[nicoburns]

C and D seem fine to me. It's necessary to protect everyone else. A and B are the problem. The US government should have limited Pfizer's profit margin, and they should be using the money saved to cover people's medical costs for complications arising from the vaccine (removing the need to sue).

[k2enemy]

I could not disagree more. Pfizer should be able to profit from the vaccine. If the govt steps in and takes away their ability to benefit from the vaccine what incentive is there for bio firms to respond like Pfizer did in the future? Why work on risky and expensive vaccine technologies if, in the unlikely event it is ever needed, you won't have a chance of recouping your costs?

[nicoburns]

I didn't say they shouldn't be able to profit. Just that the profit should be limited.

[vetinari]

> Pfizer should be able to profit from the vaccine

Government-mandated vaccine from a private supplier. What could possibly go wrong.

[Larrikin]

So would you rather have your taxes increased so that it is from the government?

Would you not be making the same statement if it was a federally funded, just with a word replaced?

[vetinari]

> So would you rather have your taxes increased so that it is from the government?

It will increase my taxes anyway; who do you think is paying for all this?

The difference is, that in this way, my taxes pay for privately-held know-how. I want my taxes to pay for public know-how.

[dragonwriter]

> The US government should have limited Pfizer's profit margin, and they should be using the money saved to cover people's medical costs for complications arising from the vaccine (removing the need to sue).

They didn't have to limit Pfizer's or other suppliers profit margin to cover people's costs for recommended to diagnose, treat, or prevent COVID (or used in conjunction to enhance effectiveness of or mitigate risks or complications of such a diagnostic, treatment, or prevention measure); that's covered by the same law which shields the makers of those things from liability. [0]

[0] https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/faq#covid

[vetinari]

C and D... are you aware of Nuremberg Code, a set of principles created after Nuremberg trials?

If you are fine with C and D, you might find yourself in a company that most people would not like to be.

[mrtesthah]

Fact check: Nuremberg Code Addresses Experimentation, Not Vaccines

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/nuremberg-code-addresses-e...

[ScoobleDoodle]

This vaccine is still unapproved, meaning it's being used experimentally at this point. It has not been approved nor completed normal testing trials. Otherwise it wouldn't have had to receive emergency use authorization.

> An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge...

[mrtesthah]

> It has not been approved nor completed normal testing trials. Otherwise it wouldn't have had to receive emergency use authorization.

That's false. The mere fact that a vaccine is EUA does not mean that it hasn't been tested. The vaccines available under EUA today have gone through exactly the same testing phases as fully FDA-approved ones. The only difference is that the phases were overlapping instead of performed serially. The link you reference already explains this.

[ScoobleDoodle]

I did not say it had no testing at all. It has gone through short term testing. But it has insufficient testing to pass the standard hurdles and thus could only be used with the Emergency Use Authorization. Which carries with it the risks of consequences being unknown. As in this case, the long term consequences. And that’s where the category of experimental unknown results lays and how the Geneva Convention on human rights applies: not being allowed to force this vaccine on people through force or coercion.

[mrtesthah]

The vaccine has now been administered to more people than any other medication in the history of humanity, with more data points collected than any other medication. There's no way that your claim that it hasn't been sufficiently tested stands up here, at all. It's a transparent lie.

And on the topic of ethics, we have more than enough data on the rate of bodily damage and death caused by the covid virus to make vaccines available to the public as soon as practically possible. Any public policy of holding back vaccines for years of small-scale testing in the face of such mass death would be tantamount to genocidal negligence.

[vetinari]

They didn't go exactly the same testing phases; the serialization doesn't work like that, you cannot replace time with parallelism (the 9 pregnant women is a suitable analogy).

So, the timeline is:

- Corminaty; currently doing phases 3 and 4; assumed end is december 2023;

- Spikewax: currently doing phases 3 and 4; assumed end is december 2022;

- Vaxzevria: currently doing phases 3 and 4; assumed end is second quarter 2022;

- Janssen: still doing phases 1/2a, 2a, 3; assumed end december 2023;