3 ms·

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 canno

by 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.
- tim333 6y ago
  You've got to balance the risk from the vaccine against the risk from covid. The first is probably vastly less even if non zero.

by sjs382 6y ago

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.
tim333 6y ago
You've got to balance the risk from the vaccine against the risk from covid. The first is probably vastly less even if non zero.