Joseph Scheiber's contribution to fighting the Coronavirus.

Philosophy Professor Joseph Scheiber writes in 3 Quarks

There is something intuitively appealing about the idea that you should be rewarded in relation to the work that you’ve done or the results that you’ve achieved. It’s the basis of the well-known children’s fable, “The Little Red Hen”, in which the hen tries to get her fellow barnyard animals (dog, goose, etc.) to help her sow the seeds, reap the wheat, grind the grain, and bake the bread. Since none of the other animals are willing to help, when the bread is done the hen eats it all herself. In fact, the fable is so intuitively plausible that folksy free-market hero Ronald Reagan — pre-Presidency — used it himself.
The idea behind “The Little Red Hen” is so intuitively appealing that it’s not just limited to free market views. Even socialist thinkers from pre-Marxists like Ricardian socialists to later theorists like Lenin and Trotsky embraced the formula, “To each according to his works”, rather than Marx’s “To each according to his needs”.

What Marx actually said was 'To each according to his contribution'. Only once people work purely for the pleasure of it will they happily given away what they produce to whoever needs it.

Wikipedia states
 Capitalism can lead to a situation where the means of production are owned by a small minority who do not produce, but rather live off the labor of others. Socialism is said to remedy this by putting the means of production in common hands and rewarding individuals according to their contributions.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, while criticizing Lassalle's ideas, Marx elaborates on the theory. According to Marx's analysis of the Programme, Lassalle suggests that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society". While agreeing that the citizens of a workers' society should be rewarded according to individual contributions, Marx claims that giving them the "full product" of their labor is impossible as some of the proceeds will be needed to maintain infrastructure and so forth.^[5] He then explains the nature of a communist society in its lower phase (socialist society), which does not emerge from its own foundations "but, on the contrary, .. from capitalist society; [and] thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges". And so, "accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it". He explains this as:

What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

In the paragraph immediately following Marx continues to explain how this system of exchange is related to the capitalist system of exchange:

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Marx says that this is rational and necessary, and that once society advances from the lower phase of communist society and work becomes life's prime want, distribution will occur along different lines. During the higher phase of communism, the standard shall be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Indeed, in a very useful paper, Luc Bovens and Adrien Lutz trace back the dual threads of “to each according to his works” and “to each according to his needs” to the New Testament. So, for example, in Romans 2:6, we see that God “will render to each one according to his works” (compare Matthew 16:27, 1 Corinthians 3:8).
In contrast, in Acts 4:35, we read that “There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold … and it was distributed to each as any had need” (compare Acts 2:45).
The deep textual roots of these two rival maxims suggests that each exerts a strong intuitive pull — though perhaps not equally strong to everyone.

Lord Jesus Christ said 'Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.' If one believes the world is about to end it is a good idea to give away all your worldly possessions so as to get a ticket to eternal bliss. This is the true kergymatic kernel of the Gospel. It isn't a matter of intuition but Faith.

Public health emergencies, however, reveal the fragility inherent in the motto of “to each according to his works” when it comes to health systems.

Nonsense! During a public health emergency we give power, money and respect to those whose 'works' make them particularly useful to society in terms of solving the problem. We also favor our own and keep out those who might endanger us. However, there is an 'externality' when it comes to infectious diseases. It makes sense to spend money immunising or isolating those one comes in contact with.

Everyone’s health is interconnected, and that the ability of each individual to fight infection depends in part on everyone else’s having done their part.
The most recent illustration of this comes from the threat of a pandemic of the newly-discovered COVID-19 virus. One of the effects of this threat is that it has led to strong questions about economic inequality and fairness of access to medical supplies and a potential vaccine.

Where? China? North or South Korea? Italy? Iran? These are the worst affected countries. There have been questions asked about the competence and transparency of Government agencies in these countries. But, precisely because infectious diseases are like deranged serial killers, a lot of money will be spent tracking down those who pose a danger.

For example, there was a widespread outcry when the current United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, refused to guarantee that a vaccine for the COVID-19 virus would be affordable for all.

What he said was ' We would want to ensure that we work to make it affordable, but we can't control that price, because we need the private sector to invest.. Price controls won't get us there.' That's perfectly sensible. It's a good idea to make greedy Pharma companies work their butts off developing a vaccine.

Those comments sparked renewed attention to Mr. Azar’s own troubling history with questionable pharmaceutical price increases.
In the ten years from 2007 until his nomination to the HHS position in 2017 in which Mr. Azar worked for the drug manufacturer Eli Lilly, that company recorded a three-fold increase in the price of insulin. This is despite the fact that insulin, which is necessary for diabetes sufferers to manage their condition, has not been substantially improved since its first medical use almost a century ago.

So, Azar knows what motivates the Pharma industry. He also knows that successive administrations have done nothing to prevent this sort of price fixing. To an outsider, the American system seems deeply corrupt. The problem is not Capitalism it is unfair Trade practices and a conspiracy in restraint of trade- the sort of thing which the Common Law prohibits and Adam Smith used to bang on about.

This outcry, while understandable, actually misses the deeper point about why Mr. Azar’s actions should concern us. Even if someone resists the moral pull of “to each according to his needs” in favor of the competing maxim “to each according to his works”, the application of that maxim in the case of public health emergencies can lead to catastrophe for all.

How? I am very poor and far more in need of grant money to develop a poetic cure for this terrible disease. Yet, I am not given any money even by the Gates Foundation. Instead they give a lot of cash to so called 'Scientists' who live in fancy apartments and drive nice cars. For me this is a catastrophe. For the public, it is a blessing.

On the other hand, it is very important for the rich people in the neighborhood in which I live that people like me are properly screened and, if affected, properly segregated. Shooting me and burning my body is one way to contain the epidemic. But it creates an incentive for me to go on the run thus increasing the risk to the rich. So, the sensible course is to get me medical treatment if I am affected.

More generally, 'risk pooling' through collective, perhaps compulsory, insurance is the solution to problems of this sort. You don't have to turning everything upside down in order to fix eminently fixable things. Talking shite about fairness or equality is a waste of time and leads to worse outcomes.

Public health experts note that two of the most important weapons in the fight against pandemics are early detection of those infected and widespread vaccination.

Everybody notes this. What is more important still is that smart people research vaccines and cures and stuff of that sort.

The “to each according to his works” model of healthcare removes both of those weapons from our arsenal.

How? People produce wealth by working. If they pay into an insurance scheme or if their taxes are used to finance health care then it is still the case that healthcare is allocated 'according to works' not needs. Thus, if everybody in a country stopped working, though they may become more needy, still they won't get shit.

When Mr. Azar, who is himself a lawyer and has no medical or public health expertise, fails to guarantee that any COVID-19 vaccine will be widely available, he weakens the effectiveness of vaccines as a weapon against the spread of infection.

Coz words have magical powers. The truth is, under the present dispensation, saying to Big Pharma 'guys, you'll make a shedload of money if you are the first to develop a vaccine' is a sensible thing to do.

Vaccines work best when they’re distributed widely among at-risk populations.

Everybody know this. That's why Azar said he wants the thing to be affordable. The truth is poor people will get it for free because there is an externality. This isn't altruism. It is economics.

Mr. Azar’s comments, in other words, are an indication that the Administration fails to grasp that — unlike Presidential pardons, perhaps — public health crises do not discriminate on the basis of celebrity or outsize wealth. Rather, the health of each one of us depends on all of us doing our part.

Very true! Your health depends on philosophers and poets doing their part.

The “to each according to his works” model also threatens the other weapon against pandemic, early detection. If only those who can afford to get tested for COVID-19 report themselves to authorities, then we won’t know how widespread the disease in fact is.

So, the rules need to be changed because of an externality which causes 'market failure'.

To take an extreme example of this, the Miami Herald recently reported on Osmel Martinez Azcue, who sought a test for COVID-19 after returning from a work trip to China and experiencing flu-like symptoms. Although Azcue was simply acting in the way recommended by the Centers for Disease Control to be in the best interests of public health, he now faces thousands of dollars of medical bills from his insurance company, the hospital where he sought testing for the virus, and the individual doctors who treated him.

But hard cases should not be allowed to make bad laws. The Americans could have reformed their crazy health system long ago. But Democracy means never having to say you're sorry you keep doing stupid shit.

Unfortunately, these troubling examples seem themselves to be systematic of wider trends that do not inspire confidence in the ability of the United States to deal with the growing threat of COVID-19.

Last year, a panel of experts looked at the likely effects of a coronavirus outbreak. So far their predictions of what would happen seem about right. They assumed that the epicenter would be Germany not China which meant that it would spread more quickly in the West. It was lucky that this time the center was in China where the State can take draconian measures.

The plain fact is that public health crises require restrictions on Freedom which may be very unfair and discriminatory. Equality does not matter. Indeed, poorer countries are likely to take a bigger hit than wealthy ones. 

Profit-seeking is already causing obstacles to efforts to combat the public health risk posed by COVID-19. Stockpiling and price-hikes are making it difficult for medical personnel to acquire the masks and protective gear they need to stop spreading infection further.

But profit-seeking is solving the problem by causing more of scarce commodities to be produced. Those masks and protective gear weren't manufactured out of love. The motive was profit. 

Although the United States has lost valuable time in planning for this impending health care crisis while it was still contained in China, it is not too late to take steps to blunt the impact of the infection. In order to do so, however, the Administration must appreciate that pandemics do not distinguish on the basis of immigration status, ethnicity, or income. 

So the philosopher is telling the US Administration that rich people can fall ill just as easily as poor people. Does he think they don't know this? 

To fight COVID-19 effectively, we must begin by appreciating that we’re all in this together.

But we're not. Philosophers and poets aren't being asked to help 'fight COVID-19'. Why? It is because we are useless. No doubt, we can write an article saying 'President Trump must appreciate that rich white men can die same as poor black women'. But we are unlikely to get a Nobel Prize for this great medical discovery. It may seem unfair, but the truth is one's contribution to a debate is seldom proportionate to one's need for acclamation.