Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

westfan

Corona Virus potential long term impact?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

First, you’re comparing apples and oranges as far as culture and population. Second, waiting times need to be considered also. Third, Bernie isn’t going to be president. 

First, you sure about that?

Screen-Shot-2020-03-19-at-11-02-01-PM.pn

Link

Second I didn't vote for Bernie. :shrug:

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

3tbbc5.jpg

 

Agreed.  It leaves out the fact that US spending subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world.  Cut US spending, however you do it, and spending in Europe will need to increase, or we all take a hit in future medical advances.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Agreed.  It leaves out the fact that US spending subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world.  Cut US spending, however you do it, and spending in Europe will need to increase, or we all take a hit in future medical advances.  

Studies have sown that to only be partially true. From one such study by the NIH:

Quote

 

"Results. The United States accounted for 42% of prescription drug spending and 40% of the total GDP among innovator countries and was responsible for the development of 43.7% of the NMEs. The United Kingdom, Switzerland, and a few other countries innovated proportionally more than their contribution to GDP or prescription drug spending, whereas Japan, South Korea, and a few other countries innovated less.

Conclusions. Higher prescription drug spending in the United States does not disproportionately privilege domestic innovation, and many countries with drug price regulation were significant contributors to pharmaceutical innovation."

 

Link

So the UK and Switzerland (as well as a few other countries) spend a higher percentage of their respective GDP on developing "new molecular entities" than the United States, yet still provide universal healthcare to their citizens.

 

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Studies have sown that to only be partially true. From one such study by the NIH:

Link

So the UK and Switzerland (as well as a few other countries) spend a higher percentage of their respective GDP on developing "new molecular entities" than the United States, yet still provide universal healthcare to their citizens.

 

I believe what HMHB is referring to is the fact that most drugs (even the drugs developed in other countries) are developed with the intention of being sold on the US market to recoup research costs. Data does show that the US is the most profitable market for most (if not all) pharmaceutical companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Los_Aztecas said:

I believe what HMHB is referring to is the fact that most drugs (even the drugs developed in other countries) are developed with the intention of being sold on the US market to recoup research costs. Data does show that the US is the most profitable market for most (if not all) pharmaceutical companies.

I appreciate and understand that, but again, that is only partially true. At present, the pharma revenue generated by the U.S. market is equivalent to what is currently generated in emerging markets, and that proportion is only going to decline. As per McKinsey, emerging markets will account for approx. half of all revenue within five years:

Screen-Shot-2020-03-20-at-1-47-52-PM.png

Link

 

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I appreciate and understand that, but again, that is only partially true. At present, the pharma revenue generated by the U.S. market is equivalent to what is currently generated in emerging markets, and that proportion is only going to decline. As per McKinsey, emerging markets will account for approx. half of all revenue within five years:

Screen-Shot-2020-03-20-at-1-47-52-PM.png

Link

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/784420/share-of-worldwide-pharma-revenue-by-country/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266141/pharmaceutical-spending-per-capita-in-selected-countries/

Due to a their lobby pharmaceutical companies are strongly protected in the US. The US presents over 30% of their income despite being just 5% of the worlds population. The US has the most per capita spending on pharmaceuticals. I don't agree with HMHB's arguments, I don't believe the US needs to give corporate welfare to the detriment of it's citizens, regardless if it may or may not help the rest of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Los_Aztecas said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/784420/share-of-worldwide-pharma-revenue-by-country/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266141/pharmaceutical-spending-per-capita-in-selected-countries/

Due to a their lobby pharmaceutical companies are strongly protected in the US. The US presents over 30% of their income despite being just 5% of the worlds population. The US has the most per capita spending on pharmaceuticals. I don't agree with HMHB's arguments, I don't believe the US needs to give corporate welfare to the detriment of it's citizens, regardless if it may or may not help the rest of the world.

But have you ever wondered why that is? We spend more on prescription drugs than any other nation in the world. We pay more than twice per capita than Britons do and nearly 3x what Swedes pay:

Screen-Shot-2020-03-20-at-7-54-48-PM.png

Link

This bares out when you look at the cost of individual prescription drugs as well:

Screen-Shot-2020-03-20-at-8-06-54-PM.png

(link)

This is due not just to the fact prescription medicine is more expensive here, but is also due to the ridiculously high rate of prescriptions. 70% of Americans take prescription meds (link), while only 46% of Brits do (link).

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2020 at 11:14 PM, TheSanDiegan said:

In all fairness, the UK, Canada, and France - all who provide government-run universal healthcare - all spend way less per capita than we do.

Screen-Shot-2020-03-19-at-10-12-44-PM.pn

Link

Oh we should be very pissed over this.  We give the damn health insurance companies so much money - and they just spend it on private jets, ceo bonuses, effing over their employees, and everything in between, and now we are going to run out of masks, PPE, and all that?  Private sector health insurance needs to go away.  So does Citizens United.  People need a say in this country again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2020 at 5:59 PM, Headbutt said:

Well, actually I called it the "Wuhan Virus".  That's a geographical location, much like the "West Nile".  That would be an accurate name for the disease.  It's typical and generally accepted to name a new disease after it's point of origin.  I guess we should pretend that MERS doesn't stand for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome?

Edit:  I've only called it the Wuhan Virus once, and that was to correct the misstatement that folks were calling it the China Virus.  Wuhan Virus was first used by the WHO.  Most folks call it the Corona Virus or often more accurately Covid19.  Usually, I just call it the virus.

I believe the correct term is the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  The disease is COVID-19. Corona Virus Disease 2019.  Its a member of the Coronavirus family.  There are two known strains right now. The S version, which was very damn deadly to China, the L version - which is rampant in the west.

Just my $0.00002.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2020 at 3:29 PM, toonkee said:

This event has sprung a bout of nationalism. There's this is us against China thing in the air. Can't critique Trump because USA USA. 

Critiquing Trump isn't hurting anyone, it's not dividing the nation. Communities are coming together regardless of politics. Trump is not the USA. It's okay.

Ah Trumps an idiot.  He does a pretty good job at surrounding himself with policy makers and getting to the right decision.  Then he just flips however he likes  to whatever suites his political needs.

The world after this pandemic is over is going to look  different.  Trump had been saying "bring manufacturing back to the USA."  This might be the catalyst that does it.  Does the world become more isolationist?  I don't know.  We are two strains in already. The more chances the virus gets to mutate, the more unpredictable things get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2020 at 11:46 PM, TheSanDiegan said:

Lulwut? No, I don't get the picture. I've lived and worked in the developing world for over half a decade.

France, Japan, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Australia, and Netherlands have healthcare facilities as good as our own. Mexico they are not.

Canada and the UK have way better healthcare systems than ours.  There are a few others out there that are better too.  If you look at it for bang for the buck, I think we might be subsidizing some of these other countries health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Agreed.  It leaves out the fact that US spending subsidizes R&D for the rest of the world.  Cut US spending, however you do it, and spending in Europe will need to increase, or we all take a hit in future medical advances.  

We really need to rework the patent system.  It doesn't work well for technology.  Big Pharma has been able to patent a list of facts. Big Software has too.  Big telco, no - the phone book can't be copyrighted.   Plus, many of these companies receive taxpayer dollars.  Its just not right for them to have such a long term run on ideas.  Keeps the little guys out of the market. Drives up costs.

 

That was the point of the system. Show everyone what you've done, you get an exclusive right to it for a bit.  Then they work on getting taxpayer money to pay for a significant portion of the research.   Its a terrible system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who maybe have a hard time extracting meaning from the plethora of data being generated in what has becomes the largest public health 'experiment' in the history of mankind, Joe Rogan's interview of the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (link) is worth watching.

If you don't have an hour and a half to spare, then at least watch the first 20 minutes. And please understand, this was from 11 days ago, and a LOT has changed in the last week and a half:

And @halfmanhalfbronco, as a hunter you'll dig on the middle segment about Chronic Wasting Disease.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading the last couple of days worth of this thread I was going to jump in here and say that of course Trump knew this was coming, and waited almost two months to act on it, in fact calling it a democrat hoax because he didn't want it to hurt his numbers for reelection. Oh, and he wanted to use Jared's test. 

 

But instead I'll drop what I came here for, because although this would be nice, I still don't see how they could play, with the incubation period being what it is..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Del Scorcho said:

someone mention on Twitter that when you tie your health insurance to your employment/employer, what do you do when suddenly there is 25% unemployment and your in the middle of a pandemic

You’re phucked. That’s one of many bad ramifications of this pandemic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...