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

Same outrageous demands were made to "shitty" countries like Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Japan, etc...They all agreed to and are getting Pfizer vaccines.
All hail Bolsonaro and Fernandez, I guess, for defending our "sovereignty".
Meanwhile, in the nearby country that does not have time for this nationalistic/populist bullshit...

Chile Has More Than Enough Vaccine Doses, But It Wants More
 
When critizing the failed deal with Pfizer, always two points are mentioned:
1) economical collaterals / guarantees: why would anyone in this world deliver something to Argentina without having some kind of guarantees or demand advance payments? Anything else would be reckless given the country's credit history
2) that Pfizer seeks some kind of legal immunity seems also logical to me. Even more in a country with a political system that at times is not free from political pressure. But apparently they did the same in the US where some multi-billion penalties always loom.

In short: Pfizer / Biontech produced a "private good", and they are obviously free to dictate the terms and conditions. And also as camberiu pointed out: why does the majority of the countries make contracts with Pfizer and Argentina / Brazil not?
 
I 'd rather Argentina put up with Pfizer's conditions instead of getting vaccines from Russia and China, both countries are remarkably ( in ) famous for hiding huge health and environmental catastrophes.
 
When critizing the failed deal with Pfizer, always two points are mentioned:
1) economical collaterals / guarantees: why would anyone in this world deliver something to Argentina without having some kind of guarantees or demand advance payments? Anything else would be reckless given the country's credit history
2) that Pfizer seeks some kind of legal immunity seems also logical to me. Even more in a country with a political system that at times is not free from political pressure. But apparently they did the same in the US where some multi-billion penalties always loom.

In short: Pfizer / Biontech produced a "private good", and they are obviously free to dictate the terms and conditions. And also as camberiu pointed out: why does the majority of the countries make contracts with Pfizer and Argentina / Brazil not?
On point 2 - didn't Sputnik receive a similar protection from the Argentine government to protect it from liability? Good luck taking up a law suit in Russia if the sh!t hits the fan... (or they fail to deliver against the timelines set in their contract that result in additional out of pocket costs for Argentine tax payers...)

Most revealing to me is the following:

"But Pfizer wanted more - Not just sovereign assets but a fraud insurance, something with which Argentina did not agree with." ...given the vacunagate scandal in progress I can see why some Argentine politicians would not want to agree to something that protects Pfizer from fraud or being tarnished or possibly blamed by someone else's dodgy dealings to siphon off money and vaccines from the deal.
 
In short: Pfizer / Biontech produced a "private good", and they are obviously free to dictate the terms and conditions.

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?
 
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?
But you don't need to get into an agreement with a fire service, which is a public service paid by taxes (at least in my country). The agreement is already in place before they get to my burning house. It's a completely different scenario and not a good comparison. Do you mean this actually happens?

-

Anyway, just as Pfizer was free to dictate its terms, Argentina and Brazil were free to decline. Whether you think Argentina did the correct thing or not, it seems to me there was nothing wrong with the process itself. I personally think it was a bad choice, but what difference does that make?
 
But you don't need to get into an agreement with a fire service, which is a public service paid by taxes (at least in my country). The agreement is already in place before they get to my burning house. It's a completely different scenario and not a good comparison. Do you mean this actually happens?
<snip>
I totally get where @lunar is coming from and yes, it happens today and it used to happen in the UK not that long ago. Those plaques on the front of Victorian and pre-Victorian houses in English towns and villages? Lots of them have Sun emblems representing the Sun Insurance Company of the day and others have other emblems or initials representing other companies. The plaque told the fire crews which houses had paid for protection and if you hadn't paid in advance they would just watch your house burn down.

Scroll forward to Obion County, Tennessee, USA in 2010 when firefighters refused to spray a house on fire because the owners hadn't paid their $75 annual fee. Scroll on to 2018-2020 and private firefighters were employed to battle the Californian bushfires to defend certain properties for which they had commercial agreements. I'd bet there are similar situations today in other parts of the world as well.
 
I 'd rather Argentina put up with Pfizer's conditions instead of getting vaccines from Russia and China, both countries are remarkably ( in ) famous for hiding huge health and environmental catastrophes.
Yeah. Indonesia is one of the lucky ones that received Chinese vaccine(SinoVac), and used on their medical staff first, and some are still infected.
Most Chinese(at least the Chinese officials) are waiting for the Pfizer authorized vaccine made by a company called FuXing. Basically Pfizer asked FuXing to cover Hong Kong and Taiwan. Gov of Taiwan now is asking US gov and Pfizer to give them the vaccine directly, not from FuXing.
FuXing makes vaccine for Pfizer, as Pfizer can not produce enough, but FuXing can only supply the great China region, mainland, HK and Taiwan. If you get a vaccine from China, it will be a shi*ty Chinese one. FuXing can not export Pfizer's vaccine. So far only countries like Indonesia is wiling to take it. My brother is prof at a major Chinese university, they were told that Chinese vaccine is available and they can register to get a shot, no one responded to the notice. People do not feel the need to get a vaccine with no public data. They would tale Pfizer one if it's available.

China has a long history of bad vaccines

 
Last edited:
Back
Top