News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

I might be that the terms of agreement with Pfizer US and the US government precludes that. I assume it is a wholly owned subsidiary and able to conclude its own agreements. As we saw in other examples with PPE, etc., the US administration of the day was fond of exclusive, America first/America only agreements. Otherwise, dunno.

I can confirm this - it was mentioned on the news last night that the Michigan facility is exclusively supplying the US.
 
Frankly, they need the vaccine more than we do. Every US state has higher infection rates than Ontario, excepting Hawaii.

I agree with this. I'm not in a rush to be vaccinated, and not because I don't believe in vaccines.

I just wanted to know the real and actual reasons why they couldn't be shipped from Michigan and hoped they'd be reasonable.
 
Also keep in mind that the contractual obligation wasn't breached - and the contracts were signed before the vaccines candidate was actually deemed safe and effective. Delays (a few weeks!) or not - it does not negate the need to hunker down.

On the matter of domestic vaccine production being the solution - the Australia is a good example of how this is still a gamble:


AoD
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
We already blocked bulk export of medications:


We aren't as non-protectionist as you think we are.

AoD

That really isn't about protectionism.

That's about a Big Pharma Lobby that enjoys grossly inflated prices in the U.S. market where they make a significant share of their profit.

If those same drugs, from those same makers is sold at lower prices in Canada (which they typically are, due to both price controls and bulk purchasing), and then re-exported to the U.S. market, it would under cut those same companies U.S. profits.

So our controls on export are about doing 'Big Pharma' a favour.

A favour in part, because to my understanding there was talk of limiting Canadian supply if action wasn't taken.
 
Last edited:
That really isn't about protectionism.

That's about a Big Pharma Lobby that enjoy grossly inflated prices in the U.S. market where they make a significant share of their profit.

If those same drugs, from those same makers is sold at lower prices in Canada (which they typically are, due to both price controls and bulk purchasing), and then re-exported to the U.S. market, it would under cut those same companies U.S. profits.

So our controls on export are about doing 'Big Pharma' a favour.

A favour in part, because to my understanding there was talk of limiting Canadian supply if action wasn't taken.

It doesn't matter what the driver is - we are still protecting our interest. This is contrary to the belief that we as a country don't do so - that only the US would.

AoD
 
I imagine we are required to prevent bulk export as part of our negotiated pricing with pharma companies.

Of course - but see my edit. We have negotiated a lower price, and we as a country will enact policies that will ensure that (rightly) stays. It's a response to the mistaken belief that only US is "selfish" enough to have exclusive agreements that shut out others.

AoD
 
Good gawd, the man is an idiot. I picture him showing up with a pickup truck with a bed half full of paint cans and junk.

 
Good gawd, the man is an idiot. I picture him showing up with a pickup truck with a bed half full of paint cans and junk.

Just get some dry ice and load 'er up.

Yikes. I doubt he's this dumb--he's just grandstanding.
 
Good gawd, the man is an idiot. I picture him showing up with a pickup truck with a bed half full of paint cans and junk.


While the idea is silly; and does nothing to enhance the Premier in my eyes............I'm not sure he's so foolish as to seriously believe what he's saying.

I think he understands the retail politics of a certain portion of his constituency will buy that 'he tried'.
 
While the idea is silly; and does nothing to enhance the Premier in my eyes............I'm not sure he's so foolish as to seriously believe what he's saying.

I think he understands the retail politics of a certain portion of his constituency will buy that 'he tried'.
Oh, I know he doesn't actually believe that he can do that. It comes across as desperate gesture. It's this type of thing that really reminds me of Trump; the *need* to get a win of some sort in a time of crisis, even from the real dullards in the audience who think that's all you have to do.
 
Good gawd, the man is an idiot. I picture him showing up with a pickup truck with a bed half full of paint cans and junk.


Will he be carrying firecrackers in that truck?

AoD
 
Just get some dry ice and load 'er up.

Yikes. I doubt he's this dumb--he's just grandstanding.

Ah yes, the classic populist, salt-of-the-earth, every-man "get 'er done" approach to politics marketed squarely at the unwashed dullards and bellends stupid enough to be impressed by it (and there's lots of them). "Ford Nation" will eat it up, just like they did with his anti-intellectual brother.
 

Back
Top