AstraZeneca to be exempt from Covid vaccine liability claims in most countries | Hacker News Reader

AstraZeneca to be exempt from Covid vaccine liability claims in most countries

theglobeandmail.com

54 pointsAndrewBissell91 comments

> AstraZeneca, Britain’s second-largest drugmaker, has pledged to supply a total of more than 2 billion doses at no profit in agreements with the United States, Britain and European countries, among other nations and organisations.

Not unreasonable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then why not adjust the liability somewhat proportionally rather than eliminate it.

Ok that’ll be x more years testing then.

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."

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.

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.

> 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).

> 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.

If those most at risk from the virus can be protected by the vaccine, why would there be any need for continued lockdowns and closures?

It will take time (months) to vaccinate the bulk of the population. In the meantime, you do not want more influx of patients to the hospital.

After substantial population is vaccinated there should not be any need for lockdowns & closures.

But those most at risk are not "the bulk of the population," and the rest are very unlikely to need hospitalization. Again, why would lockdowns need to be maintained past the time necessary to vaccinate the high risk groups?

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.

Are you justifying mass deception of potentially the entire planet?

No he’s saying drug makers who stop the financial crisis caused by covid deserve profit

The financial crisis was there before COVID.

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-busin...

"...at no profit..." can mean anything they want it to mean.

Its public, theres no deception

Those darn doctors and hospitals, profiting (or earning a living) off the pandemic!

Doctors and hospitals don’t have liability exemption.

I think the point being made is that they will earn a profit, but hide it via accounting tricks (allocating a disproportionate share of drug discovery and admin costs to this project, for example), and have no downside in the form of liability if their vaccine turns out to be not so safe.

I find this concerning.

Profits are not the issue, it's the claim they _won't_ make a profit intentionally is the issue. It's a bogus manipulation.

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

> Without a program like this only the largest pharamacutical companies would work on new vaccines

AstraZeneca easily falls into said category.

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

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.

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.

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.

Why does this feel like, this code works in our dev environment, we`ll push this to production without much testing.

Because we're in the middle of an incident.

By a conservative estimate the incident is threat to about 0.5% of the servers. To prevent that, we're talking about pushing code to all of them.

You’ve stretched the analogy until it broke, just like a balloon with too much air.

It's 0.5% deaths only in perfect conditions, which go out of the window without measures which very few countries are able to enforce.

And you also have to account for people with permanent damage who didn't die, and for the economic and social effects of lockdowns even if a single country manages to keep this under control, because not everyone else will.

And you don't have to push the vaccine to everyone, it's also useful if you just deploy it where it's more likely to be necessary.

"Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%). ... In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%."

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

Ugh, this seems like a terrible idea, if for no other reason ths it gives massive fuel to antivaxers.

Mentioned in the article, AstraZeneca is already covered under PREPA in the US

PREPA removes the right to a jury trial for persons injured by a covered vaccine, unless a plaintiff can provide clear evidence of willful misconduct that resulted in death or serious physical injury. The act instructs the HHS secretary to write regulations "that further restrict the scope of actions or omissions by a covered person" that constitute willful misconduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Readiness_and_Emergency...

Why isn't it publicly available knowledge about who won damages against vaccine makers like every other court case?

The motives behind this protection are hidden.

They really aren’t - if they’re open to liability claims from a vaccine they developed in months, vs the usual decade+ timeframe there is no reason for them to distribute the vaccine. If anything it actively compels delaying so that they can get a better idea of the risk.

Whether or not you think the trade off is worth it is reasonable.

Spouting nonsense about “hidden” reasons is conspiracy theory nonsense.

> "... there is no reason for them to distribute the vaccine."

If this were true, then it would apply equally to all medicines with the same risk levels.

But it doesn't.

Previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24253406

This actually seems fair. If they were held liable for anything less than gross negligence, we'd have the vaccine in 2025.

Isn't this standard practice with any vaccine?

Yup. But given that all the government's want to push this out like it's code on a Friday night, sacrifices were made.

Oh you prefer living like this for another five years?

Our choices: rushed vaccine without legal recourse or forced lockdown... how did we get here? What happened to the law and our human rights?

You forgot the whole "people are dying of it" thing Rabbi. If that wasn't the case and people just got blue hands for a day from exposure, we wouldn't be where we are.

People who are scared of dying can stay indoors and take rushed vaccines if they want, that doesn’t justify corrupting the law and trampling on everyone’s human rights.

You don't have to take the vaccine if you don't want to. Your rights aren't being trampled on.

Yes, my rights have been trampled on... I’ve had to close my coffee shop because the government says I cannot provide a service to people who willingly want it. And I lost my lease in October after taking multiple loans just hoping this would end, so now I roast coffee out of my house.

This isn’t about individuals being “forced” to take the vaccine. policy is being made on a systemic level, either promote a traditionally undertested vaccine to the public, without their ability to seek damages, or restrict their rights to voluntarily gather and do business

Oh look at you. If people would take the vaccine you condemn, they'd be able to come back to your coffee shop.

But that's not what you want either it seems.

I didn’t condemn any vaccine... I’m condemning the corruption of the legal process by removing people’s ability to seek damages from a vaccine and I’m condemning mandatory “lockdowns” that violate the rights of innocent people.

The existence of a vaccine should absolutely have no effect on anyone’s ability to do business with anyone else. That should be their decision to make. My life has been ruined from this. I’m blown away that I have to state this in a liberal democracy.

I don't see the connection between lockdowns and vaccine liability.

This thread is about the premise that the prevalence of the vaccine will allow the politicians to revoke the lockdowns.

If you don't take the "rushed vaccine" you don't need any legal recourse so what's the problem again?

The problem is the false binary public policy and the open violation of our human rights and the legal process.

What rights are being violated? Or is it a violation of rights to disallow drunk driving? Is it a violation of rights to not allow murder?

When you murder someone you violate the rights of an innocent person thus forfeiting your own rights.

What about the people the selfish people kill? When the ICUs are filled with entitled asses and the nurses and doctors keep getting taken out by those entitled asses, what happens to the responsible people who actually followed basic rules of intro biology?

Your premise is flawed: keeping our human rights intact naturally won’t result in the hospitals overflowing.

If the virus is life-threatening (and I believe it is) then there is a natural disincentive to not taking necessary precautions and individuals will act accordingly, creating a positive systemic outcome. This is the basis of liberal democracy, we trust our citizens with freedom and this in turn results in better outcomes (esp innovation).

Freedom isn’t something we do just because we’re “selfish” or it’s a luxury, it’s literally a better system.

I would imply that you should have payed more attention in civics, thus insulting your intelligence but I prefer civil and respectful discourse. Ideas matter.

In another comment you said the government prohibited you from selling coffee to willing patrons. I'm sorry to hear that, but think about that. People are/were literally going to a random coffee shop and stay among strangers in the middle of a pandemic.

This pandemic clearly showed that telling people to "just use your common sense" in an once-in-a-lifetime crisis leads to disaster. Hardly surprising, when you think about it - we never tell employers/employees to "just use your common sense whether a particular construction job is dangerous," in fact we have elaborate rules to decide exactly what is dangerous, and a whole government department to enforce it, so why would a novel infectious disease that nobody has any hands-on experience any different?

Recommend people wear masks, take vaccines and etc. I have no issue with that and I do it myself without hesitation. I have issue with making it mandatory. Especially forcing places of business to close down.

People work construction jobs voluntarily. Voluntary is good. Let’s live in a voluntary collaboration-oriented society. We did, once.

Not sure why downvoted. This seems like a reasonable point. The choices need not be so binary.

It isn't really planned to force people to take the vaccine (perhaps apart from certain people, but probably not even them).

Edit: Though it seems it's legal sometimes to force people to vaccinate: https://khn.org/morning-breakout/a-court-case-from-the-early...

The population never really had the freedom to run around and spread diseases harming people.

"You don't have to take the vaccine, but if you don't we won't let you travel anywhere, or attend any public events, or send your kids to public school. Up to you!"

> The population never really had the freedom to run around and spread diseases harming people.

I don't know what you mean exactly. People have generally enjoyed the freedom to roam without being subject to liability or investigation as to whether they might be spreading an illness. Flying or going to the grocery store with a bad cough and a fever was considered poor etiquette but not a matter for legal sanction. The worst that would happen was not being allowed to send your kids to public school.

Hmm, maybe they felt that way, but there are many laws in different countries and instances of people being fined for violating laws related to this.

From e.g.: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200508.76910... on the 1918 pandemic (article is from May 2020)

"Most famously, San Francisco, California, along with other Western cities such as Seattle, Washington, Juneau, Alaska, and Phoenix, Arizona, passed laws requiring masks in public. Violators could be ticketed, fined, and imprisoned."

You'll find a few instances of people being fined for measles-related stuff: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/york-city-issues-fines-1000-pe...

https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/west/news/brookfi...

If you search for quarantine break-related laws, you'll e.g. find this 2005 CA law: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/q-1.1/page-7.html

This Australian law on grievous bodily harm contains, "does any act that is likely to result in a person having a serious disease": https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/650321a87e813bb...

Thus I think it's okay to tell people that they didn't have this freedom they apparently believed they had.

If we didn't it'd get pushed out like herd immunity does in colleges with rampant frat parties.

Can you imagine the carnage and 'natural herd immunity' of 5 years of all of the holidays everyone ignoring the quarantines would give us?

That’s what really bothers me with this vaccine. I’m absolutely pro vaccine and I have all my vaccines up to date.

But they’re vaccines that have been around for decades and for which we understand the side and long term effects pretty well.

I don’t feel very comfortable getting an injection developed in such a short time, for which we don’t really know the long term effects, using a completely new way of immunizing (I don’t think there are any other mRNA vaccines in use?)... and apparently the vaccine maker isn’t comfortable either if they’re looking for total liability exemption.

Yes, mRNA is a completely new vaccination technique and we have no idea what the long-term complications from it might be.

Curious why you were downvoted. We don’t have the data on long term effect from mRNA vaccines, that’s a fact.

The AZ vaccine isn’t mRNA it would seem, but the other ones are so that’s still relevant.

The AZ vaccine style has seen somewhat wider deployment so we know a little more about it, but it's still a mixed bag: https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vect...

The AstraZeneca vaccine is not an mRNA vaccine. It's also another new technique but it's not that one.

Right. Either way, it’s a process we don’t have much data about. I really hate to feel this way because I’m absolutely for universal vaccination as a principle.

But this will give so much ammo to conspiracy lovers and antivaxxers :/

Agree, 2021 will be a mess. Very sad about this situation.

it's not a mRNA, but they are using a technique never commercialized, and never used at big scale same as the mRNA. It use some virus recombined, which in this case is to put a gene of the protein in a chimp adenovirus. It become an OGM.

Personal point of view, I will stay away from this one even more than the mRNA

Why do you think this one is more dangerous?

tricky question, since it can be interpreted as the mRNA is safe.

First, no vaccine is 100% safe, I would talk about degree of confidence. So in both my degree of confidence is low but lower in the case of the Oxford Astrazeneca.

The technology used in the mRNA has genetic instructions but it's not gene modification. those instructions are synthesized in laboratory. they will get to the cells and get transmit(message) their information to produce the coronavirus proteins to train our immune system (we already have natural mRNA in our cell to transmit information).

In the case of the Oxford Astrazeneca, we are starting from an adenovirus derived from a chimp, a living cell modified to not be able to reproduce itself, where we introduce a gene of Sars-Cov2 into the adenovirus(a bit like gmo). Yes, their technology is "older"(80's) than the mRNA but it was never proven successful on human (despite some lab using the work proven) or with a high degree of confidence, The only vaccine existing today using this technology is a rabies vaccine to immunize wild animals never used on humans.

In both cases, I am a bit on the defensive. but inject a modified cell in my body, I would like to have way more innocuity tests, it's why I consider it has a lower degree of confidence for me.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure those technologies are the future of the vaccine, their potential is huge. Especially in HIV, Ebola maybe even some Cancer. But I am very concerned by the push of those laboratories who could take the opportunity to put their technology on the market earlier than expected, especially when we removing some safeguard (at least for Europe who modified some regulation for them) And as well we can still use other "traditional" way like the inactivated virus already use since many years.

Big disclaimer: I am no virologist or even researcher. I am just a computer engineer. I am spending dozen of hours by week to get information around all of that stuff, trying to cross check every bit to avoid the rampant disinformation in our current days. What I said is my interpretation, It might be not totally accurate, hopefully, someone with better knowledge could correct my mistakes or approximation if there is any. If you want to make your own point of view I can try to find all my sources I got when studying this subject.

Not surprised. As these vaccines are force pushed out of the door by basically everyone (outside forces like regulators), the producers have all the right to request such a thing.

People want 100% guarantees, but such a thing is impossible in the real world. There have to be compromises, otherwise the producers will simply bail out and the crisis continues. Whoever can deliver that 100% guarantee, can step up and get all those billions in profits, but until then... no room for complains.

> People want 100% guarantees, but such a thing is impossible in the real world. There have to be compromises [...]

I wouldn't mind IF people were aware they're basically alpha testers AND if vaccination isn't mandatory.

The way I see it they're not going to force vaccination, but most of the places you want to go will require it: you want to travel, go to the restaurant, watch a movie? Where's your vaccination card?

I'm the kind of guy that waits at least 1 year before upgrading my OS, I'm certainly not going to get something injected in my body before all the bugs have been ironed out.

They would have had a lot less flack if they had just put a low price tag on it.

Without waiving liability it makes it difficult for companies to ever develop vaccines they can distribute. That's why the US passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in the 80s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...

No other medicine requires this protection.

"...makes it difficult for companies to ever develop vaccines they can distribute" seems like a bit of a stretch, at least based on the evidence provided on Wikipedia. Surely the companies find having no liability makes things much easier though.

Do people really insist on AstraZeneca (or any other company) to provide a vaccine in record time at no profit and risking their whole operation on top of that?

Usually I'm in the more liability for everyone camp, but in this case it is obvious that this makes no sense.

I would argue, that the urgency shouldn't be a reason to rush out a new (not new in development but never commercialized) way to make vaccine never tested at big scale. Especially if we can make vaccine the "traditional"(Inactivated virus) way which we can.

There were lots lf problems with the testing, so now it looks like the FDA wants to retry Phase 3. The results already look underwhelming for old people though. I myself will go for an mRNA vaccine.

To be fair I am not very confident either in the mRNA.

I am very sad than only China used the inactivated virus way. I would like to have the same known technology developed by another country (But yes that statement is totally bias).

Beside I am following as well the development of Pasteur-Gsk vaccine using a way with a higher degree of confidence (already in use in commercialized vaccine).

Personally if I can I wont take either mRNA from pfizer/Moderna or adenovirus from Oxford Astrozeneca.

If you want here another of my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25285249#25286854

I read it, but still don't understand your main concern with the mRNA vaccine. It's unproven, and we don't know the long term side effects in human, but from all data that we have already about the technology it looks safe. You can wait, but I'm an asthmatic person who has problems with breathing when there's air pollution, and my parents are over 70, so for me and them it looks like it's the safer way to live longer

My bad, I didn't make difference between population. I was mostly talking about ppl without pre-conditions/risks. In your case I would do it too, And for your parent too (Mine has immunodeficiency so vaccine is out of the question). After I don't have like big red flag and I think, for the majority it will be fine. I am just more comfortable to use vaccine from techniques previously used on other public vaccine widely distributed. I found the move a bit quick to jump on those new technologies, especially when we still could use the "traditional" way. I agree the data look ok, but the data sample are nearly nothing compare to the total population who will get it. Good data but not that representative. But I would never say to someone to not take it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com