Covid Vaccination Argentina

[gracielle]

4 July 2021 at 7:48am by Fabiola Czubaj/Pablo Fernández Blanco/Delfina Arambillet

Vacunas. ¿Cuánto cuesta cada una? Pagos millonarios, una conducta inusual y números que encienden polémicas

Vacunas. ¿Cuánto cuesta cada una? Pagos millonarios, una conducta inusual y números que encienden polémicas

www.lanacion.com.ar

Vaccines. How much does each one cost? Millionaire payments, unusual behavior and numbers that ignite controversy....

....These differences do not prevent the Ministry of Health from starting a negotiation with the BID to receive additional funds for US$470 million to buy vaccines and attend the pandemic. In other words: the enemy of Argentina could provide more than double what the State has put up until now in the purchase of inoculants.

 

[ventanilla]

Military bases and glaciers etc were all ruled out as “fake news” by Minister Vizzotti and investigative journalism sources such as Chequeado. The “news” was traced back to a populist politician making exaggerated comments. The only reason Pfizer negotiations fell through is that the Argentine government decided to make a new law this year to govern the purchase of vaccines and this law included specific wording around “negligence” that was not acceptable to one of the parties. The new DNU overturning this spells out that being the true issue if it now results in Pfizer signing a contract. This was all covered in earlier posts with sources etc for anyone who wants to fact check.

It goes without saying that if Argentina had even 1.000.000 more vaccines (any vaccine) than it has had to date, less people would have died.
In any serious country there would be a public enquiry after the dust has settled to ascertain whether or not the government acted responsibly or not by effectively turning away vaccines offered to it for more than 6 months. In the meantime it is an ongoing issue.

The glacier story was false. The military base story was not.

The original source is the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which is an extremely reputable source. They note that Brazil and Argentina along with South Africa had the same problem.

‘Held to ransom’: Pfizer demands governments gamble with state assets…

The Bureau has learned that the pharmaceutical giant also insists on indemnity against its own negligence in hardball negotiations with Latin American…

www.thebureauinvestigates.com

Pfizer backs down over “unreasonable” terms in South Africa vaccine…

Pharma giant had previously demanded governments put up state assets as collateral for Covid19 vaccine deals

www.thebureauinvestigates.com

It is obviously true, otherwise officials from Brazil, South Africa, as well as many other LATAM nations wouldn't have the exact same story.

 

[sts7049]

The glacier story was false. The military base story was not.

The original source is the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which is an extremely reputable source. They note that Brazil and Argentina along with South Africa had the same problem.

‘Held to ransom’: Pfizer demands governments gamble with state assets…

The Bureau has learned that the pharmaceutical giant also insists on indemnity against its own negligence in hardball negotiations with Latin American…

www.thebureauinvestigates.com

Pfizer backs down over “unreasonable” terms in South Africa vaccine…

Pharma giant had previously demanded governments put up state assets as collateral for Covid19 vaccine deals

www.thebureauinvestigates.com

It is obviously true, otherwise officials from Brazil, South Africa, as well as many other LATAM nations wouldn't have the exact same story.

you should rethink the criteria in which you determine stories to be valid

 

[antipodean]

Pfizer does not demand military bases. In case of a judgement against the country contracting the vaccines, a court may order seizure of state assets in case of default on payment due to the injured party. Just like a court may order seizure of Pfizer assets in case of a default on their part. This idea is pretty standard in contract law - of course the idea is for the party liable for the injury actually pays the damages before moving in on their assets as a last resort in case they defy the court and disregard the contract. After all a contract that has remedies that are not actually enforceable is not really a contract.

More information can be found here.
Of course if one is privy to information that explicitly shows Pfizer demands military bases or why glaciers are fake news but military bases are not, one is welcome to share it.

It is worth noting:

• South Africa received its first Pfizer doses on 02MAY21.
• Brazil received its first Pfizer doses on 30APR21.
• Peru received its first Pfizer doses on 03MAR21 (Their government also denied demands similar to what some were claiming was demanded of Argentina and other countries by Pfizer)
• The articles you referenced are dated from February and April respectively.
• The indemnity clauses may actually favor citizens and make it easier for them to access justice - good luck for Citizen José from Lanús going to court in New York to get damages paid by Pfizer. Also given the context of “rushed” development and roll out programs, states authorizing and purchasing vaccines in this context need to assume the risk of what they are recommending (and in some cases requiring) their citizens take.
• Pfizer is one of the most widely available vaccines present in the most countries around the world. For pretty much every country except Argentina, indemnity clauses didn’t hold them back unless due to idealogical (or ulterior) motive...There is a reason why a DNU is now required to get around the recent law passed by the government to make a deal possible.

 

[lunar]

Pfizer does not demand military bases.

...

Of course if one is privy to information that explicitly shows Pfizer demands military bases ..., one is welcome to share it.

Extraterrestrials do not exist. But if somebody has seen one lately, he is welcome to share it with us.

 

[gracielle]

5 July 2021 at 8:27am

Conrado Estol: “Hay cinco vacunas efectivas contra la variante Delta”

El neurólogo advirtió que entre las cinco no está demostrado que figure la Sputnik; y advirtió que tendrá que darse una tercera dosis sobre todo a los que tengan aplicadas vacunas chinas

www.lanacion.com.ar

Conrado Estol: "There are five effective vaccines against the Delta variant". The neurologist warned that among the five it is not proven that Sputnik appears; and he warned that a third dose will have to be given, especially to those who have Chinese vaccines applied....

....The effective vaccines against the Delta variant, according to Estol, are those of "Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Covaxin." Of the five, only one is being applied in Argentina for now....

....On the other hand, he cited a study carried out by the Ministry of Health regarding the results of the use of vaccines in Argentina, which included AstraZeneca, Sputnik and Sinopharm. “The three are close, but AstraZeneca is number one in effectiveness, in how many infected or how many deaths have occurred with vaccination”, Estol pointed out and explained: “Let us remember that in Argentina the doses of the vaccines have been widely separated, with AstraZeneca it would not be so important, yes with the others; and with Sputnik many people have not yet received the second dose, more than three months after the first. Third place for Sinopharm, which was to be expected because we have said that Chinese vaccines are less effective ”.

 

[BAHibs]

Especialistas le responden a Estol: "Sinopharm es muy efectiva"

El médico neurólogo opinó que "no hay que comprar más vacunas chinas". Eduardo López y Jorge Geffner aseguraron que estas dosis "no se deben desechar" y que son muy efectivas contra las formas graves de la enfermedad.

www.perfil.com

Should be noted that Conrado Estol is the darling of the ever so neutral La Nacion and Clarin who has adopted the "we have to buy Pfizer because all other arguments against Sputnik and the Government have failed" line.

I'll probably post a Pagina12 article or two each day so we can get some balance to the media being shared here, some posters should be asking for a salary from Bullrich and co..

 

[ventanilla]

you should rethink the criteria in which you determine stories to be valid

Yes, I understand that a lot of people here like to offhandedly discard anything they don't like, even when it's clearly corroborated from multiple very reputable sources. However, that's a pretty bad way of doing things.

 

[ventanilla]

Pfizer does not demand military bases. In case of a judgement against the country contracting the vaccines, a court may order seizure of state assets in case of default on payment due to the injured party.

Okay, no, you're changing the claim now. You said Pzifer did not demand military bases as collateral. Now you are saying that yes, Pfizer did indeed demand military bases as collateral, implying that the original claim was just 'they demanded military bases'. It was not. It was always 'as collateral'. everything in your post past that is just a roundabout away of avoiding admitting directly that you were wrong.

I'm glad you finally admitted that you were wrong here, even though you won't come out and say it directly. Case closed.

 

[lost]

Okay, no, you're changing the claim now. You said Pzifer did not demand military bases as collateral. Now you are saying that yes, Pfizer did indeed demand military bases as collateral, implying that the original claim was just 'they demanded military bases'. It was not. It was always 'as collateral'. everything in your post past that is just a roundabout away of avoiding admitting directly that you were wrong.

I'm glad you finally admitted that you were wrong here, even though you won't come out and say it directly. Case closed.

I have been following this thread. Antipodean does clearly not write that Pfizer requested military bases as collateral.


And do you really think that countries like:

• Canada
• Chile
• France
• Germany
• Israel
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• United States

have given Pfizer their military bases as collateral. No way!