Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

mg.co.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 68 posts

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#11

Post by pkaye »

paulddraper wrote: post #2

> During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead. Aren't those "unreasonable" terms already the case in the U.S.? There's no liability, right?

Yes you cannot go through a normal court. The US uses a vaccination compensation fund. If someone is harmed by vaccines, they can make a claim with evidence in a special court and the court will determine the compensation. Each dose sold has a 25 cent surcharge to fund these claims. For Covid I think they will do it differently since the government is paying directly.

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#12

Post by Dma54rhs »

sschueller wrote: post #3
paulddraper wrote: post #2

> During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead. Aren't those "unreasonable" terms already the case in the U.S.? There's no liability, right?

I think the difference is that in the U.S. there is a law that protects Pfizer from lawsuits. In South Africa they wanted assets incase such a law isn't enforced or exists?

But who foots the bill when you have problems with your heart afterwards? I mean in America where everything is private, is there some sort of fund for it?

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#13

Post by RikNieu »

"This would apply even if the case were brought due to the company’s own acts of negligence, fraud or malice."

Uh, yeah, no. I fully support my country's stance on this. We simply cannot afford to indemnify an multinational company from their own product.

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#14

Post by sschueller »

Dma54rhs wrote: post #12
sschueller wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference is that in the U.S. there is a law that protects Pfizer from lawsuits. In South Africa they wanted assets incase such a law isn't enforced or exists?

But who foots the bill when you have problems with your heart afterwards? I mean in America where everything is private, is there some sort of fund for it?

yes, there is general fund [1] for all vaccination side affects but it pays out "very little". I don't know if the covid vaccine is part of that fund however

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen...

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#15

Post by jollybean »

RikNieu wrote: post #13

"This would apply even if the case were brought due to the company’s own acts of negligence, fraud or malice." Uh, yeah, no. I fully support my country's stance on this. We simply cannot afford to indemnify an multinational company from their own product.

Then they simply may not sell it.

The potential liabilities are gigantic, and the risk calculation may put the equation under water.

It's the problem with a lot of medical products, particularly vaccines which are hard for pharma companies to market.

But it's made worse in regimes that are either litigious, have little in the way of caps over civil claims, or have Justice Systems which are compromised.

South Africa is a very corrupt state, it's just too easy for that system to act in a way that does not have integrity.

That's the real world risk/reward equation and it's unavoidable.

It's for similar reasons that it's a lot harder to raise financing for building infrastructure in SA (or anything else) than otherwise - the interest rates charged are considerably more as there's greater risk of failure, or problems, and even addressing commercial concerns becomes difficult if the justice system is compromised. For this reason, the loans to SA would have those risks 'priced in' at much higher interest rates ... which by the way is the other way pharma companies would normally give on the indemnity issue negotiation - by raising prices, but price becomes a problem for other ethical reasons.

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#16

Post by xyzzy123 »

RikNieu wrote: post #13

"This would apply even if the case were brought due to the company’s own acts of negligence, fraud or malice." Uh, yeah, no. I fully support my country's stance on this. We simply cannot afford to indemnify an multinational company from their own product.

Reading closely, it looks like they are still indemnified. It seems like the only term that was struck out was the one demanding sovereign assets as collateral.

With my cynical hat on, that clause feels like a tactic - an unreasonable demand that tests desperation but also allows for a face-saving concession in negotiations.

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#17

Post by jollybean »

sschueller wrote: post #3
paulddraper wrote: post #2

> During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead. Aren't those "unreasonable" terms already the case in the U.S.? There's no liability, right?

I think the difference is that in the U.S. there is a law that protects Pfizer from lawsuits. In South Africa they wanted assets incase such a law isn't enforced or exists?

The other difference is that US courts and other civil institutions have integrity. Outside of the civilized world it's a little bit 'no man's land' - SA's former leader is going to jail on corruption charges, and the country let lose with mass violence.

If there ever was an interesting example of 'information suppression' (or avoidance), and there are many, it's the problems recently in SA. There's so little coverage of the insane violence.

It's reasonable that a company is not going to want subject themselves to that system.

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#18

Post by realityking »

pkaye wrote: post #11
paulddraper wrote: post #2

> During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead. Aren't those "unreasonable" terms already the case in the U.S.? There's no liability, right?

Yes you cannot go through a normal court. The US uses a vaccination compensation fund. If someone is harmed by vaccines, they can make a claim with evidence in a special court and the court will determine the compensation. Each dose sold has a 25 cent surcharge to fund these claims. For Covid I think they will do it differently since the government is paying directly. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.h…

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program doesn’t seem to prevent you from going through a regular court. From your link

> The special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine.

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#19

Post by teh_infallible »

sschueller wrote: post #4

What I would find interesting to know if people would trust more a vaccine from their government (for example the CDC) or a private vaccine maker that has immunity and wants to make a profit? Also how this differs from country to country.

The CDC holds patents for vaccines.

Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal

#20

Post by beebeepka »

paulddraper wrote: post #2

> During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead. Aren't those "unreasonable" terms already the case in the U.S.? There's no liability, right?

You think it's reasonable to let companies rake huge profits without any responsibility? And that's how it should be... because it's the norm in America?

I find this world view concerning

Post reply on HN