4 ms·

This is totally insane. Imagine if a company did this with air bags, guns for the army, tires or brakes for cars... Or any kind of food for people? Just a lit

This is totally insane. Imagine if a company did this with air bags, guns for the army, tires or brakes for cars... Or any kind of food for people? Just a little considerations for the ramifications of shoving this through out panic instead of well founded science shows what horrific tragedy this could cause with no repercussions for this company what so ever. No profit?? Look up Hollywood accounting to show how the "for no profit" can mean something other than what you think it means.

sudeepj 6y ago
In this case it is not. This is essentially a tradeoff. The covid vaccine lifecycle has been way more short than other vaccines. Naturally the probability of some going wrong is higher. The scientists, countries and the entire world is taking a calculated risk. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
- RobertRoberts 6y ago
  Who would support a vaccine that does more damage than good? Its _not_ an unlikely scenario at all. Anti-science decisions should not be made based on irrational panic.
  - riffraff 6y ago
    this is not anti-science, it's, as GP said, a calculated decision. It's not _impossible_ the vaccine does more damage than good, but it is _unlikely_, because we have some initial data and experience with previous similar things. This does not mean the vaccine is surely effective and without side effects, but it is not unreasonable to start deploying it because a ton of people are currently suffering because of the epidemic, and it can only get worse.
    - RobertRoberts 6y ago
      If saving lives was _really_ the goal, you would push for making tobacco illegal long before risky vaccines. Tobacco has already killed magnitudes more people than covid ever will.
- deanclatworthy 6y ago
  Then why not adjust the liability somewhat proportionally rather than eliminate it.
  - GuardianCaveman 6y ago
    Ok that’ll be x more years testing then.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  So far 1.5M have died from COVID worldwide. Let's say that without a vaccine that number could be expected to grow to 10M or 20M. To prevent that outcome, we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people, most of whom are at very little risk from the virus, which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity, and whose long-term effects are completely unknown. It seems to me like there's not really serious calculation being applied to the risks of the latter course. It's just "stop COVID at all costs."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - esfandia 6y ago
    Aren't they starting by giving the vaccines to the most vulnerable first though? For them, the risk is worth it. And those further down the list will get to wait and figure out the risks with the vaccine, if there are any.
    - AndrewBissell 6y ago
      I'm definitely in favor of an approach like this. Yes, those who are at very high risk from the virus and have less to lose from complications around things like fertility should be able to make that decision for themselves.
  - AnonHP 6y ago
    > which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity That would be the mRNA technology used by Pfizer and Moderna. The AstraZeneca vaccine uses known and tested mechanisms (though the payload is different).
  - sudeepj 6y ago
    > we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people But the same people will be affected due to economic headwinds (directly or indirectly) if vaccine is not available soon. So it is also a question of financial stability & bring confidence back of doing things normally.
partiallypro 6y ago
Even if they do profit some...it's still worth it. The world is losing trillions of dollars and everyone's life is worse off. Seems totally acceptable for people to make a profit off ending that cycle.
- RobertRoberts 6y ago
  Are you justifying mass deception of potentially the entire planet?
  - GuardianCaveman 6y ago
    No he’s saying drug makers who stop the financial crisis caused by covid deserve profit
    - jmnicolas 6y ago
      The financial crisis was there before COVID.
    - RobertRoberts 6y ago
      I am merely pointing out the deceptions involved: > "AstraZeneca, Britain’s second-largest drugmaker, has pledged to supply a total of more than 2 billion doses at no profit..." [0] [0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/international-business/article-astrazeneca-to-be-exempt-from-coronavirus-vaccine-liability-claims-in/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/international-busin... "...at no profit..." can mean anything they want it to mean.
  - mam2 6y ago
    Its public, theres no deception
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  Those darn doctors and hospitals, profiting (or earning a living) off the pandemic!
gnopgnip 6y ago
The company is exempt, and the government has a fund to cover any injuries that are caused. Without a program like this only the largest pharamacutical companies would work on new vaccines, and overall there would be much less innovation
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  > Without a program like this only the largest pharamacutical companies would work on new vaccines AstraZeneca easily falls into said category.
shureluck 6y ago
Agreed, I am working in medical right now and I smell this is not good at all.
andreareina 6y ago
Harder to pull of Hollywood accounting when the buyer can say such-and-such expenses don't count. > To back its claim to forgo profits from the $1.2 billion collaboration in the United States, Astra has even granted the government access to financial accounts related to the venture, according to Dobber. > “There are very clear milestones before they are going to pay. Because we made the promise to manufacture the vaccine at no profit, auditors of the U.S. administration will get free access to our accounting books,” he said.
- RobertRoberts 6y ago
  Basic accounting. All they have to do is give everyone on the board millions in raises and the company "made no profit". Don't be so gullible, it's _trivial_ to hide or remove profits without affecting income.
  - andreareina 6y ago
    Their books are open. The only way they can play games is with collusion by the government, in which case Hollywood accounting is the least of the problems.

sudeepj 6y ago

In this case it is not. This is essentially a tradeoff. The covid vaccine lifecycle has been way more short than other vaccines. Naturally the probability of some going wrong is higher. The scientists, countries and the entire world is taking a calculated risk. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

RobertRoberts 6y ago
Who would support a vaccine that does more damage than good? Its _not_ an unlikely scenario at all. Anti-science decisions should not be made based on irrational panic.
- riffraff 6y ago
  this is not anti-science, it's, as GP said, a calculated decision. It's not _impossible_ the vaccine does more damage than good, but it is _unlikely_, because we have some initial data and experience with previous similar things. This does not mean the vaccine is surely effective and without side effects, but it is not unreasonable to start deploying it because a ton of people are currently suffering because of the epidemic, and it can only get worse.
  - RobertRoberts 6y ago
    If saving lives was _really_ the goal, you would push for making tobacco illegal long before risky vaccines. Tobacco has already killed magnitudes more people than covid ever will.
deanclatworthy 6y ago
Then why not adjust the liability somewhat proportionally rather than eliminate it.
- GuardianCaveman 6y ago
  Ok that’ll be x more years testing then.
AndrewBissell 6y ago
So far 1.5M have died from COVID worldwide. Let's say that without a vaccine that number could be expected to grow to 10M or 20M. To prevent that outcome, we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people, most of whom are at very little risk from the virus, which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity, and whose long-term effects are completely unknown. It seems to me like there's not really serious calculation being applied to the risks of the latter course. It's just "stop COVID at all costs."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- esfandia 6y ago
  Aren't they starting by giving the vaccines to the most vulnerable first though? For them, the risk is worth it. And those further down the list will get to wait and figure out the risks with the vaccine, if there are any.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    I'm definitely in favor of an approach like this. Yes, those who are at very high risk from the virus and have less to lose from complications around things like fertility should be able to make that decision for themselves.
- AnonHP 6y ago
  > which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity That would be the mRNA technology used by Pfizer and Moderna. The AstraZeneca vaccine uses known and tested mechanisms (though the payload is different).
- sudeepj 6y ago
  > we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people But the same people will be affected due to economic headwinds (directly or indirectly) if vaccine is not available soon. So it is also a question of financial stability & bring confidence back of doing things normally.

partiallypro 6y ago

Even if they do profit some...it's still worth it. The world is losing trillions of dollars and everyone's life is worse off. Seems totally acceptable for people to make a profit off ending that cycle.

RobertRoberts 6y ago
Are you justifying mass deception of potentially the entire planet?
- GuardianCaveman 6y ago
  No he’s saying drug makers who stop the financial crisis caused by covid deserve profit
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    The financial crisis was there before COVID.
  - RobertRoberts 6y ago
    I am merely pointing out the deceptions involved: > "AstraZeneca, Britain’s second-largest drugmaker, has pledged to supply a total of more than 2 billion doses at no profit..." [0] [0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/international-business/article-astrazeneca-to-be-exempt-from-coronavirus-vaccine-liability-claims-in/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/international-busin... "...at no profit..." can mean anything they want it to mean.
- mam2 6y ago
  Its public, theres no deception
tinus_hn 6y ago
Those darn doctors and hospitals, profiting (or earning a living) off the pandemic!

gnopgnip 6y ago

The company is exempt, and the government has a fund to cover any injuries that are caused. Without a program like this only the largest pharamacutical companies would work on new vaccines, and overall there would be much less innovation

ComputerGuru 6y ago
> Without a program like this only the largest pharamacutical companies would work on new vaccines AstraZeneca easily falls into said category.

shureluck 6y ago

Agreed, I am working in medical right now and I smell this is not good at all.

andreareina 6y ago

Harder to pull of Hollywood accounting when the buyer can say such-and-such expenses don't count. > To back its claim to forgo profits from the $1.2 billion collaboration in the United States, Astra has even granted the government access to financial accounts related to the venture, according to Dobber. > “There are very clear milestones before they are going to pay. Because we made the promise to manufacture the vaccine at no profit, auditors of the U.S. administration will get free access to our accounting books,” he said.

RobertRoberts 6y ago
Basic accounting. All they have to do is give everyone on the board millions in raises and the company "made no profit". Don't be so gullible, it's _trivial_ to hide or remove profits without affecting income.
- andreareina 6y ago
  Their books are open. The only way they can play games is with collusion by the government, in which case Hollywood accounting is the least of the problems.