How Pfizer tried to bully Argentina and Brazil in exchange for vaccines

[lunar]

... that received Chinese vaccine(SinoVac), and used on their medical staff first, and some are still infected...

Shouldn't this be expected?

I believe the immune response completely develops a couple of weeks after the second jab. Besides, the effectiveness is sufficiently below 90%. However, if it just helps to stop the spreading of the disease, that's already a pretty good result.

 

[lunar]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/asia/faulty-vaccine-china-intl/index.html

... revoking its license for human rabies vaccines...

Rabies? Very relevant.

 

[Alpinista]

It looks like you don't see a difference between "business as usual" and "this is an emergency" modes of operations.

I'll give you an example. Your house is on fire. You call 911 and firefighters arrive. Then you and the head of the firefighters team are getting engaged in a lively negotiation session.

He says: "I think it your house is going to burn to the ground."
You say: "Oh, noes! Maybe just a couple of rooms that are already in flames?"
And he says: "How much do you want to bet on this?"
And then you both consider other possible outcomes and amounts of respective bets. Like "How much would it be for only the top floor to be destroyed by fire, etc."

If you don't manage to get into an agreement soon enough, his original bet would happen to be correct and the firefighters just leave.

Believe me or not, this is a standard practice in certain places.

According to your logic, this is justifiable. He is just trying to maximize the business profit, right?

The comparison you are making, I don't understand. You are talking about firefighters who do not want to fulfill their contractual obligations (the public is paying for the firefighter department exactly for this case and the firefighters are being paid accordingly). What you describe is a blatant case of corruption.

Whether it is a "business as usual" situation or an "emergency" as you describe, doesn't change anything. Company A wants to sell a product (under certain conditions), Buyer B can accept it or is totally free to decline.

I am also not sure what this "emergency" argument would mean in this context. Does it mean that Buyer B is dictating terms and conditions plus the prices and Company A has to accept it? If Buyer B has this right, then certainly also Buyers C, D etc.

The only reason I would probably understand is the following case: there is a worldwide pandemic and you have exactly one provider of the remedy / vaccine. Then it would certainly be debatable to infringe their copyrights / patents (if there is no cooperation). However, we are having here almost ten (I lost count) different providers, so this is not the case.

As a last point: exactly the prospect of making a lot of money lead to the unprecedented initiative around the world to invest in this vaccine. So what you are criticizing ("making money") is the main reason why there were (or mostly still are) working more than 100 projects around the world to tackle this crisis.

 

[lunar]

The comparison you are making, I don't understand...Whether it is a "business as usual" situation or an "emergency" as you describe, doesn't change anything. Company A wants to sell a product (under certain conditions), Buyer B can accept it or is totally free to decline.

What you are saying is that in any situation economic interpretation prevails and the path that leads you to bigger profits is always the only correct one. This is a typical merchant mentality.

And I believe that while it may be true most of the time, there are certain exceptions. For example, trying to take advantage of people (or countries for that matter) who are in desperate need is immoral.

 

[antipodean]

I don’t see Pfizer as having tried to “take advantage of Argentina”. The reality is that Argentina is one 195 countries all wanting the same scarce resource. Pfizer was offering pricing comparable to all other private (and semi private or public) companies selling vaccines, which like it or not the only way to get them is with money changing hands.

Pfizer’s job now is to make sure it gets paid so that it can continue to produce more vaccines and invest into more development of these vaccines: no money = no work = no vaccines. This includes seeking guarantees or payment terms that assure this since the sad reality is that there are some states or buyers who would take the merchandise and run or incur more costs than they paid for through fraud and corruption etc.

If Argentina can’t come to terms with a specific provider, then someone else who does accept those terms will buy them. Argentina has no right to preferential treatment and has gone with other options on the market as a result - including some that have higher prices (which according to prices vs. effectiveness are taking advantage of its desperation by looking to accept higher risk in order to make a quick buck.)

 

[Greg S]

I returned to USA to get Pfizer vacs in Fl. Glad I did. You get what you pay for. When it comes to health, that's important. And you get this too.

Pfizer begins trials testing third dose of Covid vaccine