D&D and the rising pandemic

[Bedrockgames]

There has been a lot of good news coverage in the AP about how it is more than a supply issue, how greed and patents are in fact a hurdle when it comes to vaccines and pharmaceutical companies. But way above my pay grade. Not going to debate you but definitely think the past behavior of big pharma indicates we should be extremely sjeptucal about what their messaging on the supply issue (and that doesn’t mean rich countries can’t also be taken to task for not sharing the vaccine: greed of country, greed of corporation, both are bad things here)

 

[Garthanos]

The mRNA ones are tricky enough that nobody but the inventors can make them yet. But AZ/JJ and the like ar

Trickier to distribute too... but seem fast to make if you have the tech (and maybe adjust to new diseases)

 

[Umbran]

Right now, due to IP law, there is little incentive in any company besides Phizer and Morderna to try to make the tricky lipid wrapping process of mRNA vaccines cheaper, and setting up a factory in places that grant them patent monopolies to try to do that isn't going to be viable.

I think we are talking past each other. Incentive or not, funding or not, making improvements TAKES TIME. It isn't like you remove the IP restriction, and next week there's a flood of cheap Pfizer-type vaccine on the market! There would likely be months of spin up time before anyone else can make it at scale at all, and more months before they could actually improve the process, especially because major process change probably requires a new round of testing and certification for use.

If we lifted the IP restriction today, I don't think we'd see much improvement in cost until 2022. If, say, India's current predicament is the motivator, this is not a viable solution.

No, this is what governments do. They set the rules that determine what the legal issues are. And governments determine what lawsuits are allowed.

If you aren't living in a dictatorship, the government has limits. And, at least here, "the government" is not one entity. It is at least three. And one of them has the specific job of checking whether the other two are out of bounds.

There is precident that they can retroactively increase the length of protection under the IP statute, and the US supreme court said "this is completely up to congress".

There's very little legal similarity between broadly extending rights, and cancelling rights to specific items.

We aren't talking about a general change to IP law. We are talking about cancelling IP rights on two specific items. This amounts to the government annexing (some would say, "stealing") Pfizer's and Moderna's property. There are already Constitutional limits on government seizure of property, you know. It is in the 5th Amendment - "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Congress alone is not going to change the Constitution for the vaccine.

If the US government wants to remove the IP protection from these vaccines, they will have to buy them, at fair market value.

 

[Zardnaar]

Short term even if you did forcibly buy the you might bite yourself in the ass.

Would the vaccines have been deviled as fast if the companies couldn't make bank on them?

IP should probably expire after the death of the creator or 25 years. You can only IP a brand eg McDonalds not the products..

Means the corporations etc have to invent new stuff all the time instead of milking stuff for generations.

 

[Zardnaar]

9 border workers fired for refusing vaccines.

Covid-19: Nine Customs border workers fired after refusing jab

“It’s been very, very unpleasant, very unprofessional, and it’s devastating," a sacked worker says.

i.stuff.co.nz

By law you can refuse a vaccine but it's not covered in employment law.

Basically similar to wear what you want (in private) but the boss can make you wear a uniform or fire your ass.

You can't refuse work boots and hi vis vest either on job sites so there's also that.

 

[Garthanos]

IP should probably expire after the death of the creator or 25 years. You can only IP a brand eg McDonalds not the products..

The Brand is a matter of Trademark and separate from copyright which is also separate from patents which are the actual methods used.

 

[Garthanos]

By law you can refuse a vaccine but it's not covered in employment law.

Basically similar to wear what you want (in private) but the boss can make you wear a uniform or fire your ass.

You can't refuse work boots and hi vis vest either on job sites so there's also that.

I think in practice employers can fire you for almost any random STUFF they want to we have in the US a few explicit exceptions that can often be very difficult to prove.

Language, please.

 

[Hussar]

While I approve of the move to fire folks that refuse to get vaccinated, there's no way that any politician is going to try to make this a law. It is a pretty hefty violation of rights, regardless of how justified, and sets a really, really scary precedence.

I mean, if I can fire you for not getting a medical treatment, where does that end? Will employers now require vaccination lists before hiring? How invasive into your privacy can they get? Do existing issues like, say, diabetes, allow employers to refuse to hire or fire an employee? After all, someone with diabetes is far more likely to have problems than someone without.

IANAL, but, that's a pretty terrifying concept. I get the public safety argument, but the existence of things like that school in Miami, shows that employers are not medical professionals and are potentially wrong about the risks involved. Not to be a douche here, but, what are the odds of an unvaccinated worker spreading coronavirus? I don't know, and I'm pretty sure that most people don't either. Which is different from, say, wearing a hardhat, where we can calculate the odds - or, rather, the odds have already been calculated by someone somewhere.

While a large part of me applauds them for taking a stand against people refusing the vaccine, the implications and precedence makes my skin crawl.

 

[Mikeythorn]

I don’t think it is too different from any other safety requirement. A builder who refused to wear a hard hat on a demolition site shouldn’t be permitted on the site. A worker dealing with the public who is not vaccinated should not be dealing with the public. If neither are able to do their job, then neither should be expected to retain that job.

 

[Cadence]

While I approve of the move to fire folks that refuse to get vaccinated, there's no way that any politician is going to try to make this a law. It is a pretty hefty violation of rights, regardless of how justified, and sets a really, really scary precedence.

For the US...

Isn't the law in many states currently "at-will" employment, where you can be fired for any reason that isn't related to being in a protected class or doesn't violate the contract you were hired under? Not getting vaccinated for religious or medical reasons would be protected, is any other reason?

In any case, some states have some required immunizations for hospital employees, for example: State Immunization Laws for Healthcare Workers and Patients | CDC

I guess we'll see if it being an emergency use authorization matters when someone sues about losing a job over it. Some hospitals in TX, for example, have required it: Hospitals, Colleges Requiring COVID-19 Vaccination .