Either vaccines are excessively harmful or they are not.
If they are not excessively harmful, why did the vaccine manufacturers claim they could not stay in business unless liability was waved? Either lawsuits were a financial burden or they were not. If they were a burden (as they once claimed) then vaccines must have been excessively harmful.
Did that all change at some point? If so, can't the vaccine makers afford to be liable again? After all, safe vaccines don't result in excessive lawsuits, right?
If vaccines are really so safe why have the vaccine courts gone through over 4 billion of your taxpayer dollars compensating injuries and deaths?
If vaccines are safe the American taxpayer is getting ripped off. If vaccines are not safe why are we being told they are safe? It cannot be both. Common sense.
@Metal-Brain
This reminds me of an interview about 3 years ago with a medical doctor. He mentioned how countless thousands of mothers testified in court about severe damage or death of their children shortly after being vaccinated, but they got nowhere because their testimony was completely ignored by the courts. All those mothers were treated by the legal system as if they were completely irrelevant, sub-human idiots with zero rights and zero credibility.
@metal-brain saidWere you dropped on your head as a kid?
Either vaccines are excessively harmful or they are not.
If they are not excessively harmful, why did the vaccine manufacturers claim they could not stay in business unless liability was waved? Either lawsuits were a financial burden or they were not. If they were a burden (as they once claimed) then vaccines must have been excessively harmful.
Did that all change a ...[text shortened]... off. If vaccines are not safe why are we being told they are safe? It cannot be both. Common sense.
@shavixmir saidYou see no problem with big businesses making a product and not being held responsible if that product hurts people?
Were you dropped on your head as a kid?
@metal-brain saidthe two are unrelated.
Either vaccines are excessively harmful or they are not.
If they are not excessively harmful, why did the vaccine manufacturers claim they could not stay in business unless liability was waved? Either lawsuits were a financial burden or they were not. If they were a burden (as they once claimed) then vaccines must have been excessively harmful.
Did that all change a ...[text shortened]... off. If vaccines are not safe why are we being told they are safe? It cannot be both. Common sense.
vaccines are safe because they are proven safe by the numerous independent studies.
Manufacturers are not liable because the US for example has a corrupt system that allows corporations to buy senators like hookers.
Call your representative and have them fight for money out of politics.
@zahlanzi saidSo you are saying no vaccine ever resulted in negative health effects, even death?
the two are unrelated.
vaccines are safe because they are proven safe by the numerous independent studies.
Manufacturers are not liable because the US for example has a corrupt system that allows corporations to buy senators like hookers.
Call your representative and have them fight for money out of politics.
@bunnyknight saidAlmost every child gets hurt somehow at some point. Some of those will of course coincide with vaccination regimens. Maybe the courts were looking at the health records and numbers of injuries/deaths in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. There are many millions of children in each group to provide enormous statistical power to detect a harmful signal.
@Metal-Brain
This reminds me of an interview about 3 years ago with a medical doctor. He mentioned how countless thousands of mothers testified in court about severe damage or death of their children shortly after being vaccinated, but they got nowhere because their testimony was completely ignored by the courts. All those mothers were treated by the legal system as if they were completely irrelevant, sub-human idiots with zero rights and zero credibility.
@eladar saidEr, yes. But I’m a communist.
You see no problem with big businesses making a product and not being held responsible if that product hurts people?
You’ve got what you want. This is capitalism. Big companies making big profits and taking steps to insure themselves that they don’t lose said profits.
You reap what you sow.
@zahlanzi saidWrong.
the two are unrelated.
vaccines are safe because they are proven safe by the numerous independent studies.
Manufacturers are not liable because the US for example has a corrupt system that allows corporations to buy senators like hookers.
Call your representative and have them fight for money out of politics.
As long as vaccine makers are not liable they have no incentive to make safer vaccines. They don't pay for it, you do.
If vaccines are safe the corrupt vaccine makers should be liable again. Pfizer got millions of Americans addicted to pain killers. They don't care about people. The only thing that will compel them to care is if they can be sued.
@wildgrass said"Almost every child gets hurt somehow at some point."
Almost every child gets hurt somehow at some point. Some of those will of course coincide with vaccination regimens. Maybe the courts were looking at the health records and numbers of injuries/deaths in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. There are many millions of children in each group to provide enormous statistical power to detect a harmful signal.
That is your argument? People get hurt so keep hurting them?
Did you bump your head?
Did the vaccine makers lie about being burdened with lawsuits? Because either they didn't have a lawsuit problem at all or their vaccines hurt a lot more people than they admit to.
"There are many millions of children in each group to provide enormous statistical power to detect a harmful signal."
But any deaths after being vaccinated are always assumed to be a coincidence until proven otherwise. How do they detect a death that is confirmed to be caused by the vaccine? What records? None of the deaths reported by VAERS have a proven cause. It says so right on their website.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidI'm not trying to weigh in on whether vaccines are actually safe or not. But something to ask is "how safe does a vaccine have to be to be a good choice to take from a risk management perspective?"
Either vaccines are excessively harmful or they are not.
If they are not excessively harmful, why did the vaccine manufacturers claim they could not stay in business unless liability was waved? Either lawsuits were a financial burden or they were not. If they were a burden (as they once claimed) then vaccines must have been excessively harmful.
Did that all change a ...[text shortened]... off. If vaccines are not safe why are we being told they are safe? It cannot be both. Common sense.
Fore example, if you have a 1% chance of dying of Covid over 2 year span and a 5% chance of having long term complications from Covid, would you take a vaccine that has a 0.001% chance of killing you? I would. Furthermore, as public policy, I'd want the general public to make the same choice.
But if 0.001% die from the vaccine and you give the vaccine to 3 billion people, that results in 30,000 deaths. If all 30,000 join a class action and each are awarded $1,000,000, that's $30 billion in liability losses even though the vaccine may have actually saved 2,970,000 lives. You might reason that if they're selling 3 billion vaccines, they ought to have no problem paying $30 billion. But that is a total wild card and can easily become $3 trillion with a bad lawyer. If they have to plan to pay a large settlement for any and all bad reactions, they have to charge a lot more for the vaccine to stockpile the cash for some wildly variable settlement payment total. As a company, they could opt to sit on it and test it for another 2 years while millions die of Covid. But if we know enough to know for certain that overall it will be a huge net savings of life, why not help create a business environment so it can be used now? You can squabble about the specific numbers I used, but these are just example numbers and the same point can still be valid with substantially less optimistic numbers.
The second thing to consider, out of 3 billion people, especially when old people are more likely to get the vaccine, just by chance some are going to die in any given 2 week period. If someone gets the vaccine and dies within a week or two for declining health reasons, it's going to seem an awful lot like the vaccine contributed to the death, and grieving loved ones are not going to want to hear nerdy statistician tell them anything about Bayesian probabilities. And juries are manned by average people who make decisions based on emotions. If Grandma dies a week after getting the vaccine, juries are going to be very much inclined to see cause and effect even if a hypothetically objective scientist is highly skeptical.
The question asked is "If Vaccine injury and death is so rare why no liability to the manufacturers?". I'm not here to argue that the vaccine is safe nor am I here to argue that the pharmaceuticals are totally above board. You can argue that with different strangers (not me) all over the internet. But the question is frequently asked as if it answers itself and just by being asked proves that the vaccine must not really be safe. But when I consider the question, I do not find the idea that a pharmaceutical would want liability protection for a safe vaccine to be inexplicable nor do I find it unreasonable that the government should agree to it in some urgent circumstances.
@shavixmir saidActually this is a form of socialism, business and government acting as one. Without the government protecting big pharm, we could hold big pharm responsible.
Er, yes. But I’m a communist.
You’ve got what you want. This is capitalism. Big companies making big profits and taking steps to insure themselves that they don’t lose said profits.
You reap what you sow.
Big government is to blame. Pushing vaccination on people is to blame. People like you who simply follow what their governments say are to blame.
@techsouth
As long as people are warned that if you take this vaccine it could kill you, then you have a point. If you do not warn people then you should be held responsible.
@eladar saidI took the vaccine. There was written warning I had to sign. What would you consider a warning? Should the pharmaceuticals take out ads encouraging fast-food workers to "do their own research"?
@techsouth
As long as people are warned that if you take this vaccine it could kill you, then you have a point. If you do not warn people then you should be held responsible.
Sadly, everyone with an Internet account and a few high school science classes can produce misinformation to sound believable to a gullible person. And there are many gullible people.
Just one example. There are places online where people ask this this question: "If Vaccine injury and death is so rare why no liability to the manufacturers?" as if that were some grand mike-drop. This leaves the average person not able to come up with an answer. The result is many people feel like the this mere question being asked has just proved the vaccine to be dangerous.
Because of all the misinformation, I am finding myself sympathetic with both public health officials trying to encourage good risk management decisions both individually and collectively. And I'm also finding myself sympathetic to the pharmaceuticals battling the same tidal wave of misinformation. Slogans and misinformation is usually concise and sounds compelling. The truth on such things is usually complex and difficult for the average person to understand, especially when combined with a short attention span.
@metal-brain saidVaccines are safe and effective but everything in life has potential risks. Either the recipient or the manufacturer can take the risk. In order to make sure that overwhelmingly relatively safe product is available to everyone we have decided that the recipient takes the risk. I believe we already allow too many lawsuits so fewer lawsuits is also good.
Either vaccines are excessively harmful or they are not.
If they are not excessively harmful, why did the vaccine manufacturers claim they could not stay in business unless liability was waved? Either lawsuits were a financial burden or they were not. If they were a burden (as they once claimed) then vaccines must have been excessively harmful.
Did that all change a ...[text shortened]... off. If vaccines are not safe why are we being told they are safe? It cannot be both. Common sense.