Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulddraper | Hacker News Reader

> During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead.

Aren't those "unreasonable" terms already the case in the U.S.?

There's no liability, right?

View on HN

Yes you cannot go through a normal court. The US uses a vaccination compensation fund. If someone is harmed by vaccines, they can make a claim with evidence in a special court and the court will determine the compensation. Each dose sold has a 25 cent surcharge to fund these claims. For Covid I think they will do it differently since the government is paying directly.

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program doesn’t seem to prevent you from going through a regular court. From your link

> The special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine.

The FAQs make it seem like it's not as straightforward.

"Most of the time, you must first file and have your claim processed with the VICP before a civil lawsuit can be filed against the vaccine company or the person who gave the vaccine"

> The US uses a vaccination compensation fund

So, the same terms as Pfizer was trying to negotiate in South Africa?

Doesn't make it any more/less unreasonable, but the article should at least mention that millions of doses have been given under similar arrangements.

> demand that the South African government put up sovereign assets guaranteeing an indemnity against the cost of any future legal cases.

The bigger issue was requiring to put up sovereign assets as a guarantee. That is not something Pfizer would ask of the US government.

> The US uses a vaccination compensation fund.

Well Americans always explain why they pay more for drugs is that they subsidise the rest of the world(drug companies). One could say the US economy is based around the people(government) giving money(subsidising) to the rich(drug companies). So the terms may not seem unreasonable in the us but are in other countries. Since the condition is effectively the government covering the risk rather than the drug company paying for insurance like they should in a market economy

>Americans always explain why they pay more for drugs is that they subsidize the rest of the world

And receive talent from the rest of the world... Take in mind also that US patents and benefits economically also from lots of discoveries made from non American researchers out of US. People that were subsidized and educated with money of their own countries and emigrated later to US. Is more a symbiosis than a charity.

I’m pretty sure this is the case in the UK too - Pfizer basically immune from any claims resulting from side effects etc.

Quite a few countries have used vaccine injury compensation schemes over the years.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Countries-and-provinces-...

So they can focus in continue saving millions of lives since December, providing a solution that works in a record short amount of time.

It seems a fair deal for society

That's sort of how I explained it to a friend. Manufacturers would not be willing (or allowed) to distribute without the full trials and recognition by the FDA. Where the government, on behalf of the sovereign, decides "no, we NEED it now" the full authority for the risks is declared not by the manufacturer but by the sovereign. Thus, in their great need and power, the sovereign gives them immunity in their actions in writing via the EUA.

It's good to be the king...but who laid the crown?

>So they can focus in continue saving millions of lives since December

Not sure. Are the researchers working on the vaccine are the one handling the claims? I mean, whats this thing about "focusing on saving lives" got to do with being not responsible for the product?

>It seems a fair deal for society

Only if these companies act in good faith. Knowing what we know about Pharmaceutical companies, It is beyond me why anyone would think they would..

If you said that "we were desperate so we have to take the risk of them possibly behaving bad", then it would have made much more sense.

If the defendant is not an individual male then UK courts are not interested.

I think the difference is that in the U.S. there is a law that protects Pfizer from lawsuits. In South Africa they wanted assets incase such a law isn't enforced or exists?

But who foots the bill when you have problems with your heart afterwards? I mean in America where everything is private, is there some sort of fund for it?

yes, there is general fund [1] for all vaccination side affects but it pays out "very little". I don't know if the covid vaccine is part of that fund however

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen...

From your link:

> By 1999 the average claim took two years to resolve, and 42% of resolved claims were awarded compensation, as compared with 23% for medical malpractice claims through the tort system.

That doesn’t seem like “very little”. Or do you mean the amount paid out for successful claims is lower than in regular court?

I'm referring to the cost of healthcare in the U.S. compared to the awarded amount. If serious health effects exist I assume the care will exceed the amount awarded.

The average awarded amount per case, depending on the year, is between $250k and $1m. Considering this is the average of hundreds of cases there must awards significantly above this for those who have serious health effects.

The other difference is that US courts and other civil institutions have integrity. Outside of the civilized world it's a little bit 'no man's land' - SA's former leader is going to jail on corruption charges, and the country let lose with mass violence.

If there ever was an interesting example of 'information suppression' (or avoidance), and there are many, it's the problems recently in SA. There's so little coverage of the insane violence.

It's reasonable that a company is not going to want subject themselves to that system.

> There's so little coverage of the insane violence.

The tinfoil hat in me believes that media is not really interested in foreign violent demonstrations and reports as biased as possible about domestic protests turning violent (e.g. BLM), so that the domestic population doesn't even get the idea that violent protest can actually achieve something. Just look at French labor/social protests... immensely violent, and pretty effective when compared to Germany where the social net was pretty torn up during the last decades.

There is definitely an aspect of fear contagion, but nobody is 'in charge' of the media so these things are harder to pinpoint.

That's my interpretation as well. This is a situation where a dollar valuation of the trust in the justice systems is being made.

Yes and the reason why vaccine injury funds were developed are:

"It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases."

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

You think it's reasonable to let companies rake huge profits without any responsibility? And that's how it should be... because it's the norm in America?

I find this world view concerning

It's not reasonable, but if you want that vaccine quickly for your citizens, you can be sure the company making it won't want to assume liability.

If you dont expect quick vaccination then you can obviously deny the company from providing it. But alas, you cant have your cake and eat it too

Reply on news.ycombinator.com