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

41–50 of 68 posts

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

#41

Post by nodejs_rulez_1 »

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.

If the defendant is not an individual male then UK courts are not interested.

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

#42

Post by pverghese »

beebeepka wrote: post #20
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

If you dont expect quick vaccination then you can obviously deny the company from providing it. But alas, you cant have your cake and eat it too

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

#43

Post by darwingr »

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.

Too late for that. Indemnity is a condition of Emergency Use Authorization in place by the FDA in the USA, Canada, anywhere else I know of.

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

#44

Post by pvaldes »

unparagoned wrote: post #6
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?

Well Americans always explain why they pay more for drugs is that they subsidise the rest of the world(drug companies). One could say the US economy is based around the people(government) giving money(subsidising) to the rich(drug companies). So the terms may not seem unreasonable in the us but are in other countries. Since the condition is effectively the government covering the risk rather than the drug company pay…

>Americans always explain why they pay more for drugs is that they subsidize the rest of the world

And receive talent from the rest of the world... Take in mind also that US patents and benefits economically also from lots of discoveries made from non American researchers out of US. People that were subsidized and educated with money of their own countries and emigrated later to US. Is more a symbiosis than a charity.

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

#45

Post by darwingr »

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?

That's my interpretation as well. This is a situation where a dollar valuation of the trust in the justice systems is being made.

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

#46

Post by Nursie »

f6v wrote: post #23

That is such a fertile ground for anti-vaxxers. 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. I bet pharma execs are walking away with six-seven figure bonuses no matter what.

> “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”

Well in the case of the current one, it's because we really, really want them and the governments of the countries buying them are happy to waive liability in this case to combat a pandemic that's killed about 4 million people round the world.

Pharma companies that have managed to create something so useful in such a short time and at such a huge scale pretty much deserve to do well. I don't begrudge them a bit of a bonus off the back of this.

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

#47

Post by darwingr »

teh_infallible wrote: post #19
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.

I thought it was NIH, they are usually entitled to a percentage, if not half, of the royalties on all vaccines.

https://www.axios.com/moderna-nih-coronavirus-vaccine-owners...

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

#48

Post by sergiomattei »

ekianjo wrote: post #29

Love the fact that a few years ago, Big Pharma, including Pfizer, was the devil for most people, but now that they are providing vaccines and asking for extraordinary measures to be protected from any kind of lawsuit, then everyone is quick to forget their past practices and "swallows the pill" as if nothing ever bad happened with this companies before.

Companies can do good things and simultaneously be criticized for the bad shit they do.

Nobody forgot about anything.

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

#49

Post by 2ion »

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.

> 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.

Your choice then. In the EU and NA, wherever nations pride themselves on their vaccination drives, either the makers of the vaccines have been indemnified by law or everyone who wants the vaccine has to sign an indemnification clause before getting the vaccine. In Germany the latter is the case.

It is a highly rational concern to distrust highly experimental vaccines, which these vaccines all are. The question in the risk calculation is, can you afford to position yourself against a means that can lessen the impact of a highly damaging virus? Perhaps individuals should make that choice, if states don't want to.

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

#50

Post by darwingr »

pvaldes wrote: post #40
tebbers wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's sort of how I explained it to a friend. Manufacturers would not be willing (or allowed) to distribute without the full trials and recognition by the FDA. Where the government, on behalf of the sovereign, decides "no, we NEED it now" the full authority for the risks is declared not by the manufacturer but by the sovereign. Thus, in their great need and power, the sovereign gives them immunity in their actions in writing via the EUA.

It's good to be the king...but who laid the crown?

Post reply on HN