5 ms·

Maybe this is cultural difference between the UK and the US but who the hell thinks it's ok to be blatantly profiting from a vaccine rollout? Particularly when

by ck425 6y ago

Maybe this is cultural difference between the UK and the US but who the hell thinks it's ok to be blatantly profiting from a vaccine rollout? Particularly when the vaccine is being provided for free by government. Covering costs is over thing, blatant profiteering is disgusting.

hntrader 6y ago
So what if vaccine makers and distributors make a few billion in profits in return for saving the world from economic ruin and millions of deaths (and I'm not talking about the specific company in the OP). Let's pick a more deserving target for outrage.
- ck425 6y ago
  I'm referring the rollout of the vaccines not the creation. That's a different issue with no easy answer. Again this may just be a cultural difference. Healthcare being free at point of use is a core tenant of the NHS.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    core tenet, not tenant
esja 6y ago
Even the expensive COVID vaccines are an absolute bargain compared to all the costs associated with not having them (economic, social, health, geopolitical...). The EU has just created a huge problem for themselves (which will result in extra people dying) by insisting on paying 2 dollars per dose for the AZ vaccine instead of 3 dollars or whatever. If you do the maths on that, it’s hard to find a rational or humane justification for trying to “save money” this way. Israel by contrast decided to pay double the list price for their vaccines, and half their population is now vaccinated. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-s...
- rob74 6y ago
  Cool, let's just have an international auction for the vaccines, then the rich countries will have ten times the doses they need to vaccinate their entire population (because you never know how the clinical trials will turn out). What about the poorer countries, you ask? Well, tough luck... Plus, in Israel it's just half of the Israeli population, strange nobody is talking about the Palestinians.
- hef19898 6y ago
  My understanding is, that the Universit of Oxford insisted on the non-profit model as part of their IP-liscensing agreement with AZ. So same prizes for everyone as far as AZ is concerned. The EU plan is to buy more than needed and share it with other ountries in need. There are even contractual stipulations in the AZ-EU contract covering that.
tinus_hn 6y ago
Do you really think Pfizer is rolling out their vaccine for free?
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Pfizer is making a profit. AstraZeneca is not as their deal with Oxford University is to produce and distribute the vaccine at cost. Two different approaches.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    So, where’s the Pfizer scandal?
postingawayonhn 6y ago
If a for profit organization is able to deliver vaccines in a more efficient manner why shouldn't they be able to make a reasonable profit? Surely that's of significant value to society?
- acjohnson55 6y ago
  Because it's a magnet for grifters, as evidenced by this article.

by ck425 6y ago

hntrader 6y ago

So what if vaccine makers and distributors make a few billion in profits in return for saving the world from economic ruin and millions of deaths (and I'm not talking about the specific company in the OP). Let's pick a more deserving target for outrage.

ck425 6y ago
I'm referring the rollout of the vaccines not the creation. That's a different issue with no easy answer. Again this may just be a cultural difference. Healthcare being free at point of use is a core tenant of the NHS.
- jfk13 6y ago
  core tenet, not tenant

esja 6y ago

Even the expensive COVID vaccines are an absolute bargain compared to all the costs associated with not having them (economic, social, health, geopolitical...). The EU has just created a huge problem for themselves (which will result in extra people dying) by insisting on paying 2 dollars per dose for the AZ vaccine instead of 3 dollars or whatever. If you do the maths on that, it’s hard to find a rational or humane justification for trying to “save money” this way. Israel by contrast decided to pay double the list price for their vaccines, and half their population is now vaccinated. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-struggle-pfizer-biontech-astrazeneca/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-coronavirus-vaccine-s...

rob74 6y ago
Cool, let's just have an international auction for the vaccines, then the rich countries will have ten times the doses they need to vaccinate their entire population (because you never know how the clinical trials will turn out). What about the poorer countries, you ask? Well, tough luck... Plus, in Israel it's just half of the Israeli population, strange nobody is talking about the Palestinians.
hef19898 6y ago
My understanding is, that the Universit of Oxford insisted on the non-profit model as part of their IP-liscensing agreement with AZ. So same prizes for everyone as far as AZ is concerned. The EU plan is to buy more than needed and share it with other ountries in need. There are even contractual stipulations in the AZ-EU contract covering that.

tinus_hn 6y ago

Do you really think Pfizer is rolling out their vaccine for free?

mytailorisrich 6y ago
Pfizer is making a profit. AstraZeneca is not as their deal with Oxford University is to produce and distribute the vaccine at cost. Two different approaches.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  So, where’s the Pfizer scandal?

postingawayonhn 6y ago

If a for profit organization is able to deliver vaccines in a more efficient manner why shouldn't they be able to make a reasonable profit? Surely that's of significant value to society?

acjohnson55 6y ago
Because it's a magnet for grifters, as evidenced by this article.