-COVID vaccines, people are also not allowed to sue the government for compensation for the vaccine injuries.)

If pharmaceutical companies had to charge individual consumers to make money off their vaccines, and if those prices had to reflect the liability risks of the side effects some number of people would inevitably have, consumers would have been even better informed about the risks and rewards of vaccination.

One might counter that individual consumers aren’t in a position to perform this risk-reward calculation on their own.

That ignores the ways that other intermediaries in a better position to evaluate the costs and benefits of vaccination could contribute to the price signals individuals would use to make their own decisions.

One could imagine an insurance company declining to cover COVID-19 vaccines for the aforementioned healthy 20-year-old while subsidizing their elderly customers to get the shot. (This is, of course, illegal right now. The Affordable Care Act requiresmost insurance plansto cover the costs of vaccination for everyone.)

Instead, the financial incentives that were attached to vaccination were another part of the federally subsidized vaccination campaign.

State Medicaid programs paid providers bonuses for the number of patients they vaccinated (regardless of how at risk of COVID-19 those patients were). State governments gave out gift cardsto those who got vaccinated and entered them in lotteries to win even bigger prizes.

Leaving it up to private companies to produce and charge for vaccines would have one added benefit: It would make it much more difficult for the government to mandate vaccines or otherwise coerce people into getting them.

One of the things that made it easy for local and state governments to bar the unvaccinated from restaurants and schools was that they also had a lot of free, federally subsidized doses to give away. People didn’t have a real “excuse” not to get a shot.

Had people been required to pay for vaccines, it would have been more awkward and much harder (politically and practically) to mandate that they do so.

Economist Alex Tabarrok likes to say that a “price is a signal wrapped up in an incentive.” They signal crucial information and then incentivize people to act on that information in a rational, efficient way.

By divorcing COVID-19 vaccines from real price signals, we were left with an earnest, government-led vaccination effort. That effort got a lot of lifesaving vaccines to a lot of people.

But it also encouraged and subsidized people to get vaccinated when it was probably not a necessary or even good idea. When not enough people got vaccinated, governments turned to coercive mandates.

World

Joe Biden allows Kyiv to begin firing US rockets deep into Russia – as politician warns it ‘risks World War Three’

Published

40 mins ago

November 18, 2024

admin

Joe Biden allows Kyiv to begin firing US rockets deep into Russia - as politician warns it 'risks World War Three'

Joe Biden has authorised Ukraine to begin firing US-supplied rockets deep into Russia – as Sir Keir Starmer prepares to push for “further support” for Kyiv at the G20 summit.

Mr Biden’s policy shift means Kyiv will now be able to use Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) for long-range attacks, two American officials have told Sky News’ US partner network NBC News.

Ukraine plans to conduct its first such attacks in the coming days, the sources said, without revealing details due to operational security concerns.

The US has eased restrictions on the use of ATACMS, which have a range of up to 190 miles, after Russia began deploying North Korean ground troops to supplement its own forces in the conflict.

The development was condemned by Biden officials as a possible expansion of the war.

Follow latest: Ukraine war live updates

A Russian politician and the son of president-elect Donald Trump have both likened the move to risking a third world war.

Maria Butina told the Reuters news agency: “These guys, Biden’s administration, is trying to escalate the situation to the maximum while they still have power and are still in office.

“I have a great hope that Trump will overcome this decision if this has been made because they are seriously risking the start of World War Three which is not in anybody’s interest.”

Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr wrote on X: “The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives… Imbeciles!”

The outgoing Biden administration’s move comes as there are concerns about the level of support the Trump White House may be willing to give Ukraine.

Mr Trump has previously vowed to limit US support for Ukraine and end its war with Russia.

In an evening address after Kyiv was given permission to fire deep into Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said: “Today, there’s a lot of talk in the media about us receiving permission for respective actions. But strikes are not carried out with words. Such things are not announced. Missiles will speak for themselves. They certainly will.”

Back in September, Russian President Vladimir Putin said if the US were to lift the ban on long-range missile use it would be seen as NATO’s “direct participation” in the war.

He added: “This, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.”

Meanwhile, the UK prime minister has said he has “no plans” to speak with the Russian president as world leaders gather for the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Mr Putin will not be attending the two-day summit which starts on Monday after saying in October that his presence would “disrupt the normal work of this forum”. Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov will be attending instead.

It will take place days after German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke to Mr Putin on what was the Russian leader’s first publicly announced conversation with the sitting head of a major Western power in nearly two years.

Asked if he had any plans to make a similar call, Sir Keir said: “It’s a matter for Chancellor Scholz who he speaks to. I have no plans to speak to Putin.”

Speaking to reporters while on his way to the summit, he added: “We are coming up to the 1,000th day of this conflict on Tuesday.

“That’s 1,000 days of Russian aggression, 1,000 days of huge impact and sacrifice in relation to the Ukrainian people and recently we’ve seen the addition of North Korean troops working with Russians which does have serious implications.

“I think on one hand it shows the desperation of Russia, but it’s got serious implications for European security […] and for Indo-Pacific security and that’s why I think we need to double down on shoring up our support for Ukraine and that’s top of my agenda for the G20.

“There’s got to be full support as long as it takes and that certainly is top of my agenda, shoring up that further support for Ukraine.”

The latest developments come after Russia launched a large-scale attack on Ukraine on Sunday, with Mr Zelenskyy claiming Moscow had launched a total of 120 missiles and 90 drones.

Two major strikes, which left a total of 18 people dead, hit a residential building in the northeastern city of Sumy as well as energy infrastructure across Ukraine, prompting emergency power cuts.

Hours later, Moscow mayor Sergei Sobyanin said Russia’s air defence units had destroyed a drone heading towards the city.

Science

Octopuses May Become Earth’s Next Dominant Species If Humans Go Extinct

Published

1 hour ago

November 18, 2024

admin

Octopuses May Become Earth's Next Dominant Species If Humans Go Extinct

In the event of human extinction due to war or climate change, octopuses have been identified as potential rulers of Earth, according to leading scientists. Their intelligence, dexterity, and adaptability are believed to position them as candidates for developing an advanced civilisation. Professor Tim Coulson, a zoologist at the University of Oxford, suggests that octopuses could evolve tools and technologies to build underwater cities akin to human societies should the right environmental conditions emerge.

Key Traits Supporting Octopus Dominance

As per a report by DailyMail UK, there are several attributes of octopuses that make them unique. Their problem-solving capabilities, decentralised nervous system, and ability to manipulate objects enable them to adapt to challenging environments. The report further highlights that while they are unlikely to fully transition to land due to their lack of a skeleton, it is believed they could find innovative ways to extend their time out of water, such as developing breathing apparatuses.

These marine creatures, already adept at using tools and hunting, could exploit niches left vacant in a post-human world, the report adds. Octopuses are known to thrive in diverse environments, from deep seas to coastal waters, and possess the capacity for both solitary survival and complex behaviours.

Primates Unlikely to Succeed Humans

Contrary to previous theories suggesting primates might replace humans, the report reveal that researchers argue that primates face many of the same extinction threats as humans. Slow reproductive rates, vulnerability to predators, and dependence on specific ecosystems reduce their chances of survival in a changed world. The report further mentions that while intelligent birds and insects demonstrate advanced behaviour, they lack the dexterity needed to create tools or transform their surroundings on a human scale.

Speculative but Plausible Future

Professor Coulson told the publication that the rise of octopuses as dominant species is speculative. Evolution is unpredictable, shaped by countless variables, random mutations, and extinction events. However, given the intelligence and adaptability of octopuses, they remain a strong contender for evolving into an advanced civilisation in the absence of human influence, he told the publication.

Science

AI Technology Detects Cancerous Brain Tumours in 10 Seconds During Surgery

Published

2 hours ago

November 18, 2024

admin

AI Technology Detects Cancerous Brain Tumours in 10 Seconds During Surgery

A groundbreaking artificial intelligence tool called FastGlioma has been developed, enabling surgeons to detect residual cancerous brain tumours within 10 seconds during surgery. The innovation, detailed in a recent study in Nature, is seen as a significant advancement in neurosurgery, outperforming traditional tumour detection methods. Researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of California, San Francisco, led the study, highlighting its potential to improve surgical outcomes for patients with diffuse gliomas.

Todd Hollon, M.D., a neurosurgeon at the University of Michigan Health, described FastGlioma as a transformative diagnostic tool that provides a faster and more accurate method for identifying tumour remnants. He noted its ability to reduce reliance on current methods, such as intraoperative MRI or fluorescent imaging agents, which are often inaccessible or unsuitable for all tumour types.

Addressing Residual Tumours During Surgery

As per the study from Michigan Medicine – University of Michigan, residual tumours, which often resemble healthy brain tissue, are a common challenge in neurosurgery. Surgeons have traditionally struggled to differentiate between healthy brain and remaining cancerous tissue, leading to incomplete tumour removal. FastGlioma addresses this by combining high-resolution optical imaging with artificial intelligence to identify tumour infiltration rapidly and accurately.

In an international study, the model was tested on specimens from 220 patients with low- or high-grade diffuse gliomas. FastGlioma achieved an average accuracy of 92%, significantly outperforming conventional methods, which had a higher miss rate for high-risk tumour remnants. Co-senior author Shawn Hervey-Jumper, M.D., professor of neurosurgery at UCSF, emphasised its ability to enhance surgical precision while minimising the dependence on imaging agents or time-consuming procedures.

Future Applications in Cancer Surgery

FastGlioma is based on foundation models, a type of AI trained on vast datasets, allowing adaptation across various tasks. The model has shown potential for application in other cancers, including lung, prostate, and breast tumours, without requiring extensive retraining.

Aditya S. Pandey, M.D., chair of neurosurgery at the University of Michigan, affirmed its role in improving surgical outcomes globally, aligning with recommendations to integrate AI into cancer surgery. Researchers aim to expand its use to additional tumour types, potentially reshaping cancer treatment approaches worldwide.