Thread by @DanFinn95

In 1992, the US Institute of Medicine predicted future pandemics and warned that Big Pharma couldn't be relied upon to develop vaccines: "There may be potentially catastrophic consequences if the development process is left entirely to free enterprise."

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK23484…

It's not a question of morality, just market incentives: it's simply not profitable to preemptively develop vaccines for potential threats. The incentives only come into play when, for example, you have a global pandemic with over a million deaths and massive economic damage.

This problem will still be with us even if we have a working vaccine for COVID-19—unless you assume this virus crossing over into the human population was a one-off fluke that we need never worry about again. Otherwise we need permanent public research.

jacobinmag.com/2020/07/one-wo…

That's to say nothing about Pfizer's dubious track record to date, which isn't simply erased from the balance-sheet because it may have developed a vaccine (and not out of charitable impulses—its share price jumped 15% yesterday).

corp-research.org/pfizer

An FT journalist might want to explain some of this to readers, but hey, there's a chance to dunk on "hardcore Corbynistas". The parochiality reminds me of a line in "The Butcher Boy" about the Cuban Missile Crisis: "It'll be a sad day for this town if the world comes to an end."