[Goose]

I am probably much less sanguine about the positive effects of the government's involvement in this effort. The epidemic is not similar to the Manhattan project or even the moon race. In the first case the program was totally secret, so there were no annoying questions about fairness or strategy and the project was fortunate enough to be very well led. The moon race wasn't secret, but there were few questions asked (until the Apollo fire). There was one path ahead and the design was fixed at an early date. There were several important leaders involved in the program who had a vision of how it should be done, and they got their way. They weren't always right, but having a "way ahead" is real important. Often in government programs that isn't the case.

History is replete with government programs to solve health and social issues that spend money and accomplish nothing. These types of problems are less susceptible to a "big push" because the way ahead is not clear and a multiple pronged approach is best. Lots of money and effort are often spent on the wrong things. Scaling up a manufacturing process that hasn't been fully defined yet can lead to facilities that must be significantly modified before they can be used, and those modifications may actually take longer than building a new plant. This is not to say there is no place for such a program, but it needs to be carefully managed by a competent group of people in order to actually be useful. Where are those people coming from and who are they? It makes a big difference.

I believe the government should be more involved in a "worst case" scenario. What if we don't have a vaccine in 12 months, or even longer? While many experts believe we can do it in that time frame, none of them are saying it is a "for sure" or a slam dunk. Even if we have a vaccine, we won't really know how protective it is and for how long. There will have been no time to determine those things. It is also possible that developing this vaccine will be much more difficult than we expect. Not probable, but it could happen. What then? This is an area where I think we need  government involvement, because the private sector isn't going to dedicate big resources to a problem that the odds are won't exist. However, six months ago COVID-10 wasn't known to exist. We need a "plan b" in place in case the vaccine plan is slower than anticipated or falls on it's face.

[Goose]

I am probably much less sanguine about the positive effects of the government's involvement in this effort. The epidemic is not similar to the Manhattan project or even the moon race. In the first case the program was totally secret, so there were no annoying questions about fairness or strategy and the project was fortunate enough to be very well led. The moon race wasn't secret, but there were few questions asked (until the Apollo fire). There was one path ahead and the design was fixed at an early date. There were several important leaders involved in the program who had a vision of how it should be done, and they got their way. They weren't always right, but having a "way ahead" is real important. Often in government programs that isn't the case.

History is replete with government programs to solve health and social issues that spend money and accomplish nothing. These types of problems are less susceptible to a "big push" because the way ahead is not clear and a multiple pronged approach is best. Lots of money and effort are often spent on the wrong things. Scaling up a manufacturing process that hasn't been fully defined yet can lead to facilities that must be significantly modified before they can be used, and those modifications may actually take longer than building a new plant. This is not to say there is no place for such a program, but it needs to be carefully managed by a competent group of people in order to actually be useful. Where are those people coming from and who are they? It makes a big difference.

I believe the government should be more involved in a "worst case" scenario. What if we don't have a vaccine in 12 months, or even longer? While many experts believe we can do it in that time frame, none of them are saying it is a "for sure" or a slam dunk. Even if we have a vaccine, we won't really know how protective it is and for how long. There will have been no time to determine those things. It is also possible that developing this vaccine will be much more difficult than we expect. Not probable, but it could happen. What then? This is an area where I think we need  government involvement, because the private sector isn't going to dedicate big resources to a problem that the odds are won't exist. However, six months ago COVID-10 wasn't known to exist. We need a "plan b" in place in case the vaccine plan is slower than anticipated or falls on it's face.