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

31–40 of 68 posts

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

#31

Post by dataflow »

mikedilger wrote: post #30
dataflow wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Number one argument I hear is “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”. And to some extent, they’re right, you know. Aren't people saying the government does compensate people who experience side effects? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

I clicked on "Covered Vaccines". The COVID-19 vaccines aren't on the list.

Was the comment about COVID-19 vaccines specifically or about vaccines in general? I thought the latter.

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

#32

Post by refurb »

At face value this doesn't seem unreasonable. Pfizer is offering to supply a vaccine that is generally being approved under emergency conditions, could cause harm to recipients (even a small number) which would put the company at risk of hundreds of civil lawsuits across the globe.

Western countries generally have vaccine funds where the gov't promises to shoulder the burden of any vaccine injuries. This shields the manufactures from liability. When France or the UK say they will cover the costs you can count on their word. When developing countries say this, you may want some way to hold them to the promise.

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

#33

Post by refurb »

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 and the reason why vaccine injury funds were developed are:

"It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases."

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

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

#34

Post by refurb »

realityking wrote: post #18
pkaye wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The FAQs make it seem like it's not as straightforward.

"Most of the time, you must first file and have your claim processed with the VICP before a civil lawsuit can be filed against the vaccine company or the person who gave the vaccine"

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

#35

Post by vmception »

refurb wrote: post #33
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 and the reason why vaccine injury funds were developed are: "It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases." https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

based

lol, these are our role models

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

#36

Post by RikNieu »

jollybean wrote: post #15
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 i…

That argument might hold... but other commenters here suggested the same terms were put to first world countries, like the US and UK.

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

#37

Post by refurb »

mikedilger wrote: post #30
dataflow wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Number one argument I hear is “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”. And to some extent, they’re right, you know. Aren't people saying the government does compensate people who experience side effects? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

I clicked on "Covered Vaccines". The COVID-19 vaccines aren't on the list.

It's under a separate program for products used during pandemics (versus just routine vaccines).

https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp

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

#38

Post by whoaisme »

I really like how people are making comparisons to the US, as if South Africa is a real country rather than a failed state on a bad day and a typical African state on a good one. What's more likely? Pfizer is trying to take over South Africa with their miracle vaccine or a bunch of ANC goods are trying to shake them down because that's all they do in that country?

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

#39

Post by sschueller »

realityking wrote: post #22
sschueller wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

From your link: > By 1999 the average claim took two years to resolve, and 42% of resolved claims were awarded compensation, as compared with 23% for medical malpractice claims through the tort system. That doesn’t seem like “very little”. Or do you mean the amount paid out for successful claims is lower than in regular court?

I'm referring to the cost of healthcare in the U.S. compared to the awarded amount. If serious health effects exist I assume the care will exceed the amount awarded.

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

#40

Post by pvaldes »

tebbers wrote: post #7
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’m pretty sure this is the case in the UK too - Pfizer basically immune from any claims resulting from side effects etc.

So they can focus in continue saving millions of lives since December, providing a solution that works in a record short amount of time.

It seems a fair deal for society

Post reply on HN