25 ms·

> You should trust the system and the process. If I'm supposed to be ok with small risks, why aren't any of the pharmaceuticals ok with the small risk that the

> You should trust the system and the process. If I'm supposed to be ok with small risks, why aren't any of the pharmaceuticals ok with the small risk that they've made a mistake and should be held liable? Why did they seek indemnity if there's no chance the vaccine could risk my health? I don't oppose the vaccine but this has never sat right with me.

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.
atleta 6y ago
This is an interesting question and has several responses beyond the knee-jerk one. First of all, the process was expedited at the request of the authorities, so it's natural that they try to reduce their risks. Also, even if we disregard the expedited process, the release (the rate of production and administering it) is faster than you'd expect normally, which in itself imposes a greater financial/business risk by exposing more people quicker to the same amount of risk. To say it in a less abstract way: given the normal/expected risk levels (say it's 1:100000), they'd get say a 100 complaints a year for a new vaccine that gets administered to 10 million people. Say they may get brought to the court in one out of those 100 and lose with a 50% chance. And, of course it turns out that something's not right (and say 1:100000 actually dies because of the vaccine, they can still stop it at the 1M or 10M mark). Now if they roll out the vaccine to 1B people a year, that means 100x more exposure. And it may not worth it business wise. Especially since at least some of the companies forgo (at least some of) the profit. So you have increased risk with decreased profit but increased demand. Perfectly logical move. If we are talking about us, then let's not forget that while the vaccine definitely poses a higher risk than one that's been on the market for say a decade or more, the choice is not between: a) I take the vaccine and accept the (small) risk b) I don't take the vaccine and I don't expose myself to any additional risk Because dying of covid has a pretty f*&^ high risk when compared to dying from the vaccine. (And covid also seems to cause long term health damage to way more people than it kills.) But even if we add all this: the EU (and rightly so) did not give indemnity to the pharmaceuticals. (Because while there is logic for them to seek it, there is also logic in not giving it to them.)
- donovanian 6y ago
  > Also, even if we disregard the expedited process, the release (the rate of production and administering it) is faster than you'd expect normally, which in itself imposes a greater financial/business risk by exposing more people quicker to the same amount of risk. All this seems to dance around the fact that it's the first vaccine of its kind. It induces side effects that are not normal. And the process has been greatly expedited far beyond the usual liberal sentiment that the FDA is indispensable and we should be taking extraordinary amounts of time to approve medicines, etc. Perhaps there is an asymmetric aggregated risk "exposure" for pharmaceuticals. But I still don't see a huge upside to someone like me who's relatively young, fit and who's had tons of relatives, friends, etc. who've gotten the virus and not only survived but really didn't notice any lasting effects.

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.

atleta 6y ago

This is an interesting question and has several responses beyond the knee-jerk one. First of all, the process was expedited at the request of the authorities, so it's natural that they try to reduce their risks. Also, even if we disregard the expedited process, the release (the rate of production and administering it) is faster than you'd expect normally, which in itself imposes a greater financial/business risk by exposing more people quicker to the same amount of risk. To say it in a less abstract way: given the normal/expected risk levels (say it's 1:100000), they'd get say a 100 complaints a year for a new vaccine that gets administered to 10 million people. Say they may get brought to the court in one out of those 100 and lose with a 50% chance. And, of course it turns out that something's not right (and say 1:100000 actually dies because of the vaccine, they can still stop it at the 1M or 10M mark). Now if they roll out the vaccine to 1B people a year, that means 100x more exposure. And it may not worth it business wise. Especially since at least some of the companies forgo (at least some of) the profit. So you have increased risk with decreased profit but increased demand. Perfectly logical move. If we are talking about us, then let's not forget that while the vaccine definitely poses a higher risk than one that's been on the market for say a decade or more, the choice is not between: a) I take the vaccine and accept the (small) risk b) I don't take the vaccine and I don't expose myself to any additional risk Because dying of covid has a pretty f*&^ high risk when compared to dying from the vaccine. (And covid also seems to cause long term health damage to way more people than it kills.) But even if we add all this: the EU (and rightly so) did not give indemnity to the pharmaceuticals. (Because while there is logic for them to seek it, there is also logic in not giving it to them.)

donovanian 6y ago
> Also, even if we disregard the expedited process, the release (the rate of production and administering it) is faster than you'd expect normally, which in itself imposes a greater financial/business risk by exposing more people quicker to the same amount of risk. All this seems to dance around the fact that it's the first vaccine of its kind. It induces side effects that are not normal. And the process has been greatly expedited far beyond the usual liberal sentiment that the FDA is indispensable and we should be taking extraordinary amounts of time to approve medicines, etc. Perhaps there is an asymmetric aggregated risk "exposure" for pharmaceuticals. But I still don't see a huge upside to someone like me who's relatively young, fit and who's had tons of relatives, friends, etc. who've gotten the virus and not only survived but really didn't notice any lasting effects.