Covid Vaccination Argentina

Bajo_cero2

Registered
I do not understand. EEUU banned the exportation of vaccines, Pfizer included, until May 2021.
In that scenario, what difference does it makes?
I saw the interview to AF done by El cadete last week, and he said that he felt Pfizer was who didn’t want to sign because they knew this was going to happend and, in his opinion, this is why they asked for something they knew AF was going to say no.
 

antipodean

Registered
I do not understand. EEUU banned the exportation of vaccines, Pfizer included, until May 2021.
In that scenario, what difference does it makes?
I saw the interview to AF done by El cadete last week, and he said that he felt Pfizer was who didn’t want to sign because they knew this was going to happend and, in his opinion, this is why they asked for something they knew AF was going to say no.
Not sure about US policies but by February 2021 more than 30 countries were using it. Including many of the countries that have vaccinated major parts of their populations. If early buyers like UAE, Israel and others got their Pfizer doses, I don’t see why Argentina would not have?
 

Alby

Registered
From good news to bad (given that any of us here are quite likely to get Sinopharm when our turn comes): https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/sinopharm-s-vaccine-reputation-darkened-by-covid-spikes-in-bahrain-uae-20210604-p57y29.html

On the other hand, to my mind, there is a major gap emerging in reporting about the situation in countries with high vaccination levels. Surely continued prevalence of the virus (perhaps even increases) is to be expected precisely because the vaccines don't stop illness necessarily but merely reduce its severity and mortality. If life is going back to normal because of high levels of vaccination that means normal behaviors are returning that are riskier from the perspective of catching the virus but less risky from the perspective of causing severe illness and dying. Surely that is a good result and probably the best we can hope for. I would actually expect the trajectory to be increased contagion but reduced illness and death. Yet I haven't seen any reports to that effect about countries with high vaccine coverage; all I see are reports saying that infections are going up and that this is evidence the vaccines don't work and/or evidence that lockdowns should be reinstated. Surely a country eventually reaches a point where the number of new infections (up or down) is irrelevant and what matters instead is the number or percentage of new infections that result in serious illness and death. That is only effectiveness data about any given vaccine that interests me. Reporting that only focuses on absolute numbers of new infections in highly vaccinated populations (and people who use that data to argue for more lockdowns or delayed reopenings) seems to miss the point.
In answer to my own question:

 

Bajo_cero2

Registered
Not sure about US policies but by February 2021 more than 30 countries were using it. Including many of the countries that have vaccinated major parts of their populations. If early buyers like UAE, Israel and others got their Pfizer doses, I don’t see why Argentina would not have?
The US gave priority to vaccine its population and this was the key of its success after Trump´s disaster. Here Merkel is asking Biden to export their vaccines:

So, all the arguments about people who died because AF didn't sign a contract with Pfizer is pure smoke.

However, I do not understand the obsesión with the Pfizer vaccine. I think Argentina made well buying vaccines to several different suppliers and, as you see, the delay in the Astrazeneca was because a decree of the former President of the US who banned the exportation of suplies for vaccines so, if you want to blame someone for the people dead in Argentina, talk with Trump:

You cannot compare Israel with its 9 million inhabitants, high PBI and an allied of the US with a poor country like Argentina with a bad relationship with the US and its 45 million inhabitants.
 

antipodean

Registered
The US gave priority to vaccine its population and this was the key of its success after Trump´s disaster. Here Merkel is asking Biden to export their vaccines:

So, all the arguments about people who died because AF didn't sign a contract with Pfizer is pure smoke.

However, I do not understand the obsesión with the Pfizer vaccine. I think Argentina made well buying vaccines to several different suppliers and, as you see, the delay in the Astrazeneca was because a decree of the former President of the US who banned the exportation of suplies for vaccines so, if you want to blame someone for the people dead in Argentina, talk with Trump:

You cannot compare Israel with its 9 million inhabitants, high PBI and an allied of the US with a poor country like Argentina with a bad relationship with the US and its 45 million inhabitants.
I think we are going to need to agree to disagree on this one. Pfizer is also manufactured in Germany (eg BioNtech)
While it is true that few countries were getting the quantities they wanted of when they wanted of any vaccine (Sputnik and Sinopharm included) 30+ countries were receiving Pfizer. It’s also important to remember that Argentina was offered Pfizer doses via COVAX, it did not accept them and now through a US direct donation, also not accepted.

The fact is if Argentina received (or receives) even 2.000.000 more vaccines in the first half of 2021, it would have less fatalities than without. Pfizer did provide this opportunity as 30-40 other countries could attest to. It’s not about receiving 45.000.000 vaccines from Pfizer.

Alberto’s argument, to me, blaming Pfizer or foo-fooing it’s relevance is just another one of his face-saving attacks, after he miscalculated his negotiation and the other party walked away.
 

lunar

Registered
.. 30+ countries were receiving Pfizer.
"Receiving Pfizer" does not mean that they were vaccinated primarily by Pfizer. Take Chile, for example, as of mid-May it received only 3 mln doses of Pfizer vaccine and 15 mln doses of Sinovac.

It’s also important to remember that Argentina was offered Pfizer doses via COVAX, it did not accept them and now through a US direct donation, also not accepted.
This is very hard to believe. Could you provide any proof? COVAX normally sends cheap vaccines to poor countries. Pfizer is expensive.

The fact is if Argentina received (or receives) even 2.000.000 more vaccines in the first half of 2021, it would have less fatalities than without.
Why aren't you complaining that Argentina didn't receive 2 mln more dozes of Astrazeneca, or Moderna, or Sinovac or any other vaccine?
 

antipodean

Registered
This is very hard to believe. Could you provide any proof? COVAX normally sends cheap vaccines to poor countries. Pfizer is expensive.
This has been well covered in the media. Argentina is a COVAX recipient and has already recieved doses of AstraZenaca via COVAX.
Also note that countries like Argentina do actually buy the vaccines from COVAX, they are not given for free.

"Receiving Pfizer" does not mean that they were vaccinated primarily by Pfizer. Take Chile, for example, as of mid-May it received only 3 mln doses of Pfizer vaccine and 15 mln doses of Sinovac.
I never said it did. Nor did I say Argentina should be using only Pfizer or only a few providers.

Why aren't you complaining that Argentina didn't receive 2 mln more dozes of Astrazeneca, or Moderna, or Sinovac or any other vaccine?
If the conversation goes in that direction, I will. Last year we were being promised by the government tens of millions of vaccines by February.
 

lunar

Registered
This has been well covered in the media. Argentina is a COVAX recipient and has already recieved doses of AstraZenaca via COVAX.
Also note that countries like Argentina do actually buy the vaccines from COVAX, they are not given for free.
...por problemas de responsabilidad contractual ...
What is this "contractual responsibility"? Does Pfizer want a special negligence waiver clause that is against Argentinean regulations?
 

antipodean

Registered
What is this "contractual responsibility"? Does Pfizer want a special negligence waiver clause that is against Argentinean regulations?
This was covered in one of my previous posts and a chequeado link that talks about the "negligence" clause requested by the Argentine government.

"The word “negligence” was incorporated into the text of the law at the proposal of the national deputy and deputy head of the Frente de Todos block in the lower house, Cecilia Moreau , who requested it in the discussions of the text of the Social Action Commission and Health of the Chamber of Deputies, according to what his benchmate and president of said commission Pablo Yedlin reported (see here and here )."
 

antipodean

Registered
An interesting story / new statistic to follow as it evolves, which fortunately Argentina does appear to be keeping track of and making public.


"More than 125,000 people vaccinated in the country against COVID-19 were infected and 3,141 died
1.6% of those immunized with at least one dose contracted the disease, but only 0.04% died. These are data as of May 8 from the Ministry of Health of the Nation to which Infobae had access" ...


"It was known last week that, according to a study by the Argentine Society of Intensive Care (SATI) , with data as of May 28 , 12.3% of COVID-positive patients in therapy had received at least one dose in the 15 days prior to admission, and only 1.5%, the two doses. The sample was made based on data from 3,781 beds in 177 intensive care units (ICUs) of public and private hospitals throughout the country." ...

"A recent investigation carried out by the Ministry of Health of the Province of Buenos Aires revealed an effectiveness of the Sputnik-V vaccine of 78.6% to avoid cases of COVID-19, of 84.7% to avoid deaths and 87, 6% to reduce hospitalizations in people aged 60 to 79 years . It was the first study conducted outside of Russia." ...


Also interesting as when Alberto had COVID back in April after being vaccinated, the producer made a public claim that it is "100% effective against severe cases" and "ensures quick recovery without severe symptoms". As a few months pass we see that claim is misleading or no longer valid.

(Disclaimer - I know it is a touchy subject but this underlines the importance of keeping an open mind. Definitely not suggesting any vaccine is "bad", "unsafe" or should be avoided. The benefits by far outweigh the cons. Important however for everyone to stay conscious of the facts and remember that precautions should still be taken, even after being vaccinated, in order to further reduce individual risk of serious illness or death. Chances are very low but hey, everyone's life is their own.)
 
Top