What would you pay...

[Gregg]

What would you pay for a vaccine that would be 100% effective as a cure/preventative starting today? Limited supply only 2 Million doses for the USA. No more of this one coming. Does not preclude that there might be a different less positive percentage cure/prevention on the horizon but that is an unknown.

If you would not pay it for yourself would you pay it for someone else?

[Gregg]

Anti-Vaxxers??

[Mithrandir]

Anti-Vaxxers??

Nope. Not wealthy enough to afford it.

[Gregg]

Nope. Not wealthy enough to afford it.

Wait...you know the cost? What is it?

All kidding aside I asked what you would pay.

[Ken]

Wait...you know the cost? What is it?

All kidding aside I asked what you would pay.

The premise of the question doesn't make sense though. Limited to only 2 million for the US? I'm not among the 2 million most susceptible, so I don't think it would be right for me to buy it in the first place.

And how much I would pay depends on how much it costs. Are we paying a price gouging company so they can get rich off a pandemic? Or are we covering the manufacturing costs and staffing and supply chain? If simply covering the costs and not dealing with price gouging, and the supply was not limited to the extent that me getting one would prevent someone at higher risk, then I suspect I'd likely pay the market rate for those services.

[swampdragon]

I too don't quite get the question

there are 330 million in the US and there is a supply for 2 million - who gets it? the highest bidders? probably none of us could afford it then - it would really be limited at a minimum the top 1% of wealth

[chancellor]

It's an "it depends" answer. If I had the vaccine, and I then could work without restrictions, I'd pay $10k for it. If it wouldn't change my work situation, I'd not bother.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I also don't get the question or the point to it.

Is the point--would you pay for a 'for sure' and if so--how much? Is it then wrapped up into an 'if you can only save so many people, who would you save' morality question? The second cure is not sure thing so are you also trying to find out how someone would balance the ethical choice of who for sure lives and who might live, but possibly die?

It's a bad question in the form it's in--please clarify and ask again if you would.

Thanks.

[heyelander]

I don't think I would buy... there are more needy people than me, so I wouldn't want to deprive them. Would I buy it for my parents? They have lived and wouldn't want to take it from the more needy. Would I buy it for my niece and nephew? probably not. they are young a low risk. My brother because he has kids to raise? Maybe, I could understand him taking it.

Would I think differently were I crazy rich and the money wasn't an issue? Maybe, but that would be because I was crazy rich and probably had a different outlook on life through a grander scale of entitlement.

[Gregg]

You guys are awesome!

I forgot who I was talking to. I was just trying have some fun in the Sports Bar. Start and have a little conversation. My knee jerk reaction was to say you are all overthinking this or at least my intention of how or what I was asking.

This has taken a whole different path than I expected.

Thanks to all who responded.

[Gregg]

I also don't get the question or the point to it.

Is the point--would you pay for a 'for sure' and if so--how much? Is it then wrapped up into an 'if you can only save so many people, who would you save' morality question? The second cure is not sure thing so are you also trying to find out how someone would balance the ethical choice of who for sure lives and who might live, but possibly die?

It's a bad question in the form it's in--please clarify and ask again if you would.

Thanks.

Yes I was trying to see how much a "for sure cure" but also a for sure prevention. You and yours could walk around without personal fear of the virus. It had to be this way to avoid fake or ineffective solutions that would limit the value.

I was not looking at this as a who gets on the ark solution. I also didn't not want it to be the highest bidder as that does not tell us anything about how we value the risk reward of the solution. If it were a dollar per dose I assume we all would partake. If it was $1000 per dose or more we might have to stretch. If it were $1M per dose I assume it would not matter to most of us. I did not want anyone to assume you cannot afford it. That would not gauge how you would value.

When I wrote the topic, I was not intending to make it a moral choice. So that took a turn away from what I was thinking. I am not sure I know how to rewrite the question to eliminate the moral part and get a feel for the value of a solution.

I think Chance answered most closely what I was asking. And yes my intention that he would be able to go back to work. He could walk around with no fear of ever catching the virus.

My number based on what I can sacrifice/stretch would be $5k for two doses (Mrs Gregg and self). I would sacrifice my dose for the aged scientist who would actually come up with the cure for all if I knew who he was. But that was not part of my thoughts when I wrote the question.

[swampdragon]

I listen to handful of podcasts regularly - - this is one of them - The Anthropocene Reviewed

this one might be of interest to you (in reference to your scientist idea) - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts...toes-leningrad

and the tetris part is cool too

[Vecmizer]

I will pass. This is how most zombie movies start. Vaccine goes horribly wrong!