Hacker News Reader

EUA or Non-EUA, who cares? These are just words. They’re not useful for much, other than appeals to authority (or lack of it).

Last time I kept up with this, it was some purposeful legal loophole. The drug that got approved, is not yet available.

I have a friend who is a nurse that's getting fired because she will not take the vaccine. She has patients that had adverse effects from the vaccine. I totally understand why she would not take it.

> Last time I kept up with this, it was some purposeful legal loophole. The drug that got approved, is not yet available.

No, that was a maliciously stupid misreading of the FDA's statement.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fda-pfizer/fact-ch...

> The FDA state that Comirnaty has the same formulation as the EUA-approved (Emergency Use Authorization) Pfizer vaccine and is interchangeable (here). Their website says: “Providers can use doses distributed under EUA to administer the vaccination series as if the doses were the licensed vaccine. For purposes of administration, doses distributed under the EUA are interchangeable with the licensed dose.” (here).

The language still seems slippery because while the formulation may be the same and interchangeable for providers, the legal process bound to the license could be different for the recipient. If the PREP Act still applies, then there’s less recourse for anyone that may experience an adverse reaction.

No change there. Same recourse for both.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/fda-approval-of-pfizer-vac...

> Does PREP Act liability protection extend to Comirnaty?

> Yes. The government invoked the PREP Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the terms of that act, "covered persons" are granted certain immunity from liability for activities related to "covered countermeasures." Covered persons include essentially all of the entities involved in the manufacture, distribution, and administration of the countermeasure. The term "covered countermeasures" includes both approved COVID-19 products, as well as unapproved products used under an EUA. The Comirnaty approval does not change the status of the vaccine as a covered countermeasure under the PREP Act, and the approved vaccine should receive equal liability protection compared to the version of the vaccine used under the EUA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/30/false-cla...

> “The statement that the products are ‘legally distinct with certain differences’ refers to the differences in manufacturing information included in the respective regulatory submissions,” said Pfizer spokesperson Sharon J. Castillo in an email. “Specifically, while the products are manufactured using the same processes, they may have been manufactured at different sites or using raw materials from different approved suppliers. FDA closely reviews all manufacturing steps, and has found explicitly that the EUA and BLA [biologics license application] products are equivalent.”

> Indeed, contrary to the claims of Malone and others, the Comirnaty vaccine has the same liability protection as the vaccine approved under the EUA. That’s because of a law known as the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).

> “The liability protections afforded under the PREP Act are tied to the declared public health emergency and not whether the vaccine is sold under an EUA,” Castillo said. “Therefore, both Comirnaty and the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine receive the same liability protections as medical countermeasures against covid-19.”

Ah, even worse than I expected. I should've known. It's funny how they triumphantly phrase it as a good thing that the public should take on all of the risk, while the most powerful take on virtually none. Furthermore, there's now an enormous incentive to lobby for never ceasing the public health emergency, since at that point they'd lose their enhanced liability protection.

Socialize risk, privatize profit. Standard MO for the corrupt corporate-political regime.

No, that is incorrect. The FDA Only renewed emergency use authorization for Pfizer; Approval was for BioNTech’s Comirnaty with additional safety studies required (until 2027). It's currently not available in the US.

It's the same thing -- Comirnaty is the brand name of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine.

I'm not sure if that's the case legally. Is windows 11 same as windows 10, since both are a type of windows released by the same company. Let's say there's a security feature that works the same in both versions. But in windows 11 it was certified to work. I don't think you could sue effectively it failed in your installation of windows 10. MS could just say you should had no expectation for it to work because it wasn't certified to work at that time when you purchased your product. In fact the lack of certification necessarily implies that you used the feature at your own risk, and take full liability

False.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fda-pfizer/fact-ch...

> The FDA state that Comirnaty has the same formulation as the EUA-approved (Emergency Use Authorization) Pfizer vaccine and is interchangeable (here). Their website says: “Providers can use doses distributed under EUA to administer the vaccination series as if the doses were the licensed vaccine. For purposes of administration, doses distributed under the EUA are interchangeable with the licensed dose.” (here).

"Reuters is seeking comment on the legal specificities of the FDA approval and will update the check in due course."

How convenient. Pfizer states that both vaccines are legally different. Meaning even with the same formula 'Pfizer' vaccine has no liability for compensation claims, 'Comirnaty' has but it is not being supplied

"I can't be bothered to Google" and "convenient" aren't quite the same thing. The information you seek is readily available.

The two have the exact same liability setup.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/30/false-cla...

> “There are no liability or compensation differences between a countermeasure approved under an EUA or one that has received full FDA approval,” confirmed an HHS spokesperson.

Pfizer also has a more specific comment on the legal specifics in this article:

> “The statement that the products are ‘legally distinct with certain differences’ refers to the differences in manufacturing information included in the respective regulatory submissions,” said Pfizer spokesperson Sharon J. Castillo in an email. “Specifically, while the products are manufactured using the same processes, they may have been manufactured at different sites or using raw materials from different approved suppliers. FDA closely reviews all manufacturing steps, and has found explicitly that the EUA and BLA [biologics license application] products are equivalent.”

"The PREP Act designation means that claims related to coronavirus vaccines are covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), not the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which was set up to handle vaccine lawsuits. ... The liability protections afforded under the PREP Act are tied to the declared public health emergency and not whether the vaccine is sold under an EUA"

OK... because of the "state of emergency" there is actually no compensations for either the vaccines

I feel so much safer

Can you explain why you think the “Countermeasures Injury COMPENSATION Program” doesn’t include compensation?

They say in the same article, 0 have been compensated from the 600 that already applied

Also the the PREP Act states that liability is limited so only very special cases will be compensated under "pandemic state of emergency"

It is a bit like "Democratic Republic of North Korea", being in the name doesn't actually have to mean it