5 ms·

> “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

> “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?

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?