6 ms·

Why is AstraZeneca asking for exemption from liability claims stemming from their COVID-19 vaccine? https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccin

Why is AstraZeneca asking for exemption from liability claims stemming from their COVID-19 vaccine? https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability/astrazeneca-to-be-exempt-from-coronavirus-vaccine-liability-claims-in-most-countries-idUKKCN24V2EN https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccin...

jimbob45 6y ago
> “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects,” Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra’s senior executive team, told Reuters. Seems pretty straightforward to me. It’s an unproven method of vaccine creation and hasn’t been tested by anyone. I really can’t imagine this holding up in courts though.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lisper 6y ago
  > I really can’t imagine this holding up in courts though. Why not? Liability waivers are common in other industries.
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    The law is upheld by the people. If you damage the health of nearly an entire national via vaccine, no one will care to stay true to the letter of the law when it comes time for your retribution. Same thing with the Nazis. Nuremberg was a kangaroo court but people stop caring about due process when you ruin the lives of everyone in their country.
    - mam2 6y ago
      In that case the negociation is with europe so they are untouchable basically
- mam2 6y ago
  Why not ? I mean why would they be responsible for something they cant test ? Thats the part that makes no sense to me. If you are (healthily) afraid of a vaccine because its not tested enough, just take your responsibility and dont take it. Or take it but dont come complain and attack other people for something that no one can do anything about now.
  - svrb 6y ago
    > just take your responsibility and dont take it Is that going to be allowed? Do we seriously believe at this point that governments aren't going to make these vaccines mandatory, if not for everyone explicitly then at least in practice by making them mandatory for access to public services and spaces?
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      Are there serious suggestions that everyone be forced to take the vaccine? I haven’t seen that, and frankly I’m not sure that would stand up to court scrutiny.
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  In the US it's not possible to sue for damages caused by vaccines. I'm sure the courts will find a way to make it work. The concern seems to be that stifling vaccine development for the benefit of a few just isn't worth the risk of future plagues.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    What do you mean by the “benefit of a few”? How does anyone benefit from stifling vaccine development?
    - LgWoodenBadger 6y ago
      "benefit of a few" meaning "allow those few that were adversely affected to sue for damages" which would have the follow-on effect of hampering vaccine development
      - CyberRabbi 6y ago
        How can a vaccine have an adverse effect? Vaccines are safe
        mikeyouse 6y ago
        Vaccines are like 99.999% safe.. but we do give them to more than 100k people per year, so some people do suffer some unfortunate side effects including and up to seizures and brain damage. We've decided as a society that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the legal rights of those harmed by their administration, so we've legislated away the ability to sue vaccine manufacturers for good-faith efforts at developing and administering vaccines. I will gladly line up for the Covid vaccine and I'll definitely be vaccinating my children, but there is a remote risk of harm.
        CyberRabbi 6y ago
        If the possibility of “unfortunate side-effects” is so low then why remove the ability for legal recourse?
sjs382 6y ago
Because they have no way of testing for side-effects that could occur 4 + years down the line. > “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects,”
- radiator 6y ago
  You don't say? Then why are so many people here criticizing those who want to delay 4 years before testing this vaccine on themselves and on their family?
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Well, presumably that's because of a lack of our ability to determine viral markers that identify spread with high certainty. If we could simply determine who we contracted COVID-19 from, we could easily sue them for damages and then you could take whatever risks you deem acceptable. However, considering that we cannot, there is some threshold level of danger above which society will deem your personal rights forfeit and you will be forced to swallow your personal risk because others do not want to swallow the risk of your externalities. There is no objective coefficient that weights the two things, so you're pretty much subject to the wisdom of the mob. So far, if it makes you feel happy, it is unlikely that you will be forced to take the vaccine. There will be no TB DOT-equivalent, internet comments notwithstanding.
    - radiator 6y ago
      What gives you the idea that you are entitled to sue someone from whom you have determined that you have contracted covid-19? And do you think you have this right only regarding this disease, or other similar diseases as well?
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Quite simply I'd like to internalize all externalities so that market forces can determine equilibria. So yes, I think if we could effectively determine provenance, I would like very much to enable that for all things - diseases being the obvious ones, but certainly anything else where externalities exist to some trackable degree (carbon emissions are an obvious one). My rationale for this case is quite simple. I have very effective protocol around this disease, high risk tolerance, and I want to retain the life I had before (going out, restaurants, clubs, etc.). In exchange, I'm willing to allow you to sue me if I get you sick. I think this will create a freer society, and allow people to find their own position on the risk-benefit curve. It doesn't make sense to subject me to the conditions less-risk-tolerant people want. However, it doesn't make sense for me to subject them non-consensually to conditions I want. A good mechanism to balance these things is a near-continuous universal value measure. A good near-continuous universal value measure is money. FWIW I've rewritten your question from "why do you feel you are entitled to sue..." to "why do you think it is a good idea for society to permit people to sue..." since I think that's more interesting. The answer to "what gives you the idea that you are entitled to sue" is "nothing, since I do not believe I can right now" which is sort of a boring (though correct) response. Of course the whole thing is moot. Hard to prove who really caused an infection when community transmission is rampant.

jimbob45 6y ago

> “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects,” Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra’s senior executive team, told Reuters. Seems pretty straightforward to me. It’s an unproven method of vaccine creation and hasn’t been tested by anyone. I really can’t imagine this holding up in courts though.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lisper 6y ago
> I really can’t imagine this holding up in courts though. Why not? Liability waivers are common in other industries.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  The law is upheld by the people. If you damage the health of nearly an entire national via vaccine, no one will care to stay true to the letter of the law when it comes time for your retribution. Same thing with the Nazis. Nuremberg was a kangaroo court but people stop caring about due process when you ruin the lives of everyone in their country.
  - mam2 6y ago
    In that case the negociation is with europe so they are untouchable basically
mam2 6y ago
Why not ? I mean why would they be responsible for something they cant test ? Thats the part that makes no sense to me. If you are (healthily) afraid of a vaccine because its not tested enough, just take your responsibility and dont take it. Or take it but dont come complain and attack other people for something that no one can do anything about now.
- svrb 6y ago
  > just take your responsibility and dont take it Is that going to be allowed? Do we seriously believe at this point that governments aren't going to make these vaccines mandatory, if not for everyone explicitly then at least in practice by making them mandatory for access to public services and spaces?
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    Are there serious suggestions that everyone be forced to take the vaccine? I haven’t seen that, and frankly I’m not sure that would stand up to court scrutiny.
MacsHeadroom 6y ago
In the US it's not possible to sue for damages caused by vaccines. I'm sure the courts will find a way to make it work. The concern seems to be that stifling vaccine development for the benefit of a few just isn't worth the risk of future plagues.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  What do you mean by the “benefit of a few”? How does anyone benefit from stifling vaccine development?
  - LgWoodenBadger 6y ago
    "benefit of a few" meaning "allow those few that were adversely affected to sue for damages" which would have the follow-on effect of hampering vaccine development
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      How can a vaccine have an adverse effect? Vaccines are safe
      - mikeyouse 6y ago
        Vaccines are like 99.999% safe.. but we do give them to more than 100k people per year, so some people do suffer some unfortunate side effects including and up to seizures and brain damage. We've decided as a society that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the legal rights of those harmed by their administration, so we've legislated away the ability to sue vaccine manufacturers for good-faith efforts at developing and administering vaccines. I will gladly line up for the Covid vaccine and I'll definitely be vaccinating my children, but there is a remote risk of harm.
        CyberRabbi 6y ago
        If the possibility of “unfortunate side-effects” is so low then why remove the ability for legal recourse?

sjs382 6y ago

Because they have no way of testing for side-effects that could occur 4 + years down the line. > “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects,”

radiator 6y ago
You don't say? Then why are so many people here criticizing those who want to delay 4 years before testing this vaccine on themselves and on their family?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Well, presumably that's because of a lack of our ability to determine viral markers that identify spread with high certainty. If we could simply determine who we contracted COVID-19 from, we could easily sue them for damages and then you could take whatever risks you deem acceptable. However, considering that we cannot, there is some threshold level of danger above which society will deem your personal rights forfeit and you will be forced to swallow your personal risk because others do not want to swallow the risk of your externalities. There is no objective coefficient that weights the two things, so you're pretty much subject to the wisdom of the mob. So far, if it makes you feel happy, it is unlikely that you will be forced to take the vaccine. There will be no TB DOT-equivalent, internet comments notwithstanding.
  - radiator 6y ago
    What gives you the idea that you are entitled to sue someone from whom you have determined that you have contracted covid-19? And do you think you have this right only regarding this disease, or other similar diseases as well?
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Quite simply I'd like to internalize all externalities so that market forces can determine equilibria. So yes, I think if we could effectively determine provenance, I would like very much to enable that for all things - diseases being the obvious ones, but certainly anything else where externalities exist to some trackable degree (carbon emissions are an obvious one). My rationale for this case is quite simple. I have very effective protocol around this disease, high risk tolerance, and I want to retain the life I had before (going out, restaurants, clubs, etc.). In exchange, I'm willing to allow you to sue me if I get you sick. I think this will create a freer society, and allow people to find their own position on the risk-benefit curve. It doesn't make sense to subject me to the conditions less-risk-tolerant people want. However, it doesn't make sense for me to subject them non-consensually to conditions I want. A good mechanism to balance these things is a near-continuous universal value measure. A good near-continuous universal value measure is money. FWIW I've rewritten your question from "why do you feel you are entitled to sue..." to "why do you think it is a good idea for society to permit people to sue..." since I think that's more interesting. The answer to "what gives you the idea that you are entitled to sue" is "nothing, since I do not believe I can right now" which is sort of a boring (though correct) response. Of course the whole thing is moot. Hard to prove who really caused an infection when community transmission is rampant.