Effective altruism is not effective

Re:Effective altruism is not effective by losvedir on Thursday April 15, 2021 @07:43AM (#26819189)

A lot of people believe Q-anon. This is such a shitty, drive by way of asserting something. Do you believe it? If so then make the case, but the way you've dropped this steamy innuendo here without even taking a position on it yourself contributes less than nothing to the discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Effective altruism is not effective by wizzwizz4 on Thursday April 15, 2021 @10:19AM (#26820829)

I haven't looked into it enough; I just remember Cory Doctorow talking about it and thought it was relevant. https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/13/public-interest-pharma/#g... (citing https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine...).

The “a lot” came from the search results for “gates oxford covid patent” (I'd've expected people arguing against it if there was contention in opinion – this isn't the same as “it's fact”), though further investigation (the thing I didn't do; sorry) reveals that I only found two other articles: https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/02/09/patent-capital-... and https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/02/09/patent-capital-... the rest of the results are mirrors.

You're right that it's a rubbish thing to write; I'll put more effort into comments in future.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Effective altruism is not effective by scotty79 on Friday April 16, 2021 @04:17AM (#26831068)

How about this source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2021/02/...

MS. GATES: Well, we, along with many other partners, supported Oxford in saying what really needs to have happened there, they had incredible science, but they had never brought a vaccine to market. And so, they needed to partner with a pharmaceutical company who had expertise bringing a vaccine to market. And so, it was us and many partners that said that's a partnership that ought to happen. Ultimately, Oxford made that decision.

[ Parent | on HN ]