3 ms·

This is not completely correct, at least in the EU there have not been any emergency vaccine authorisations by the EMA which means that pharmaceutical companies

by chki 6y ago

This is not completely correct, at least in the EU there have not been any emergency vaccine authorisations by the EMA which means that pharmaceutical companies will be liable for mistakes that cause adverse health effects. In the UK there was an emergency authorisation which means that they will not be liable to the same degree. As for why they do this: There is always a small chance that the vaccine will cause adverse health effects because pharmaceutical stuff is very complex. Minimizing legal risks is a completely normal thing in all industries and part of the negotiation process. I would not draw the conclusion that they aren't 100% convinced of their vaccine but instead that their team of highly paid lawyers told them what was a good business decision.

donovanian 6y ago
You're being pretty generous, and I think it sounds reasonable but placed within the broader picture (and given how liberals generally consider profit-driven healthcare systems and industry in other circumstances...) it seems like people are looking to paper over some dastardly stuff and dismiss legitimate concerns so as to not "rock the boat." For instance: > Officials from Argentina and the other Latin American country, which cannot be named as it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer, said the company’s negotiators demanded more than the usual indemnity against civil claims filed by citizens who suffer serious adverse events after being inoculated. They said Pfizer also insisted the governments cover the potential costs of civil cases brought as a result of Pfizer’s own acts of negligence, fraud, or malice. In Argentina and Brazil, Pfizer asked for sovereign assets to be put up as collateral for any future legal costs. https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/pfizer-plays-hardball-in-covid19-vaccine-negotiations-in-latin-america/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/pfizer-plays-hardball-in... It'd be one thing if they were looking to defend against unforeseen damages. But this looks like they're trying to evade liability for crimes.
- chki 6y ago
  Interesting points, I did not know about these actions in South America. I don't want to be too generous to Pfizer/Biontech and you rightly point out the need to be cautious with these companies especially if they are in such an influential position. However my guess would be that legal risks in countries with weaker rule of law protections (for reference see this report https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/ https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/) is a lot higher. You might find yourself in a position where a court rules against you although you did not commit any crime – or you might presume that there is a possibility that you will be in such a position. If you want to protect yourself and have an extremely strong negotiation position, you might write very far-reaching liability clauses. This in itself could – imo rightfully – be seen as a deplorable strategy because you are dictating these rules for a life saving vaccine. But it does not imply that you are committing any crimes at the moment.

by chki 6y ago

donovanian 6y ago

You're being pretty generous, and I think it sounds reasonable but placed within the broader picture (and given how liberals generally consider profit-driven healthcare systems and industry in other circumstances...) it seems like people are looking to paper over some dastardly stuff and dismiss legitimate concerns so as to not "rock the boat." For instance: > Officials from Argentina and the other Latin American country, which cannot be named as it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer, said the company’s negotiators demanded more than the usual indemnity against civil claims filed by citizens who suffer serious adverse events after being inoculated. They said Pfizer also insisted the governments cover the potential costs of civil cases brought as a result of Pfizer’s own acts of negligence, fraud, or malice. In Argentina and Brazil, Pfizer asked for sovereign assets to be put up as collateral for any future legal costs. https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/pfizer-plays-hardball-in-covid19-vaccine-negotiations-in-latin-america/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/pfizer-plays-hardball-in... It'd be one thing if they were looking to defend against unforeseen damages. But this looks like they're trying to evade liability for crimes.

chki 6y ago
Interesting points, I did not know about these actions in South America. I don't want to be too generous to Pfizer/Biontech and you rightly point out the need to be cautious with these companies especially if they are in such an influential position. However my guess would be that legal risks in countries with weaker rule of law protections (for reference see this report https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/ https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/) is a lot higher. You might find yourself in a position where a court rules against you although you did not commit any crime – or you might presume that there is a possibility that you will be in such a position. If you want to protect yourself and have an extremely strong negotiation position, you might write very far-reaching liability clauses. This in itself could – imo rightfully – be seen as a deplorable strategy because you are dictating these rules for a life saving vaccine. But it does not imply that you are committing any crimes at the moment.