Can you agree? No government vaccine mandates until pharmaceutical companies become liable

Something people may or may not know, in an attempt to get the new experimental vaccines quickly rolling out, the US government created a special exemption for the pharmaceutical companies so that they could not legally be held liable for any detrimental effects that were caused by the vaccines in specific cases.

Now that the vaccine has been around for a while and is no longer "experimental", don't you think it's time that this special exemption be removed? Shouldn't the pharmaceutical companies be vulnerable to lawsuits over this vaccine just like any other medical product?

And now we are hearing talk of various government departments and public schools considering mandating these vaccines for the employees who work in these spaces.

Can we agree that there should be no government mandates until the pharmaceutical companies can be held liable for any ill effects?

It hardly seems fair or makes much sense for government to be mandating people have to be injected with something controversial while at the same time telling them they can't sue anyone if it causes them harm.

That seems to me it should be the priority, removing the special liability exemption before instituting any mandates.

 

Wait, they have been exempt from vaccine liability BEFORE this.

 

That is correct. Ronald Reagan and Congress did as instructed in 1986 and brought the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act which granted legal immunity to their patrons in Pharma. It's the American Way.

 

The fact that they create a special exemption for something tells us that they know all too well there's something wrong with the lawsuit system in America.
But instead of - I don't know, actually trying to SOLVE the problem - they just instead create entire exemptions from having to deal with that problem at all when it's some particular issue or group they think is essential.
They know perfectly well if everyone was forced to deal with the rotten justice system it would create, well, problems.
Talk about double standards and a two-tiered system.

 

Absolutely agree.

Recent study in Israel
"Of more than 400 seriously ill patients, more than half of the 400 have been vaccinated."

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2021...ers-new-lockdown-as-covid-cases-surge-n408729

 

Do you realize what is wrong with this kind of stat? It doesn't look at the denominator...
So, say that 200 Israelis who are vaccinated are sick in this hospital.
The question is, out of how many?
How many vaccinated Israelis didn't even get to the hospital in the first place because they didn't get sick, or if they did, had asymptomatic cases, or if they had symptoms, they were mild?

So, let's look at this denominator.

5.41 million Israelis are fully vaccinated as of now.

200 out of 5.41 million represent 0.0037%, which, LOL, no longer looks like more than half, huh??? ONE, one miserable one, out of 27,050 people.

It is well-known that stats can be used and manipulated in different ways to prove different ideas depending on the bias and the intention of the person publicizing the stat. So, who is this Allah Pundit from Hot Air, a blogger? I'm not about to click on this kind of link... who knows if it's got malware? Anyway, Allah Pundit likely wants clicks.

Here, tell me what headline sells more newspapers or earns more online clicks:

A) OMG OMG MORE THAN HALF OF SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENTS IN AN ISRAELI HOSPITAL ARE VACCINATED!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! LET'S ALL RUN AROUND LIKE HEADLESS CHICKEN!!!

B) Only 0.0037% of the vaccinated people in Israel ended up seriously ill in a hospital there.

Not to forget, one needs to still look at how many of these 200 vaccinated Israelis in this hospital will actually die. Everywhere, stats are showing that it's a tiny minority among them.

So interesting that the source you picked is called HOT AIR of all things... They are certainly full of it, LOL

 

Why does this have to be the standard? Like I get the idea behind it, but why this specifically? I don't understand.

 

It really instills confidence in a product (especially one you inject into your body) when the maufactures declare it's not our fault what happens....

Bet the tobacco companies are super envious...

 

Forcing someone to take a risk, when no else is responsible for that risk except the person who was forced.

You would think if someone is forced to do something, to inject something into their own body, they should at least be entitled to compensation and the ability to initiate a lawsuit in the courts if anything goes wrong.

What does that tell us about the vaccines if they're still considered too risky to allow the pharmaceutical companies to be vulnerable. Or if the pharmaceutical companies are selling something but refusing to accept any legal liability for their product if anything goes wrong.

It's one thing if individual people choose to take this, completely voluntarily, considering and weighing the risks, but it's a very difficult thing when this starts becoming forced on people.

 

The vaccine injury court was created because in the 80's vaccine manufacturers were threatenning to stop making some vaccines altogether due to the cost of paying out the damages those vaccines were causing. They essentially leveraged America's herd immunity for immunity to damages, and fedgov caved to em.

 

Which tells you either the lawsuit system in the courts is drastically unfair, or maybe those vaccines weren't actually worth the risk.

Imagine if any other company making something else claimed the same thing.

 

How about this? Make it illegal for such a vaccine to be given to anyone until they pay an extra fee for insurance to cover the costs if anything goes wrong from that vaccine and there are medical complications. I wonder how much of a fee private insurer companies would charge for that.

Democrats should totally support this, because they were all in favor of forcing people to buy health insurance under ObamaCare.

 

The damages paid out by the VICP come from a tax that is levied on the vaccines at point of sale. So, basically, there already is an extra fee, paid either by the vaccinated or their insurer. With these free vaccines, I'm guessing it just comes from fedgov (which means its just printed)

 

[Using CAPS for emphasis, not meant as yelling]

Well, kazenatsu, you're an anti-vaxxer poster, right?
You're the same poster quoting Luc Montagnier, the French virologist, against the Covid vaccines, right? Despite this:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nes-attributed-nobel-prize-winner/7435564002/
So, I'm not surprised that you are posting this, now.

What you fail to realize (or you do but you'll NEVER acknowledge it publicly) is that there is a HUGE difference in liability risk for a drug maker of regular medications for sick people, and a vaccine maker of vaccines for healthy people.

First, one of concept.

Think of a lawsuit. In this one, the drug maker's lawyer is able to say "Well, our medication is meant to treat this very serious condition that the plaintiff had... you know, he was about to die anyway, he was very sick, so, desperate times desperate measures, he willingly took this medication after being told about the risks and benefits. Oh well, too bad that while it works for others, it didn't work for him; he was too sick already, and he ended up doing poorly. So unfortunate; we're so sorry, but that disease the plaintiff had is bad and we didn't give it to him. Our medication was meant to help but like all medications it can't help all people, especially the very sick ones."

One can easily imagine the jury bobbing their heads and thinking, "yes, it makes sense. The drug was meant to help this very sick patient. The maker is not liable!"

Now, think of a lawsuit in which the plaintiff's lawyer gets to say "My client was 100% healthy! He got this vaccine mandated upon him! And now look at what happened to him!!!"

Again, one can imagine the jury bobbing their heads and thinking "yes, despicable, and it hurt a perfectly healthy guy and against his will! We need to teach them a lesson! Liable!"

Second, one of numbers.

A medication for say, diabetes, among many others of the kind, shares a market for the 26 million diabetic patients in the US with dozens of drugs, and is given to, say, 1 million of them.

A vaccine is given to, say, 70% of the population when it's all said and done, or 235 million people (not to forget that worldwide it will be billions. BILLIONS!!!)

So, let's say that the diabetes medication has a rate of complications of 0.5%; out of a million people = potentially 5,000 people get hurt and might have a case to sue.

Let's say that the vaccine is five times safer, and only has a rate of complication that is 0.1% but applied to a much bigger pool of 235 million people = potentially 235,000 people get hurt and might have a case to sue.

So, now in the case of the vaccine, despite it being a GOOD, WELL-MADE product that is 5 TIMES SAFER than the diabetes drug, you have an EASIER way to make a liability case, for a potential class of 235,000 people... versus a HARDER way to make a liability case, for a class of only 5,000 people.

So, pray tell, if despite making a SAFER product, the vaccine maker got exposed to a much BIGGER liability risk, WHY IN THE HELL WOULD THEY WANT TO MAKE VACCINES??? Better to make several diabetes drugs, and hypertension drugs, and asthma drugs, etc.

The bottom line is, WITHOUTH LIABILITY PROTECTION THERE WOULD BE NO INCENTIVE FOR DRUG MAKERS TO INVEST IN VACCINES!!!

So, see, the product is good and safe... but they'd still get a business-shattering risk. What CEO would be crazy enough to risk his company by making vaccines???

We'd end up with a world without vaccines.

I know you're an anti-vaxxer, but if you have children, you might have an interest in thinking hard about this, because in a world without vaccines, you might lose your precious offspring to diseases like polio and measles. Give me a world with vaccines, any day.

So what is the solution?

Two fold, and it's what is done already.

1. We establish some liability protection for vaccine makers
2. We establish a fund to compensate the victims of vaccine adverse reactions, government-sponsored (yep, we have those), so that they can get satisfaction without ruining the vaccine makers.

Got it?

What is being done for the Covid-19 vaccines is no different from what has always been done for other vaccines. It's what makes it viable.

But hey, you shouldn't allow pesky facts to get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy theory, right? So, carry on.

 

So what's the point of that? To try to limit how much money any claims will pay out?

I'm guessing the VICP isn't going to be paying out millions of dollars like the civil courts would.

Another simple solution might just be to create separate vaccine courts. You know, manned by sane and rational experts who focus in that specific area.

Please explain what the specific difference is between how civil liability courts operate and how this government sponsored fund would operate.

Are they somehow making decisions differently?

 

As we can see, you can't even ask questions about a vaccine but that you are dubbed an "anti vaxxer" ......just shut up and accept it with no question or we will ridicule you....

Hard to believe such ''educated'' people cant understand effective communication...

 

VICP has payed out $4.6B since 1988, and it payed out ~$225M just in 2019.

 

Yes and they did that to stop the frivolous lawsuits. Does not mean you cannot sue - you can it is just you will be suing the government not the drug company

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

Matter of fact it is probably easier and faster to get compensation through NVICP than trying to take the companies to court

 

No government vaccine mandates EVER !!

 

Which was the right thing to do, as per post #14.
The choice is very simple. This is not rocket science.
It's a choice between:
A) A country with liability protection for vaccine makers, and the opportunity to have life-saving vaccines like the ones that stopped the scourge of polio and measles
B) A country with no liability protection for vaccine makers, but without vaccines. Dozens of millions would die of polio and measles and other nasty bugs.

Well, me, I pick A. I have two children and I'm happy that they survived and are beautiful, successful, fabulous young adults who did not die of polio or measles.

If your choice is different, move to some Third World sh...t hole that doesn't have these protections, but has a high prevalence of infectious diseases against which the population is not protected.

No brainer, if you ask me.

 

If there can be no liability, it should not should not be forced.


How about this: There could be an alternative version of the pharmaceutical vaccine the company could sell where they would be vulnerable to liability. That version would of course be much more expensive. But if the government or employers wanted to force people to take vaccines, they'd have to choose that one.

I believe that would address all the problems, don't you agree?


Remove the blanket immunity from liability for vaccines and make it optional for the pharmaceutical company. Except government and employers would have to pay for the one with liability coverage if they are going to try to force it.

 

That's certainly logical. But it doesn't provide much incentive for vaccine manufacturers to put a lot of effort into making a safer product. I can't help but wonder if fedgov hadn't caved, perhaps the market would've come up with a better solution, like vaccines that werent so dangerous that they could be sold profitably...

 

The governments can and do hold them accountable

Look at what has happened here with the Astra Zeneca vaccine. Now that one should have been straight forward since it is basically the same technology we have been using for years for the flu shot and yet suddenly we are seeing cases of TTS (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome). The best course then for the government is to be as open as possible about the side effects because they ARE a carrying the liability
TTS
https://www.health.gov.au/initiativ...e#atagi-advice-on-covid19-astrazeneca-vaccine

 

So maybe we don't legal liability for anything. How about end all lawsuits against companies?

The government will take care of it, you say.

 

Wow. I've rarely heard such an asinine idea. It doesn't even merit comment. Wow.
------------
As for mandates, I'm against them, except in certain situations (healthcare workers who can spread it to patients should be mandated to be vaccinated, just like the flu shot is mandated for us).