Over the last couple of days, we have heard encouraging news that researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) have developed s multifaceted Spike Ferritin Nanoparticle (SpFN) COVID-19 vaccine which in theory may provide broader protection against a variety of respiratory viruses and their mutations; results from early animal testing are encouraging.
The reactions of Twitter leftists are predictable, although some libertarians have related talking points. The leftists generally have an anti-capitalist/anti-profit perspective. They seem to think the profit motive is morally unacceptable for goods and services. Of course, there are two parts to the equation: price and cost. The private sector understands the law of supply and demand. If you raise the price of a widget, you sell fewer widgets During the 1870's, Rockefeller dropped the price of kerosene from 26 to 8 cents a gallon while gaining 90% of market share, doing it at a profit. Part of the story was costs and efficiency. Part of the check on prices is competition, which Rockefeller faced domestically and internationally in global markets. Rockefeller also felt supply challenges as his Pennsylvania oilfields began to deplete and substitute supplies, sulfur-based, posed technological challenges.
Government creates problems, doesn't solve them. Price caps below a market clearing price lead to shortages (e.g., rent control) and above lead to surplus (a classic example being government cheese)..There are other restrictions, like minimum wages or prices, price gouging, and margin caps, and regulatory compliance costs. Government also constrains supplies (e.g., bans, quotas, tariffs, "buy American", immigration restrictions, occupational licenses, drilling and other permits, zoning restrictions), and innumerable mandates on industry and personnel.
Of course, this also applies to the pharmaceutical industry which must incur steep development costs and undergo multiple phases of animal and human subject testing to fulfill efficacy and safety criteria to earn FDA and/or CDC approval, before they can market a related drug, vaccine or device. Up to years and billions in costs can be sunk into an investment which ultimately fails. Unlike the government which can compel payment of involuntary taxes at the point of a gun, a business must ultimately cover its costs and investments through voluntary transactions.
Part of the leftist response has to with IP claims, particularly the assertion that the mRNA vaccine vendors Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are using IP rights to deprive the developing world of vaccines. (There's also a kerfuffle between Moderna and government scientists over IP rights) There's no doubt that vaccine revenue is significant at nearly 60% of Pfizer revenue over the past year. Pfizer (which splits vaccine revenue with its partner) sells its shots at just under $20/dose from the USG, comparable to a flu shot; it did not accept R&D funding. They claim normal vaccine revenues at $150/shot. Moderna did receive R&D funding and reportedly sells at a discounted government rate of roughly $15/dose in quantity. (International purchasers have purchased at lower prices.) There have been supply chain issues in expanding to hundreds of millions or billions of doses. Granted, demand far exceeds supply, particularly in the developing world. I don't believe the IP issue is the prevailing issue here; the developing world needs to scale up its own pharmaceutical base. Even when Russia broadly licensed its own vaccine technology, the firms in question had supply issues scaling up production. We don't know how long the pandemic will last and/or whether the disease will transition into an endemic/seasonal disease. Companies make different decisions on expansion if the circumstances are perceived as transitional in nature.
Another Twitter troll argued that the Army should put its vaccine technology in the public domain. Well, what about the taxpayer getting some payback on its investment? The Army could license its technology. I have issues with the government competing against the private sector. Few companies can compete against a government $28T in debt.
As mentioned below, IP is controversial among libertarians. I, like proto-libertarian Lysander Spooner, tend to be broadly supportive, although I would limit claims, e.g., during the lifetime or short period of time.
Other leftist media like Slate looks at other factors. (I was surprised Slate is still around.) Among other things, Slate pondered whether the fact that the Army produced a vaccine might appeal to right-wing libertarians or turn off anti-military leftists. First, most libertarians, unlike me, are vaccine skeptics. They are fixated on the mandate question, not who the producer is; I'm sure they might object to a soldier jabbing civilians. Not to mention most libertarians have an issue with the size and scope of the military. Finally, both leftists and libertarians have an issue with crony capitalism, with one leftist troll writing a populist tweet targeting Congressmen with stock investments in Pfizer or Moderna.
