UK Government has given Pfizer indemnity from prosecution - is this normal practice?

[Woollyslippers]

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html

www.thesundaily.my/opinion/whose-liability-for-pfizers-vaccine-HX5617779

Is this normal practice?
Why, when I google this, am I only reading about it in limited UK press but it's more widely reported in world press?

I'm not anti vac but am genuinely interested.

Same was done for swine flu

I know you get compensated by the government if you get a severe disability but obviously they decide what is severe

@AcornAutumn yup and if this article is anything to go by, compensation is not a given and limited to £120k

www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/09/ministers-lose-fight-to-stop-payouts-in-swine-flu-jab-narcolepsy-cases

Yes of course compensation isn’t a given

Did you fill in the government consultation about “speeding up” approval for new treatments?

It’s a rush for profit.

I must’ve missed that consultation

@Woollyslippers

I must’ve missed that consultation

They didn’t exactly publicise it.

It's highly unusual for this to happen in the UK (thr norm in the states though).

@InTheFamilyTree does this not make it slightly concerning?

Am I right in thinking the swine flu vax was the first time they did this here?

@AcornAutumn I think that’s is correct but I’m trying to find reports to corroborate that.

I understand the need to provide some kind of indemnity in the context of a pandemic. But it should have come with strings attached.

i.e. develop a vaccine that uses proven methods if possible (e.g. inactivated whole virus vaccines) that will not result in controversy and low uptake. If this were not possible/advisable, a clear explanation should have been provided plus the rationale for the method selected.

Otherwise pharmaceutical companies get carte blanche to potentially benefit hugely from this crisis. They are enabled to test their whimsical (and possibly-dangerous) products on the population without bearing any of the risks. And they can use the trial process for future patents as well.

as far as I understand it the EU/USA will do the same and for all covid vaccines. Essentially they rushed it and dont want legal liability. Thats why the US/EU took their time going through all the documents/information - not just to ensure the vaccines are safe but also so they dont have to pay out shed loads in case something goes wrong. but boris wanted to be first

@trulydelicious
I happened to come across this article today and it does explain a bit about why some of the more traditional vaccine approaches were not chosen/ will take longer to make/read out.
Not really relevant to the thread but I thought of it when I saw your comment. I expect the rationale does exist for the choices but they haven't shared it with the public. The more traditional vaccine approaches are being tried too but they take longer.
theconversation.com/how-the-leading-coronavirus-vaccines-work-146969

@trulydelicious
It's also worth bearing in mind that most of the vaccines have been developed by small biotech firms/academic groups and the large pharmaceutical companies have partnered with them to produce the vaccines in large quantities. The approaches weren't their ideas but they have presumably decided to partner with companies whose approaches were deemed most likely to work.

Thank you @JS87

I will go through it

@trulydelicious

I understand the need to provide some kind of indemnity in the context of a pandemic. But it should have come with strings attached.

i.e. develop a vaccine that uses proven methods if possible (e.g. inactivated whole virus vaccines) that will not result in controversy and low uptake. If this were not possible/advisable, a clear explanation should have been provided plus the rationale for the method selected.

Otherwise pharmaceutical companies get carte blanche to potentially benefit hugely from this crisis. They are enabled to test their whimsical (and possibly-dangerous) products on the population without bearing any of the risks. And they can use the trial process for future patents as well.

That’s essentially what this is - a rush for profit.