• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    11 months ago

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

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

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

      • NAK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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

          • NAK@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            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?

    • arc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.