WHO vaccine drive bedevilled by familiar question: who pays if things go wrong?

[snoop1130]

WHO vaccine drive bedevilled by familiar question: who pays if things go wrong?

By Francesco Guarascio

 

A woman holds a small bottle labeled with a "Vaccine COVID-19" sticker and a medical syringe in this illustration taken April 10, 2020. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/File Photo

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Who foots the bill if people in poor countries fall sick with unexpected side-effects from coronavirus vaccines? It's not clear and that's a big problem in the battle to beat COVID-19.

 

The World Health Organization (WHO) has so far left the question of financial claims unresolved as it seeks to ensure shots are fairly distributed around the world, according to confidential documents reviewed by Reuters and six people familiar with discussions.

 

A similar situation emerged during the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009-10. Back then, fears about potential compensation costs stymied the WHO's efforts to get vaccines to low-income countries. Some health experts fear the U.N. body risks making the same mistake.

 

Under the WHO's COVID-19 vaccine plans, known as COVAX, 92 poor countries are eligible to access vaccines at lower or no costs until the end of 2021, but liability conditions remain vague.

 

Without clearly stated terms, governments of poor states may be on the hook for potential compensation claims, which could put them off participating in the WHO-led scheme and risk prolonging the pandemic in places ill-equipped to cope, health experts say.

 

WHO and GAVI, a vaccine alliance which co-leads COVAX, said in a joint statement to Reuters that the scheme will try to solve liability and indemnification issues "while addressing the financial obligations this may impose on AMC-eligible economies," referring to the group of 92 poorer states which includes most African and South-East Asian countries.

 

Vietnam, which is eligible for free or cheaper COVAX vaccines, is unlikely to use shots provided by the global facility, a Vietnamese health official told Reuters, saying supply deals it negotiated bilaterally with pharmaceutical companies were more transparent than COVAX's terms.

 

Kenya, which is also eligible, said it was premature to say who should carry the liability for potential adverse effects but expected the vaccine makers to bear some of the responsibility, according to Rashid Aman, chief administrative secretary at the ministry of health.

 

Vastly underfunded -- COVAX has received about a quarter of the $16 billion the WHO and GAVI say it needs by the end of next year -- the scheme has left richer countries to fend for themselves when it comes to vaccine liability.

 

"Participants will be responsible for deployment and use of approved vaccines within their territories and assuming any liability associated with such use and deployment," according to a COVAX document seen by Reuters detailing the terms for countries that must pay to join.

 

The group includes European Union nations, China and also middle-income states, such as Argentina, Iran, Iraq, South Africa and Mexico.

 

"The consequence of this arrangement is that these countries may end up being liable to pay a very high hidden price if something goes wrong," a European Union senior official involved in talks with COVAX told Reuters.

 

This is one of the reasons why the EU has decided not to take delivery of vaccines through COVAX even though the 27-nation bloc has pledged money to the facility, the official said, noting that deals the EU is separately negotiating with vaccine companies involve clauses that make firms liable for potential compensation.

 

The United States has refused to fund COVAX and has instead sealed its own deals with drug companies, including offering a blanket legal immunity to COVID-19 vaccine makers in a bid to spur their investments in jabs.

 

China announced last week it would buy COVAX vaccines for 1% of its population.

 

A BARRIER FOR ACCESS?

 

There is no internationally approved COVID-19 vaccine, but the WHO estimates the first shot could be ready this year.

 

Adverse effects after a vaccine gets regulatory approval are rare but the speed at which COVID-19 shots are being pursued increases the risks of unforeseen conditions - and of large litigation costs.

 

During the H1N1 flu pandemic, the WHO struggled to get vaccines to dozens of poor countries partly because it had agreed with pharmaceutical companies that poorer nations would be on the hook for compensation claims just like richer countries, the organisation acknowledged in a 2011 report.

 

"Some recipient countries felt WHO did not adequately explain that liability provisions included in the recipient agreement were the same as the liability provisions accepted by purchasing countries," concluded the report of the WHO committee that reviewed the handling of the H1N1 flu pandemic.

 

Most of the estimated half million people who died from H1N1 were in poorer countries.

 

COVID-19 has so far infected nearly 38 million people and killed at least a million.

 

There are nearly 200 coronavirus vaccines in development and many governments acknowledge that drugmakers are taking big financial risks in developing and manufacturing at an unprecedented speed -- it usually takes 10-15 years to bring a vaccine to market -- shots that may not be successful.

 

There is broad consensus that some of these costs should be covered by taxpayers and many rich countries already have public or private funds that could pay indemnities to victims.

 

But many poorer countries that have agreed to get vaccines through COVAX do not have such compensation schemes nor the financial resources to fund them.

 

This means that they could either face costs for which they have no insurance, or that potential victims there might not be compensated at all.

 

"We are concerned how such arrangements could be a barrier for access to COVID-19 vaccines in lower and middle income countries that cannot or do not want to take on liability for the vaccines," Dimitri Eynikel of Doctors Without Borders, a medical non-governmental organisation, told Reuters.

 

The Gates Foundation, one of WHO's largest funders, raised similar concerns in a meeting with health experts in September, a person who attended the meeting said.

 

"It is a high-priority for the foundation that (..)distribution issues are resolved to ensure that decisions impacting delivery are as effective as possible," a spokeswoman for the Gates Foundation told Reuters, adding that work was being done to address those issues.

 

In addition to potential compensation costs, the poorest countries that qualify for free or cheaper vaccines, are also required to chip in to buy vaccines with up to $2 billion by the end of 2021, a confidential GAVI document shows.

 

Those unable to pay could be exempted next year, but later on they "will be expected to co-finance COVID-19 vaccines with tiered contributions that reflect economies' ability to pay," according to the document, a copy of which was seen by Reuters.

 

Contributions from the poorest, which could be financed through loans and grants from international donors such as the World Bank, are expected to help plug the funding gap and achieve COVAX's goal of buying at least 2 billion shots by the end of next year from a dozen vaccine makers.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-16

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[wombat]

who pays when it goes wrong?
the onus is on the end user silly, big pharma learnt that lesson after Thalidomide 

[brianp0803]

A part of the revenue from drug sales typically goes towards payment for complications from the drug.
 

If you tell a pharmaceutical company that they cannot make profit from the drug for the betterment of the world, but they must take liability for the drug then there’s no incentive for them to produce a vaccine.
 

Tell a company there is no upside for making profit, but possible huge possible liabilities and see how many companies would be interested.
 

How many people would volunteer to do something for free with the possibility they could be sued if the person doesn’t like their work?

[connda]

22 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Who foots the bill if people in poor countries fall sick with unexpected side-effects from coronavirus vaccines? It's not clear and that's a big problem in the battle to beat COVID-19.

Who foots the bill in any country. In the US you need a high-powered lawyer to obtain a settlement.
Countries world-wide simply shrug and indemnify the vaccine makers.  If the commoners die from a vaccination - so be it.  The herd needs culling anyway.  The price of advancing synthetic immunity.

"What about natural immunity?"

"Experts" with connections to Big Pharma say that immune systems are a thing of the past. Vaccinations that enrich the pharmaceutical industry are the New Normal.  Now shut up and move along little people, and 2 meters apart and get those masks on!!!

[connda]

4 hours ago, brianp0803 said:

A part of the revenue from drug sales typically goes towards payment for complications from the drug.
 

If you tell a pharmaceutical company that they cannot make profit from the drug for the betterment of the world, but they must take liability for the drug then there’s no incentive for them to produce a vaccine.

I don't mean to be cheeky, but you really don't have a clue as to how the real world works.  Vaccine makers are almost universally held as not fiscally responsible for vaccine related damages.  That's called indemnification.  Governments of some countries hold cash reserves but these reserves are extremely difficult to obtain.  It takes a very good lawyer and a lot of time.

From a capitalistic perspective how does that rate?  You make a product that the government mandates that you must buy and if the product is defective and causes you harm the same government passes laws so that your can't sue the product's maker in court, and can only collect damages from the government themselves should they be forcefully inclined to pay.

Ethical?  Moral?  I don't think so.  It's a hybrid between economic Fascism and predatory Corporatism.  But that is the world we live in now - the New Normal - and it will get worse.  You can bet on it.

[3NUMBAS]

News

'On the brink of disaster': Europe's Covid fight takes a turn for the worse

Jon Henley in Paris

,

The Guardian•16 October 2020

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brink-disaster-europes-covid-fight-131425056.html

 

“It’s not a word I’ve heard in a long, long time,” an elderly Paris resident said, leaving her apartment in mask and gloves for an early expedition to the shops. “A curfew. That’s for wartime, isn’t it? But in a way I suppose that’s what this is.”

Europe’s second coronavirus wave took a dramatic turn for the worse this week, forcing governments across the continent to make tough choices as more than a dozen countries reported their highest ever number of new infections.

In France, 18 million people in nine big cities risk a fine from Saturday if they are not at home by 9pm. In the Czech Republic, schools have closed and medical students are being enlisted to help doctors. All Dutch bars and restaurants are shut.

Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland are among countries to have broken daily case records, prompting the World Health Organization to call for an “uncompromising” effort to stem the spread.

Unfortunately, that requires making all but impossible compromises.

Most European governments relaxed strict lockdowns over the summer to revive economies shattered by the pandemic’s first wave. The return of normal activity, from packed bars to new academic terms, has fuelled an exponential increase in infections.

With infections across the continent breaking the barrier of 120,000 a day, authorities must now tighten restrictions once more to slow the spread of the disease – while doing all they can to avoid destroying already-jeopardised jobs and livelihoods.

Edited October 17, 2020 by 3NUMBAS

[Brunolem]

23 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Who foots the bill if people in poor countries fall sick with unexpected side-effects from coronavirus vaccines? 

Simple: don't use the poor countries' citizens as guinea pigs! 

 

Why don't they first inject their vaccines in those who have been claiming for them, such as Fauci, Gates and all the governments' members? 

 

For once, it would be justified to give all these good people priority. 

 

Then, during the months necessary to mass produce the vaccine, the populations would see if their guinea pigs/masters are developing any nasty side effects... 

[Credo]

4 hours ago, Brunolem said:

Simple: don't use the poor countries' citizens as guinea pigs! 

 

Why don't they first inject their vaccines in those who have been claiming for them, such as Fauci, Gates and all the governments' members? 

 

For once, it would be justified to give all these good people priority. 

 

Then, during the months necessary to mass produce the vaccine, the populations would see if their guinea pigs/masters are developing any nasty side effects... 

It will have been given to thousands of people during the trials.  It will be considered as safe before being released, but there is no way of predicting what will happen when it's given to millions of people.   In a new vaccine, we also won't know if there is a longer term side effects.

Many vaccines have a very, very small number of people who have a bad reaction to the vaccine.   

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Seems they have discovered the weak spot.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

News

'On the brink of disaster': Europe's Covid fight takes a turn for the worse

Jon Henley in Paris

,

The Guardian•16 October 2020

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brink-disaster-europes-covid-fight-131425056.html

 

“It’s not a word I’ve heard in a long, long time,” an elderly Paris resident said, leaving her apartment in mask and gloves for an early expedition to the shops. “A curfew. That’s for wartime, isn’t it? But in a way I suppose that’s what this is.”

Europe’s second coronavirus wave took a dramatic turn for the worse this week, forcing governments across the continent to make tough choices as more than a dozen countries reported their highest ever number of new infections.

In France, 18 million people in nine big cities risk a fine from Saturday if they are not at home by 9pm. In the Czech Republic, schools have closed and medical students are being enlisted to help doctors. All Dutch bars and restaurants are shut.

Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland are among countries to have broken daily case records, prompting the World Health Organization to call for an “uncompromising” effort to stem the spread.

Unfortunately, that requires making all but impossible compromises.

Most European governments relaxed strict lockdowns over the summer to revive economies shattered by the pandemic’s first wave. The return of normal activity, from packed bars to new academic terms, has fuelled an exponential increase in infections.

With infections across the continent breaking the barrier of 120,000 a day, authorities must now tighten restrictions once more to slow the spread of the disease – while doing all they can to avoid destroying already-jeopardised jobs and livelihoods.

Lockdown, open up, infections increase, lockdown, repeat.

 

Sooner or later, IMO they are going to have to go the Swedish route.

[owl sees all]

10 hours ago, Credo said:

Many vaccines have a very, very small number of people who have a bad reaction to the vaccine.

All vaccines carry some risk.

 

Some do a lot more harm than good.

[Dumbastheycome]

20 hours ago, wombat said:

who pays when it goes wrong?
the onus is on the end user silly, big pharma learnt that lesson after Thalidomide 

If by the "end user" you mean any individual "chooses" to accept a vaccination having been fully informed of possible risk then perhaps so.

But if avoidance of becoming a  social pariah in terms of free participation in education , employment, travel etc dictates an obligation to accept a  vaccination, even if having been also informed of risk, where is the onus of responsibility placed then?

 

[brianp0803]

Instead of giving the vaccine to them for free and denying all liability for any adverse side effects, maybe sell the product at full price but offer to pay the medical costs of any adverse side effects.
 

This seems like a good compromise

[teacherclaire]

Who foots the bill if people in poor countries fall sick with unexpected side-effects from coronavirus vaccines? 

 

The Worried Health Organization has no idea, but they will ask a fortune teller.  

 

Why is it different to people who get sick in wealthier countries?

 

   China, more Bio Weapons, please. 

Edited October 18, 2020 by teacherclaire

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, teacherclaire said:

Why is it different to people who get sick in wealthier countries?

People in wealthier countries can afford lawyers.

[tgw]

this sort of reasoning makes me feel sick. as if humans were immortal and as if there always had to be someone ready to foot the bill when something goes wrong.

this kind of "unlimited liability" is strangling western society, everyone is afraid of doing anything.

[3NUMBAS]

 

The video the world has longed to see... Covid vaccines rolling off the Pfizer production line in thousands of tiny bottles as Professor Van-Tam claims Oxford-Astra Zeneca jab will be rolled out by DECEMBER

• Pfizer is rattling off thousands of doses of its Covid-19 vaccine in Belgium
• The drug is being stockpiled if the contents prove safe and are effective 
• The US-based company can make 100 million doses available if allowed 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8852159/The-video-world-longed-Covid-vaccines-rolling-production-line.html

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 10/16/2020 at 5:44 PM, snoop1130 said:

The United States has refused to fund COVAX and has instead sealed its own deals with drug companies, including offering a blanket legal immunity to COVID-19 vaccine makers in a bid to spur their investments in jabs.

 

This says that the U.S. govt. is shielding vaccine makers from any liability on their part...

 

But what it doesn't say is, who else other than the vaccine manufacturers might be held liable under U.S. law if something goes wrong -- the administering doctors, the hospitals or medical clinics, the U.S. govt. that funded much of the U.S. vaccine development, etc etc.