• phoenixzEnglish
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    When it’s inevitably going to be a lot less than that, will you eat your words?

    • FaceDeer
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      If it cost ten thousand dollars I’d throw an enormous party. That’s already a very small price for a cancer treatment.

      • NAKEnglish
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Right? Bunch of morons who never had cancer, or never knew anyone who was diagnosed and treated for cancer, thinking a 10k treatment is expensive.

        Communism Stan’s be Stanning

        • gamermanhEnglish
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          10k is expensive

          Less expensive than now? Yes

          Still expensive

          • NAKEnglish
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            10 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            That’s zero sum thinking.

            If it was 10k that is, literally, an order of magnitude cheaper.

            You can’t have it both ways. The people who I know who have had cancer, and had it treated, the cost has been well over 100k. Some over 200k. That’s per time. If it came back it would cost that all over again.

            So which is it. Is it evil that a new treatment could cost 90% less? Or should the capitalists do what they do and charge 300k for this better treatment?

    • GanbatEnglish
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      As soon as you stop eating that pharma boot, homie.

    • arcEnglish
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      The article suggests the vaccine prevents the recurrence of a specific cancer by 44% vs conventional treatment alone. So let’s be pessimists and say it only prevents recurrence by 22%. Should we eat our words that still 1/5th of people who’d otherwise die or suffer horribly from a recurring cancer now don’t?

      I think I would be more skeptical of the eventual price of this treatment and less about its effectiveness.