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

61–68 of 68 posts

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

#61

Post by forcry »

gameman144 wrote: post #59
vmception wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

based lol, these are our role models

Not sure what you mean here. Yes, these are great public health role models: the establishment of this indemnity was a brilliant public health move.

>establishment of this indemnity was a brilliant public health move.

That basically removed one of the fundamental checks and measures in a capitalistic system to ensure that consumers get a quality product, and replace it with regulation authorities that are corrupt to the bones..

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

#62

Post by Nursie »

f6v wrote: post #55
Nursie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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…

Pharma does deserve to do well in case they accept responsibility. But if they say “hey, if we screw up you’re paying for it”, that’s just having all the good stuff without any risk.

But in this case we're begging them to have it early. We're giving them a pass because we need what they've developed so badly.

The risk was development. Look at all the pharma companies that didn't make it to market.

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

#63

Post by f6v »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #58
f6v wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pharma does deserve to do well in case they accept responsibility. But if they say “hey, if we screw up you’re paying for it”, that’s just having all the good stuff without any risk.

There was still the risk of doing the research without having an outcome, or an issue in manufacturing causing them to not meet demand.

Wasn’t Moderna funded by the government? And they also got government contracts before they had a final product.

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

#64

Post by jollybean »

davidhyde wrote: post #52
jollybean wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> “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.” Being a corrupt state does not imply a corrupt legal system. SA’s legal system is based very closely on the UK’s (with some Dutch law and African customary law tweaks thrown in) and is considered to be very good actually. Some legal systems around the world are weakened by lobbying and politicall…

Corruption is usually systematic, and it doesn't take that much one way or the other.

And yes, it's helpful to have indemnity clauses especially in a corrupt system, because it becomes easier to negotiate within the system, and politically.

Pfizer is not a bully, they're trying to protect themselves in a very corrupt place.

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

#65

Post by jollybean »

mschuster91 wrote: post #25
jollybean wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coverag…

> There's so little coverage of the insane violence. The tinfoil hat in me believes that media is not really interested in foreign violent demonstrations and reports as biased as possible about domestic protests turning violent (e.g. BLM), so that the domestic population doesn't even get the idea that violent protest can actually achieve something. Just look at French labor/social protests... immensely violent, and p…

There is definitely an aspect of fear contagion, but nobody is 'in charge' of the media so these things are harder to pinpoint.

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

#66

Post by paulddraper »

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 US uses a vaccination compensation fund

So, the same terms as Pfizer was trying to negotiate in South Africa?

Doesn't make it any more/less unreasonable, but the article should at least mention that millions of doses have been given under similar arrangements.

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

#67

Post by pkaye »

paulddraper wrote: post #66
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 US uses a vaccination compensation fund So, the same terms as Pfizer was trying to negotiate in South Africa? Doesn't make it any more/less unreasonable, but the article should at least mention that millions of doses have been given under similar arrangements.

> demand that the South African government put up sovereign assets guaranteeing an indemnity against the cost of any future legal cases.

The bigger issue was requiring to put up sovereign assets as a guarantee. That is not something Pfizer would ask of the US government.

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

#68

Post by paulddraper »

pkaye wrote: post #67
paulddraper wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US uses a vaccination compensation fund So, the same terms as Pfizer was trying to negotiate in South Africa? Doesn't make it any more/less unreasonable, but the article should at least mention that millions of doses have been given under similar arrangements.

> demand that the South African government put up sovereign assets guaranteeing an indemnity against the cost of any future legal cases. The bigger issue was requiring to put up sovereign assets as a guarantee. That is not something Pfizer would ask of the US government.

> The US uses a vaccination compensation fund.
Post reply on HN