[selcuka]

> Now, if we’re shifting to why advances are often generally available

But it's not me who is shifting, right? The claim was:

> Science and technology, I feel, has always had a certain apathy towards the plight [of] the people at the bottom rungs.

not

> The claim was that average people don’t benefit from medical advances

My point is to reject the claim that the high availability of vaccines is a counter-example. It's a political decision, not a science/technology related one.

[brookst]

You’re still getting at motives rather than facts, which means it’s unfalsibisble.

If you’re going to say that fact X is not a counter/example because [subjective, speculative reasons] then I’m confident you’ll never find a fact that contradicts your beliefs. There will always be some “oh, well the bridge collapsed, but it wasn’t bad engineering it was political reasons, so it doesn’t count as a collapse.”

[selcuka]

What I said is not subjective/speculative. It is not even unfalsifiable.

To restate, COVID vaccine can't be used as an example of "science/technology's sympathy towards the bottom rungs". They were only accessible because governments purchased those vaccines from science/technology companies and gave away for free. Companies developed it to make profit.

If the governments didn't purchase billions of doses at a subsidised price, most people wouldn't be able to afford it [1]. I don't see how this conclusion is subjective, speculative, or unfalsifiable?

[1] https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/covid-19-vaccines-what-i...