What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Seasons 2020 + 2021 COVID-19 discussion thread

hindy111

Immortal
Messages
40,379
I can't see my work picking up to normal levels untill November.
Opening up constructions means work will begin again but still most places will be hesitant unless it's really necessary. Especially factoris,offices,cafes,restaurants,domestic jobs.
And even once everything opens right up there is still a 4 week delay before the ball gets rolling.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
60,108
I can't see my work picking up to normal levels untill November.
Opening up constructions means work will begin again but still most places will be hesitant unless it's really necessary. Especially factoris,offices,cafes,restaurants,domestic jobs.
And even once everything opens right up there is still a 4 week delay before the ball gets rolling.
Small businesses are paying the price for merkins like Harvey Norman who publicly made squillions from JobKeeper and refused to give it back.

Now ScoMo reckons the best way to do this is to send individuals to CentreLink. Anecdotally, it seems that punters are finding it very hard to qualify for these payments.

1. I can't see how this is going to keep businesses open (which was the intention of JobKeeper), and
2. I can't see why I should not put off staff now.
 
Messages
35,766
TLDR: So what's this guy's point ?

If you owned Pfizer and a country wanted to grant emergency use of your research drug and only pay a few bucks per shot, how would you protect your IP and income streams ? What legal indemnities would you seek ?
That you can't back out of the contract under almost any circumstances could explain why other treatments aren't getting a fair go.

 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
60,108
That you can't back out of the contract under almost any circumstances could explain why other treatments aren't getting a fair go.

Did you read what I posted ^^^^ about the “Right-to-Try” Experimental Drugs Act ? Why wouldn't Pfizer want indemnities ?

The below paragraph says, inter alia "look, if you want to use this vaccine for emergency use - fine. Don't be calling me if it doesn't work or live up to your expectations."

Seriously this contract law critique is dumb and misinformed. Jumping at shadows because he is unqualified to interpret what it actually means in the context of the release of the drug during a pandemic.

1627445341801.png
 

emjaycee

Coach
Messages
10,224
That you can't back out of the contract under almost any circumstances could explain why other treatments aren't getting a fair go.

I am not a lawyer but the clause this dude quotes doesn't match his statement. He claims that "that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID19 the contract cannot be voided." and yet the clause he then follows it with, doesn't mention that at all. It simply states that development of other drugs or vaccines before the Pfizer products is approved does not reduce the urgent need for Covid prevention.

Someone correct me if I am wrong please.
 
Messages
35,766
Did you read what I posted ^^^^ about the “Right-to-Try” Experimental Drugs Act ? Why wouldn't Pfizer want indemnities ?

The below paragraph says, inter alia "look, if you want to use this vaccine for emergency use - fine. Don't be calling me if it doesn't work or live up to your expectations."

Seriously this contract law critique is dumb and misinformed. Jumping at shadows because he is unqualified to interpret what it actually means in the context of the release of the drug during a pandemic.

View attachment 51418
Do most contracts state that failure to supply as scheduled is not sufficient reason to cancel the contract? Seems very one sided.
 
Messages
35,766
I am not a lawyer but the clause this dude quotes doesn't match his statement. He claims that "that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID19 the contract cannot be voided." and yet the clause he then follows it with, doesn't mention that at all. It simply states that development of other drugs or vaccines before the Pfizer products is approved does not reduce the urgent need for Covid prevention.

Someone correct me if I am wrong please.
Yeah true. But also that seems like a strange thing to have in a contract.
 

emjaycee

Coach
Messages
10,224
Yeah true. But also that seems like a strange thing to have in a contract.
Not really. The dude is right in his assumption but not in what he quoted. I can guarantee that elsewhere in the contract there is reference to meeting the commitment to purchase because of the urgency given to the need for a drug or vaccination by the CDC/US govt. and the investment made by Pfizer to address this urgency should not be removed if someone beats them to market. This is Pfizer and the other contract party simply addressing the fact that there is not a monopoly given to Pfizer to develop a solution.
Not uncommon in lots of bleeding edge contracts.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
60,108
Do most contracts state that failure to supply as scheduled is not sufficient reason to cancel the contract? Seems very one sided.
Dude contracts worth zillions of $$$ are not "most contracts". They are bespoke documents drafted by a room of seriously experienced lawyers. Seriously why are non-lawyers critiquing clauses in contracts which are dealing with cross border price and market protection, risk assessment, compliance management and intellectual property ? This is so dumb.
 
Messages
35,766
Not really. The dude is right in his assumption but not in what he quoted. I can guarantee that elsewhere in the contract there is reference to meeting the commitment to purchase because of the urgency given to the need for a drug or vaccination by the CDC/US govt. and the investment made by Pfizer to address this urgency should not be removed if someone beats them to market. This is Pfizer and the other contract party simply addressing the fact that there is not a monopoly given to Pfizer to develop a solution.
Not uncommon in lots of bleeding edge contracts.
Fair enough. It just reads almost like a guilt trip.
 
Messages
35,766
Dude contracts worth zillions of $$$ are not "most contracts". They are bespoke documents drafted by a room of seriously experienced lawyers. Seriously why are non-lawyers critiquing clauses in contracts which are dealing with cross border price and market protection, risk assessment, compliance management and intellectual property ? This is so dumb.
Is that a no?
 

hindy111

Immortal
Messages
40,379
Small businesses are paying the price for merkins like Harvey Norman who publicly made squillions from JobKeeper and refused to give it back.

Now ScoMo reckons the best way to do this is to send individuals to CentreLink. Anecdotally, it seems that punters are finding it very hard to qualify for these payments.

1. I can't see how this is going to keep businesses open (which was the intention of JobKeeper), and
2. I can't see why I should not put off staff now.

I know/heard plenty of one man bands who run as pty Ltd companies last time around who have wives on books for a bit of a tax break (even thou they don't do anything) and just reduced their wives hours to zero and doubled up on job keeper. So recieved 2 x jobkeepers per household.

And this time rnd same types already put hands out and grabbed the 10k plus pocketing $1500 a week while wives get dumped again off books and collect another $600 a week via the disaster payment. This is what I find quite disgusting behaviour. Making shitmloads but always finding ways to rort the system.


I found out I might be able to get the $600 a week which I would be more then happy with. I think its been increased to $750. I do not need a lot to survive just home loan and food and even thou I will take a bit of a hit it will soften the blow dramatically.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
60,108
I know/heard plenty of one man bands who run as pty Ltd companies last time around who have wives on books for a bit of a tax break (even thou they don't do anything) and just reduced their wives hours to zero and doubled up on job keeper. So recieved 2 x jobkeepers per household.

And this time rnd same types already put hands out and grabbed the 10k plus pocketing $1500 a week while wives get dumped again off books and collect another $600 a week via the disaster payment. This is what I find quite disgusting behaviour. Making shitmloads but always finding ways to rort the system.


I found out I might be able to get the $600 a week which I would be more then happy with. I think its been increased to $750. I do not need a lot to survive just home loan and food and even thou I will take a bit of a hit it will soften the blow dramatically.
Sounds like it's cashedup111's shout then.
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
52,031
Sounds like it's cashedup111's shout then.

Mate, please don't joke about it. My rent is more than what they are offering, and I'm not even sure I am eligible for any payment anyway, due to the restrictive rules they have put in place.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
60,108
Mate, please don't joke about it. My rent is more than what they are offering, and I'm not even sure I am eligible for any payment anyway, due to the restrictive rules they have put in place.
Me too. I reckon the consensus from the feds is that we (small business) can afford to take a hit.
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
52,031
Me too. I reckon the consensus from the feds is that we (small business) can afford to take a hit.

Of course they would think that.
I still have rent to pay and I see my personal savings disappearing weekly.
I'm hoping to get back to work next week, but the info is so wishy washy with regards to the requirements, I'm not sure it will be possible.
 

Latest posts

Top