Whose liability for Pfizer’s vaccine?

‘The well-known The Independent newspaper reports that the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed that Pfizer required, and has been given, an indemnity by the government, protecting it from legal action if any ill-effects arise from the dispensation of the vaccine.

‘What does this mean? What is the effect in law of such an indemnity? Simply, that the country that provides the indemnity becomes primarily and independently liable if anything goes wrong with the uptake of the vaccine.’

Read here (The Sun Daily, Dec 14, 2020)

Tucked into the Covid-19 stimulus package? Protection for corporations

‘US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been one of the few Democratic lawmakers to spotlight what’s really going on. Last week, she tweeted: “If you want to know why Covid-19 relief is tied up in Congress, one key reason is that Republicans are demanding legal immunity for corporations so they can expose their workers to Covid without repercussions.”

‘The bipartisan initiative aims to obscure its Dr Evil level of depravity by superficially depicting the liability shield as merely temporary. But that seems like a ruse, as indicated by private equity mogul and senator Mitt Romney of Utah, who said the federal Covid-19 liability shield provision “provides a temporary suspension of any liability-related lawsuits, state or federal level associated with Covid-19, giving states enough time to put in place their own protections”.’

Read here (The Guardian, Dec 5, 2020)

ISDS enables making more money from losses: Predatory law firms exploit emergency Covid-19 measures

‘With the Covid-19 contagion from late 2019 spreading internationally this year, governments have responded, often in desperation. Meanwhile, predatory international law firms are encouraging multimillion-dollar investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) lawsuits citing Covid-19 containment, relief and recovery measures... Transnational corporations (TNCs) can claim staggering sums in damages for alleged investment losses, for either alleged expropriation, or more typically, indirect ‘damage’ caused by regulatory changes, in this case, Covid-19 government response measures...

‘Foreign registered real estate or property companies can also sue governments that protect lessees or tenants who cannot make their lease or rent payments as contractually scheduled after their operations are shut down or disrupted by emergency regulations imposed. Pharmaceutical and medical supplies companies can also appeal to such arbitration tribunals to claim losses due to price controls and ‘violated’ intellectual property rights for Covid-19 tests, treatments, medical and protective equipment as well as vaccines.’

Read here (ksjomo.org, August 18, 2020) 

Vulnerable: The law, policy and ethics of Covid-19

The contents of this 649-page book ‘confronts the vulnerabilities that have been revealed by the pandemic and its consequences. It examines vulnerabilities for people who have been harmed or will be harmed by the virus directly and those harmed by measures taken to slow its relentless march; vulnerabilities exposed in our institutions, governance, and legal structures; and vulnerabilities in other countries and at the global level where persistent injustices affect us all. Covid-19 has forced us to not only reflect on how we govern and how we set policy priorities, but also to ensure that pandemic preparedness, precautions, and recovery include all individuals, not just some.’

Most of its contents are focussed on Canada, however, there are articles about other places. The last 100 pages e.g. is on “Global health and governance”. Even while being Canada-centric, many of the issues are relevant to other countries albeit developed ones.

Download here (uO Research, University of Ottawa, 2020)

Is Malaysia in desperate need of a Covid-19 bill?

‘Since the MCO, the government had implemented several measures to combat the impacts of Covid-19, albeit on piecemeal basis. For example, the Companies (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2020 provided protection for companies from being wound-up for a period of 6 months after receiving a statutory demand, compared to the previous period of 21 days. The EPF Act 1991 had been amended to allow withdrawal by members for the purpose of “sustainable living”. Although these measures are welcomed, a comprehensive Covid-19 Bill is very much needed at this juncture if the issues caused by the MCO are to be sufficiently addressed. After almost 3 months of MCO and CMCO, it is imperative that the Bill covers all bases to assist businesses in rebuilding the economy and our nation.’

Read here (Malay Mail, May 30, 2020)