Because a course of monoclonal antibody treatment costs $5000, whereas a vaccine could be had for dollars
The right way would be to compare number of people vaccinated to prevent one person falling so ill they require monoclonals. Since this >> 1, the financial calculations aren't so straightforward.
Instead we should have ramped up production of these game changing drugs. Why didn’t we?
Also, prior to COVID, monoclonal antibodies were being tested in single digit numbers of patients with highly aggressive cancers at a cost of $500K per treatment. The cost has come down 100x, so it's inaccurate to claim production hasn't ramped up. It has, it's just still way more cost effective to get a vaccine.
It's never ethical to compel the innocent to do anything.
A shifting of the incentives would be far more ethical, but difficult politically - perhaps make people who are unvaccinated pay a greater percentage of their treatment, or need to take special insurance. I'd advocate that kind of thing for most things relating to personal/lifestyle choice, obesity being a good example, giving better premiums to non-smokers, vegetarians etc but when the numbers of (possible) patients becomes big then it's unlikely to be taken up either by an electorate nor by a politician.
That's ignoring how many health systems seem fundamentally broken for other reasons (e.g. US and UK).
What does that even mean? Innocent of what, having an immune system?
Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people. The government absolutely leaned on business to make that happen in order to avoid a direct mandate.
Innocent of a crime. That's it's usual meaning, and we compel those guilty of crimes to do things they don't want to.
> Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people.
That's not an incentive, that's a punishment. I do agree, however, that it is a form of compulsion (a compulsion is never also an incentive).
I don't know why everyone's up in arms about this particular vaccine. Kids around the world are given vaccines for polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hiaemophilus influenza type b (Hib), diarrhea, smallpox etc.
Why is everyone up in arms about this particular vaccine, esp. when the mRNA based ones don't even have any part of the virus? I can't think of any reason other than stupid/criminal politicians on the right using whatever slogans they can to influence their sheeple to maintain their foothold. Jeez.
Why I'm referring to them is because the only members of society we usually compel to do anything are:
- children - those in the military - those guilty of a crime - those who have lost their mind
Adults innocent of a crime, not in the military, and who are compos mentis are not subject to compulsion - to compel them would likely be a crime.
> I don't know why everyone's up in arms about this particular vaccine.
I am not everyone and I am not up in arms about the vaccine, I am responding to the element of compulsion and violation of the normal situation of legal standing between an individual and the government (who would be the ones doing the compelling). If you compel someone to get any of the other vaccines listed, then I would be "up in arms" about that too.
From [1]:
> An invasive procedure is one where purposeful/deliberate access to the body is gained via an incision, percutaneous puncture, where instrumentation is used in addition to the puncture needle, or instrumentation via a natural orifice. It begins when entry to the body is gained and ends when the instrument is removed, and/or the skin is closed. Invasive procedures are performed by trained healthcare professionals using instruments, which include, but are not limited to, endoscopes, catheters, scalpels, scissors, devices and tubes.
Without the consent of the person it would constitute a serious form of assault and battery, a common law crime that stretches back at least 1000 years. I do hope that you or anyone else is not subject to such things on a daily basis.
Are you?
The assumption that vaccines would end the pandemic was also based on the idea they would stop transmission. This turned out to be wrong. Vaccines are excellent at preventing hospitalization but do a crappy job stopping transmission.
So when we have vaccines who are only excellent at self-protection and we also have a cure, I don’t see why we would compel anyone to take something they don’t want to.
I'm also curious what is acceptable about monoclonal antibodies, but not the vaccine? They've been developed by the same types of scientists, on a similar timeline to the mRNA vaccine technology, and they work on similar fundamentals, but the MCAs are a less effective solution in terms of cost, production, deployment, and long term protection. The whole thing just seems like a temper tantrum with no rational basis.
I don’t know since I’m vaccinated. I just think people should have a choice.
I wonder what other populations you might compel to do things - or not - for the "herd" and their health. My guess is it would look cruel and capricious very quickly, much like any other tyranny.
So do we test everyone all the time to determine whether they need the stuff? If they test positive, how do we encourage them to take the MCA? Or we could give them to everyone all the time, continually, as a prophylaxis. I'm sure that would to over well.
You could also limit the prophylaxis to particularly endangered folks, but you'd still fill the hospitals with not particularly endangered people who drew the short straw.
That's essentially what we are doing, except the not particularly endangered people can just get the vaccination.