Covid Vaccination Argentina

[gracielle]

I'll probably post a Pagina12 article or two each day so we can get some balance to the media being shared here....

Please do....

 

[skyway]

Folks, what is the gap between AstraZeneca doses in Argentina?

 

[FrankPintor]

Folks, what is the gap between AstraZeneca doses in Argentina?

84 days according to my certificate.

 

[gracielle]

Folks, what is the gap between AstraZeneca doses in Argentina?

According to Dr. Fernan Quiros, City Minister of Health, it is now 56 days for those who live in the City of BA.
He announced it this morning at a live interview by LaNacion+ at 10:50am.

 

[antipodean]

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.

Do you actually understand the following concepts:

• Jurisdiction?
• Execution?
• Sovereign immunity?
• Indemnification?

Going into more detail, contracts between foreign private companies and governments do not include a list of assets that can be used as collateral in the waiver of immunity from execution. Governments decide what assets they do and don't subject to a waiver (e.g. put up as collateral) using domestic laws that the contract may be subject to when authorising a waiver, which btw for Argentina puts military bases and glaciers in the same list of immune assets - glaciers cannot be fake news but military bases not as you previously said.

The only thing private companies care about is that there are indeed some government asset(s) (or alternative resources) are available under the waiver so should it come to enforcement of a judgment, means exist to pay the injured party and importantly that the competent courts can access them if a party does not pay the damages that it is ordered to. For this reason the recent DNU now permits assets such as royalties to be used and also establishes a reparation fund for victims injured by vaccines - most state assets including military bases and glaciers continue to remain immune.

Going back to the original point and as stated repeatedly before, and according to primary sources, Pfizer is not demanding military bases. Carla Vizzotti said "Ni Pfizer pidió los glaciares ni el gobierno pidió coimas", Gines Garcia before her said "The difficulties in relation to the North American company were rooted in 2 problems. The first was the proposal to exclude negligence not only from the contract, but also from the aforementioned law, which implied the modification of a norm. The second problem is related to the criteria for the acceptance of the guarantee with counter-guarantee of performance abroad." while Pfizer themselves ruled out interest in military bases amongst other state assets.

Yet for conspiracy theorists the "issue" is that somehow Pfizer wants Argentine military bases (I guess to launch viagra rockets on enemy states??) as opposed to the issue of hundreds of daily COVID deaths from some people who were not vaccinated in time or the politicians (from both JxC and FdT) who legislated the previous barriers to dealing with some vaccine providers in the first place, leading to some of these people not being vaccinated in time.

Here is the link to the DNU and the original law governing vaccine procurement.

 

[lunar]

Yet for conspiracy theorists the "issue" is that somehow Pfizer wants Argentine military bases ...

Conspiracy theorists say that Alberto is a genocidal maniac. In the middle of the pandemics, he decided not to sign a contract with Pfizer that otherwise was perfectly agreeable, and went with Russia and China instead.

Non-conspiracy theorists say that most likely he was put in a position where he could not sign the contract with Pfizer. This is where the idea that Pfizer made some outrageous demands comes from. What Pfizer exactly asked for is not clear, but probably it was some kind of collateral. And agreeing to provide this collateral would bring even stronger adverse reaction on the government than what we are seeing now.

Currently, when the USA has mostly finished the vaccination and finally has some vaccines to spare, they realized that they didn't do so well in the vaccine war in Latin America, and, therefore, it is time to make a good gesture and send the vaccines to the countries in need. What they ask for exchange is some good publicity.

Should the government decline it? Of course, not. It is better to have normal relations with the US and receive some vaccines, than spoil the relations and do not get anything. So, we have Carla Vizzotti (not Alberto) explaining that Pfizer didn't ask for military bases. And in parallel, a story circulates implying that there is no smoke without a fire. It looks like the government is taking a controlled hit with better interests of the nation in mind.

Since Alberto decided to fold without showing the cards, we can only assume that he had a terrible hand. All these arguments that "somebody said it, so this must be true" or "Pfizer sent vaccines to Switzerland, so it must have been good to everybody" or "you don't even understand what the collateral is, but I do" - they don't make any sense. And the stories that are produced by so called investigative journalism organizations are similar to paid reviews on Amazon. You can glance them through, but ultimately you know that people are writing them for money, so you should not take them for granted.

 

[¡Sencillamente yo!]

Conspiracy theorists say that Alberto is a genocidal maniac. In the middle of the pandemics, he decided not to sign a contract with Pfizer that otherwise was perfectly agreeable, and went with Russia and China instead.

Non-conspiracy theorists say that most likely he was put in a position where he could not sign the contract with Pfizer. This is where the idea that Pfizer made some outrageous demands comes from. What Pfizer exactly asked for is not clear, but probably it was some kind of collateral. And agreeing to provide this collateral would bring even stronger adverse reaction on the government than what we are seeing now.

Currently, when the USA has mostly finished the vaccination and finally has some vaccines to spare, they realized that they didn't do so well in the vaccine war in Latin America, and, therefore, it is time to make a good gesture and send the vaccines to the countries in need. What they ask for exchange is some good publicity.

Should the government decline it? Of course, not. It is better to have normal relations with the US and receive some vaccines, than spoil the relations and do not get anything. So, we have Carla Vizzotti (not Alberto) explaining that Pfizer didn't ask for military bases. And in parallel, a story circulates implying that there is no smoke without a fire. It looks like the government is taking a controlled hit with better interests of the nation in mind.

Since Alberto decided to fold without showing the cards, we can only assume that he had a terrible hand. All these arguments that "somebody said it, so this must be true" or "Pfizer sent vaccines to Switzerland, so it must have been good to everybody" or "you don't even understand what the collateral is, but I do" - they don't make any sense. And the stories that are produced by so called investigative journalism organizations are similar to paid reviews on amazon. You can glance them through, but ultimately you know that people are writing them for money, so you should not take them for granted.

Lunar, That explanation is feasible. Regardless, it is simply not possible to believe what you read anymore. There is no trust in what is out there. We are in the age of "Mis-Information" the internet has made it so just about anyone can release whatever version of the truth they desire for whatever motive or goal they have. Bottom line: If you can't fact check something, DOUBT IT.

 

[FrankPintor]

Non-conspiracy theorists say that most likely he was put in a position where he could not sign the contract with Pfizer. This is where the idea that Pfizer made some outrageous demands comes from. What Pfizer exactly asked for is not clear, but probably it was some kind of collateral. And agreeing to provide this collateral would bring even stronger adverse reaction on the government than what we are seeing now.

Add to this that 6-8 months ago Pfizer was in no position to deliver vaccines to Argentina (or to any other country in South America, the first delivery to Chile was a bare 10,000 doses on December 24th, basically for show). In fact, Pfizer wasn't able to meet its commitments to the EU either all through the European Spring. I expect Pfizer didn't want Argentina as a customer, and once Argentina had arranged for supplies of Astra-Zeneca and Sputnik, it didn't really want, or need, Pfizer as a supplier either.

In reality Argentina doesn't need Pfizer now, either, Sinopharm will likely be approved for under-18s, removing the only possible reason left to need Pfizer. Plus, the cold-chain logistics are going to be a problem. All the obsession about the Pfizer vaccine seems pointless, other than in the context of trying to embarrass the government. The vaccine rollout in Argentina is going very well indeed now (2.5 million shots in 7 days). But there's no reason to decline Pfizer, and possible benefits in accepting it.

The articles shared by Ventanilla are very detailed and convincing, and the note from the Brazilian health ministry that's linked to in one of them is quite an eye-opener.

 

[antipodean]

And agreeing to provide this collateral would bring even stronger adverse reaction on the government than what we are seeing now.

Are you saying that actually acquiring additional vaccines during an emergency would cause a more adverse reaction amongst Argentines than the government refusing or being unable to acquire them because of a hypothetical situation that something goes really wrong in a lawsuit and collateral is called in?

Currently, when the USA has mostly finished the vaccination and finally has some vaccines to spare, they realized that they didn't do so well in the vaccine war in Latin America, and, therefore, it is time to make a good gesture and send the vaccines to the countries in need. What they ask for exchange is some good publicity.

And what about Covax? and BioNtech?

So, we have Carla Vizzotti (not Alberto) explaining that Pfizer didn't ask for military bases. And in parallel, a story circulates implying that there is no smoke without a fire. It looks like the government is taking a controlled hit with better interests of the nation in mind.

So this government (or at least Ministry of Health) does indeed lie to or mislead the public from time to time?

And the stories that are produced by so called investigative journalism organizations are similar to paid reviews on Amazon. You can glance them through, but ultimately you know that people are writing them for money, so you should not take them for granted.

Which stories exactly? Argentine government publications? Statements of directly involved officials? DNUs and laws? Chequeado?
What alternative sources would you personally recommend I take more seriously instead? RPN? Россия Сегодня?

Yet despite all this smokescreen discussion (here and everywhere..) no one can provide a tangible or compelling reason why other countries, including those used as examples for why Argentina has been unsuccessful with Pfizer, have themselves ultimately been able to do deals with this provider and/ or Covax to acquire some of these vaccines by now but Argentina not, while at the same time they defend the government responsible for Argentina. Meanwhile hundreds of people, most of whom are not fully vaccinated, continue to die here from COVID each day.

 

[Silvie]

Folks, what is the gap between AstraZeneca doses in Argentina?

If the second dose is available they will call you in 2 months. They are saying between 2 to 3 months and they are trying to shorten the waiting time according to availability.