9 ms·

In summary: A.) Pfizer is raking in over $33 billion from vaccine sales. B.) Due to the PREP Act, they are completely immune from lawsuits arising from any form

In summary: A.) Pfizer is raking in over $33 billion from vaccine sales. B.) Due to the PREP Act, they are completely immune from lawsuits arising from any form of complications arising from those vaccines. C.) If you don't take this vaccine, you may lose your job[0]. D.) If you don't take this vaccine, you may be barred from normal everyday social activities[1][2]. I can't be the only one who is incredibly uncomfortable about society going down this path. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27986160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27986160 [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-widens-green-pass-restrictions-curb-covid-19-surge-2021-07-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-widens-green-pass... [2]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/San-Francisco-mulls-requiring-proof-of-vaccine-at-16330935.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/San-Fra...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nicoburns 5y ago
C and D seem fine to me. It's necessary to protect everyone else. A and B are the problem. The US government should have limited Pfizer's profit margin, and they should be using the money saved to cover people's medical costs for complications arising from the vaccine (removing the need to sue).
- k2enemy 5y ago
  I could not disagree more. Pfizer should be able to profit from the vaccine. If the govt steps in and takes away their ability to benefit from the vaccine what incentive is there for bio firms to respond like Pfizer did in the future? Why work on risky and expensive vaccine technologies if, in the unlikely event it is ever needed, you won't have a chance of recouping your costs?
  - vetinari 5y ago
    > Pfizer should be able to profit from the vaccine Government-mandated vaccine from a private supplier. What could possibly go wrong.
    - Larrikin 5y ago
      So would you rather have your taxes increased so that it is from the government? Would you not be making the same statement if it was a federally funded, just with a word replaced?
      - vetinari 5y ago
        > So would you rather have your taxes increased so that it is from the government? It will increase my taxes anyway; who do you think is paying for all this? The difference is, that in this way, my taxes pay for privately-held know-how. I want my taxes to pay for public know-how.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    I didn't say they shouldn't be able to profit. Just that the profit should be limited.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The US government should have limited Pfizer's profit margin, and they should be using the money saved to cover people's medical costs for complications arising from the vaccine (removing the need to sue). They didn't have to limit Pfizer's or other suppliers profit margin to cover people's costs for recommended to diagnose, treat, or prevent COVID (or used in conjunction to enhance effectiveness of or mitigate risks or complications of such a diagnostic, treatment, or prevention measure); that's covered by the same law which shields the makers of those things from liability. [0] [0] https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/faq#covid https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/faq#covid
- vetinari 5y ago
  C and D... are you aware of Nuremberg Code, a set of principles created after Nuremberg trials? If you are fine with C and D, you might find yourself in a company that most people would not like to be.
  - mrtesthah 5y ago
    Fact check: Nuremberg Code Addresses Experimentation, Not Vaccines https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/nuremberg-code-addresses-experimentation-not-vaccines/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/nuremberg-code-addresses-e...
    - ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
      This vaccine is still unapproved, meaning it's being used experimentally at this point. It has not been approved nor completed normal testing trials. Otherwise it wouldn't have had to receive emergency use authorization. > An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge...
      - mrtesthah 5y ago
        > It has not been approved nor completed normal testing trials. Otherwise it wouldn't have had to receive emergency use authorization. That's false. The mere fact that a vaccine is EUA does not mean that it hasn't been tested. The vaccines available under EUA today have gone through exactly the same testing phases as fully FDA-approved ones. The only difference is that the phases were overlapping instead of performed serially. The link you reference already explains this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
newacct583 5y ago
You're genuinely more uncomfortable with the idea of unfair liability protection than you are with the persistence of a pandemic that has already taken millions of lives? I mean, I think it's possible to agree that maybe the liability waiver is too broad (or that Pfizer's net revenue is too high) and... still view this as the most important single medicine released over the past few decades. I mean, come on. Literally billions of people have taken this drug. What "complicationss" are you expecting that we wouldn't already have data for? It's... a vaccine. We've all had dozens of them. Did you freak out about your measles jab?
- trollied 5y ago
  Imagine if this pandemic was actually Smallpox? Pretty sure there'd be none of the anti-vaxxing stuff etc. Visible, horrible symptoms.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    Yeah. I've made this point to friends too. In some sense covid sits at exactly the pessimal spot. Any less severe, and we'd have just let it roll over us without the societal breakdown. Any more severe and the mitigation strategy couldn't have become a political issue. Maybe there's a side-channel attack where we can convince the conspiracy folks that this actually is a Chinese bioweapon designed to destroy the political cohesion of the west, so they should get on board and get their shots. Think it'd work?
    - mrtesthah 5y ago
      Ironically, many of them already believe that. Conspiracy-theory beliefs (i.e., evidence-free conclusions) are a symptom of underlying mental illness, which inhibits critical thinking skills. As such, they have no problem holding completely contradictory viewpoints.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    I rather suspect there still would be. Perhaps less. But a lot of the conspiracy theorists actually believe that governments (or their authority of choice) have manufactured the disease. There are also reports of people not believing the disease is real while they're dying in hospital.
clairity 5y ago
> "I can't be the only one who is incredibly uncomfortable about society going down this path." it's dystopian. this is power that won't be reliquished by either major party, just like 9/11 surveillance and security theater. unlike some of currently fashionable political impetuses, this one is worth actively resisting, to keep federal powers in check.
- newacct583 5y ago
  > it's dystopian It's already the law, and has been for like half a century (edit: more like 80 years, actually). If you aren't vaccinated you can't attend school. You can't serve in the military. You can't work in many health care fields. We requires our citizenry to be vaccinated against major preventable diseases. We always have. And this policy is, objectively, the second[1] biggest success story in the last few centuries of public health policy. Period. Why did no one care about "keeping federal powers in check" in 2019? Why do you only care now? You don't think maybe that there's something polluting your priors? [1] The invention of antibiotics gets #1.
  - slingnow 5y ago
    Biggest success story? Have you heard about the delta variant and the surge in cases among both unvaccinated AND vaccinated?
    - newacct583 5y ago
      I have not heard of a surge in cases among the unvaccinated, actually. Do you have a cite? All data I've seen points to a 90%+ effectiveness of Pfizer vs. Delta for infection, and it looks like more than 99% vs. death. It's MUCH MUCH MUCH safer to face potential infection with the vaccine than without.
      - myko 5y ago
        https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/health/cdc-mask-guidance-vaccinated-people-bn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/health/cdc-mask-guidance-vacc... There are many more breakthrough cases with the delta variant. That said, the vaccines are still very good at combatting serious illness: We continue to estimate that the risk of a breakthrough infection with symptom upon exposure to the Delta variant is reduced by seven-fold. The reduction of 20-fold for hospitalizations, and deaths," Walensky said during Tuesday's briefing.
mint2 5y ago
Given that: A. Pfizer isn’t the only vaccine option. B. If one doesn’t take the vaccine, one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. C. If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. I think it’s the best option out of all non-great options to mandate vaccines in order to participate in crowded settings. It’s a matter of civic responsibility in order to partake in civic life. Sure it would be better if there was no Covid so no one would need an extra vaccine, but that world no longer exists. I don’t like the current situation either but it is what it is. Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days. Liability shield for vaccine makers isn’t fair, but unvaccinated allowed to romp around spreading the virus without liability is also not fair.
- akira2501 5y ago
  > one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. What is "much higher" in a number? > If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated? > Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days. Not everyone has the same idea of what civic responsibility should be, which is probably why we have to write and then enforce laws.
  - learc83 5y ago
    > What is "much higher" in a number? The Pfizer vaccine as I believe 94% effective against severe disease, so around 20x higher.
  - TheCoreh 5y ago
    > What is "much higher" in a number? I'm not sure about the booster dose, Delta or any other variants, but the Pfizer Vaccine has been consistently shown in several studies to reduce COVID mortality by 99%, so that number is currently ~100
  - estebank 5y ago
    >> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. > What is "much higher" in a number? The analysis revealed that vaccination efficacy in terms of protection against deaths was equal to 72%, with a lower reduction of number of deaths for B.1.1.7 versus non-B.1.1.7 variants (70% and 78%, respectively). Other factors significantly related to mortality were arrivals at airports, mobility change from the pre-pandemic level and temperature. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v... An estimated 10,400 deaths have been averted [in the UK] as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme up to the end of March 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/977249/PHE_COVID-19_vaccine_impact_on_mortality_March.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... >> If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. > "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated? Living in a rural environment does not mean that the virus doesn't spread, otherwise the "Cases/Deaths per 100,000" maps at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s?t=1627501058823 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/8167071... would have wide divergence per state, but they all are around 11K deaths per 100,000. A common thing I heard from some early in the pandemic was that places with lower density would fare better, but that never made much sense to me: even if you have only 10K people in a 50 mile diameter circle, they all still shop and socialize in a handful of places.
omgwtfbbq 5y ago
C. and D. are both false, you are free to take the Moderna, Astra-Zeneca or J&J Vaccines, particularly J&J if you have insane worries about safety since it is an old fashioned viral vector vaccine. The choice is of course yours and no where in the US constitution do you have a right to work wherever you want or enter private businesses at will.
b0sk 5y ago
(I am very comfortable with a few million deaths, and maybe the variant turning more deadly in the process)
mnowicki 5y ago
yeah, I'm very far from being right-wing or anti-vaccine or anything like that, but I've been unsettled by this whole thing. I don't think there are microchips in the vaccine, and it's probably a good idea to get the vaccine, but this level of control + lack of responsibility is a perfect recipe for negligence-caused disaster. Or even intentional disaster. Plus it seems quite a bit like it could be one of those slippery-slope situations. Ideally, companies would create a vaccine as fast as possible(but safely, without being immune from lawsuits - especially if negligence or malice can be 'proven', why make someone immune from consequence then?) because that's always going to a profitable endeavor anyway. And people would be smart enough to get the vaccine and take precautions about spreading dangerous diseases. I don't know what the right solution is, given that we don't live in such a reasonable world
- swader999 5y ago
  The censorship and limiting of discussion in the public square is the most troubling aspect of this to me.
artificialLimbs 5y ago
You're not. One upshot to this situation is that we are able to see the people who are willing to become hyperventilating statists with a bit more clarity.
Someone1234 5y ago
> B.) Due to the PREP Act, they are completely immune from lawsuits arising from any form of complications arising from those vaccines. I feel like (B) is true, but framed in such a way to get a specific [negative] reaction. People hurt by any COVID-19 vaccine are still entitled to compensation for that injury. Essentially the US Government provides a liability shield, wherein the damages/liability is transferred to a specific government fund, because it is considered in the greater public good to have companies make vaccines at all. This is done via the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program[0] which is easier/cheaper to win than normal civil court and pays attorneys fees on a win. This is funded via a specific tax on all vaccine sales that is earmarked for only this purpose. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen...
- spfzero 5y ago
  I guess the negative part is that the people developing the vaccine can be a little bit less conservative with their design, since they have no incentive to be extra careful to avoid expensive lawsuits.
  - 627467 5y ago
    ...and I believe that's part of the point of the Act itself: free up reluctances from those in better position to be able to come up with a solution. This is the same reason why everywhere in the world the vaccines have been approved for use under Emergency Use rules.
- landemva 5y ago
  I was surprised to learn they took covid vaccine injuries out of the typical and long-standing compensation program. It apparently is using an odd countermeasure payment program, which is not approving any claims. https://yourworlddaily.blogspot.com/2021/07/covid-19-vaccine-injury-claims-using.html https://yourworlddaily.blogspot.com/2021/07/covid-19-vaccine...
beebmam 5y ago
If I'm forced to work in an office, and some of my colleagues don't want to get vaccinated or tested regularly, I WANT them to get fired. It is a workplace safety issue for everyone forced to work in an enclosed area.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  > If I'm forced I agree with your sentiment, but it is not your coworkers who decided that now it's time to force everyone back into the office.
  - beebmam 5y ago
    I totally agree. It's supremely messed up that companies are trying to force workers back into the office. The safest approach, beyond even vaccination, is to physically distance by simply not being around each other. It is not possible to spread this virus when people aren't around each other!
    - landemva 5y ago
      "It is not possible to spread this virus when people aren't around each other!" Except that it is in the cat populations worldwide. We dont have to like this fact, but ignoring it leads to safetyism that doesn't work. Maybe when we get the cat population to 70% vaccination rate we will be safe.
      - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
        Well then, since we know that not only cats but also vaccinated people get ill and spread the disease, and some people can't be vaccinated not just because of personal fears but for valid health reasons, forcing everybody back to the office seems like an irresponsible cruelty.
- swader999 5y ago
  If you are vaccinated you can still get and spread it. This was said by Fauci yesterday and prompted the renewed indoor mask guidance. And unvaccinated can to of course. With likely more severe symptoms they may be at home though. You should benefit from less severity of illness. Why does others status matter to you given both can spread?
seanicus 5y ago
How many people are you one degree of separation from that died on w/ a tube stuck down their throat? I've got 3. I'm cool with A-D and esp. C. If you aren't vaxxed, GTFO of my office. If your kid isn't vaxxed, get them as far away from my kid as possible
- s9w 5y ago
  They died because of the tube, not because of some PCR test with a CT of 40 said positive.
627467 5y ago
I get the discomfort but what is the alternative? NOT approve emergency measures (such as PREP Act) that hopes to push risk down and face much slow development for vaccines? Emminent domain pharmaceutical supply chain? Nationalize vaccine research efforts to "force" the creation of a new vaccine? Stop "forcing" people to take vaccine to reduce demand to penalize private enterprise? These are genuine questions. All vaccines makers/suppliers are poised to rake in profits, be it in capital or some other geopolitical favours.
- swader999 5y ago
  Ivermectin is a solid alternative. It saved my ass and there are enough RCT studies still standing to give it serious consideration given its long billions of doses safety history.
Cyberthal 5y ago
I find your lack of faith in our corporate-federal oligarchs disturbing. Perhaps your name should be added to a list...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nicoburns 5y ago

C and D seem fine to me. It's necessary to protect everyone else. A and B are the problem. The US government should have limited Pfizer's profit margin, and they should be using the money saved to cover people's medical costs for complications arising from the vaccine (removing the need to sue).

k2enemy 5y ago
I could not disagree more. Pfizer should be able to profit from the vaccine. If the govt steps in and takes away their ability to benefit from the vaccine what incentive is there for bio firms to respond like Pfizer did in the future? Why work on risky and expensive vaccine technologies if, in the unlikely event it is ever needed, you won't have a chance of recouping your costs?
- vetinari 5y ago
  > Pfizer should be able to profit from the vaccine Government-mandated vaccine from a private supplier. What could possibly go wrong.
  - Larrikin 5y ago
    So would you rather have your taxes increased so that it is from the government? Would you not be making the same statement if it was a federally funded, just with a word replaced?
    - vetinari 5y ago
      > So would you rather have your taxes increased so that it is from the government? It will increase my taxes anyway; who do you think is paying for all this? The difference is, that in this way, my taxes pay for privately-held know-how. I want my taxes to pay for public know-how.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  I didn't say they shouldn't be able to profit. Just that the profit should be limited.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The US government should have limited Pfizer's profit margin, and they should be using the money saved to cover people's medical costs for complications arising from the vaccine (removing the need to sue). They didn't have to limit Pfizer's or other suppliers profit margin to cover people's costs for recommended to diagnose, treat, or prevent COVID (or used in conjunction to enhance effectiveness of or mitigate risks or complications of such a diagnostic, treatment, or prevention measure); that's covered by the same law which shields the makers of those things from liability. [0] [0] https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/faq#covid https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/faq#covid
vetinari 5y ago
C and D... are you aware of Nuremberg Code, a set of principles created after Nuremberg trials? If you are fine with C and D, you might find yourself in a company that most people would not like to be.
- mrtesthah 5y ago
  Fact check: Nuremberg Code Addresses Experimentation, Not Vaccines https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/nuremberg-code-addresses-experimentation-not-vaccines/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/nuremberg-code-addresses-e...
  - ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
    This vaccine is still unapproved, meaning it's being used experimentally at this point. It has not been approved nor completed normal testing trials. Otherwise it wouldn't have had to receive emergency use authorization. > An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge...
    - mrtesthah 5y ago
      > It has not been approved nor completed normal testing trials. Otherwise it wouldn't have had to receive emergency use authorization. That's false. The mere fact that a vaccine is EUA does not mean that it hasn't been tested. The vaccines available under EUA today have gone through exactly the same testing phases as fully FDA-approved ones. The only difference is that the phases were overlapping instead of performed serially. The link you reference already explains this.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

newacct583 5y ago

You're genuinely more uncomfortable with the idea of unfair liability protection than you are with the persistence of a pandemic that has already taken millions of lives? I mean, I think it's possible to agree that maybe the liability waiver is too broad (or that Pfizer's net revenue is too high) and... still view this as the most important single medicine released over the past few decades. I mean, come on. Literally billions of people have taken this drug. What "complicationss" are you expecting that we wouldn't already have data for? It's... a vaccine. We've all had dozens of them. Did you freak out about your measles jab?

trollied 5y ago
Imagine if this pandemic was actually Smallpox? Pretty sure there'd be none of the anti-vaxxing stuff etc. Visible, horrible symptoms.
- newacct583 5y ago
  Yeah. I've made this point to friends too. In some sense covid sits at exactly the pessimal spot. Any less severe, and we'd have just let it roll over us without the societal breakdown. Any more severe and the mitigation strategy couldn't have become a political issue. Maybe there's a side-channel attack where we can convince the conspiracy folks that this actually is a Chinese bioweapon designed to destroy the political cohesion of the west, so they should get on board and get their shots. Think it'd work?
  - mrtesthah 5y ago
    Ironically, many of them already believe that. Conspiracy-theory beliefs (i.e., evidence-free conclusions) are a symptom of underlying mental illness, which inhibits critical thinking skills. As such, they have no problem holding completely contradictory viewpoints.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  I rather suspect there still would be. Perhaps less. But a lot of the conspiracy theorists actually believe that governments (or their authority of choice) have manufactured the disease. There are also reports of people not believing the disease is real while they're dying in hospital.

clairity 5y ago

> "I can't be the only one who is incredibly uncomfortable about society going down this path." it's dystopian. this is power that won't be reliquished by either major party, just like 9/11 surveillance and security theater. unlike some of currently fashionable political impetuses, this one is worth actively resisting, to keep federal powers in check.

newacct583 5y ago
> it's dystopian It's already the law, and has been for like half a century (edit: more like 80 years, actually). If you aren't vaccinated you can't attend school. You can't serve in the military. You can't work in many health care fields. We requires our citizenry to be vaccinated against major preventable diseases. We always have. And this policy is, objectively, the second[1] biggest success story in the last few centuries of public health policy. Period. Why did no one care about "keeping federal powers in check" in 2019? Why do you only care now? You don't think maybe that there's something polluting your priors? [1] The invention of antibiotics gets #1.
- slingnow 5y ago
  Biggest success story? Have you heard about the delta variant and the surge in cases among both unvaccinated AND vaccinated?
  - newacct583 5y ago
    I have not heard of a surge in cases among the unvaccinated, actually. Do you have a cite? All data I've seen points to a 90%+ effectiveness of Pfizer vs. Delta for infection, and it looks like more than 99% vs. death. It's MUCH MUCH MUCH safer to face potential infection with the vaccine than without.
    - myko 5y ago
      https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/health/cdc-mask-guidance-vaccinated-people-bn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/health/cdc-mask-guidance-vacc... There are many more breakthrough cases with the delta variant. That said, the vaccines are still very good at combatting serious illness: We continue to estimate that the risk of a breakthrough infection with symptom upon exposure to the Delta variant is reduced by seven-fold. The reduction of 20-fold for hospitalizations, and deaths," Walensky said during Tuesday's briefing.

mint2 5y ago

Given that: A. Pfizer isn’t the only vaccine option. B. If one doesn’t take the vaccine, one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. C. If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. I think it’s the best option out of all non-great options to mandate vaccines in order to participate in crowded settings. It’s a matter of civic responsibility in order to partake in civic life. Sure it would be better if there was no Covid so no one would need an extra vaccine, but that world no longer exists. I don’t like the current situation either but it is what it is. Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days. Liability shield for vaccine makers isn’t fair, but unvaccinated allowed to romp around spreading the virus without liability is also not fair.

akira2501 5y ago
> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. What is "much higher" in a number? > If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated? > Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days. Not everyone has the same idea of what civic responsibility should be, which is probably why we have to write and then enforce laws.
- learc83 5y ago
  > What is "much higher" in a number? The Pfizer vaccine as I believe 94% effective against severe disease, so around 20x higher.
- TheCoreh 5y ago
  > What is "much higher" in a number? I'm not sure about the booster dose, Delta or any other variants, but the Pfizer Vaccine has been consistently shown in several studies to reduce COVID mortality by 99%, so that number is currently ~100
- estebank 5y ago
  >> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. > What is "much higher" in a number? The analysis revealed that vaccination efficacy in terms of protection against deaths was equal to 72%, with a lower reduction of number of deaths for B.1.1.7 versus non-B.1.1.7 variants (70% and 78%, respectively). Other factors significantly related to mortality were arrivals at airports, mobility change from the pre-pandemic level and temperature. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v... An estimated 10,400 deaths have been averted [in the UK] as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme up to the end of March 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/977249/PHE_COVID-19_vaccine_impact_on_mortality_March.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... >> If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. > "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated? Living in a rural environment does not mean that the virus doesn't spread, otherwise the "Cases/Deaths per 100,000" maps at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s?t=1627501058823 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/8167071... would have wide divergence per state, but they all are around 11K deaths per 100,000. A common thing I heard from some early in the pandemic was that places with lower density would fare better, but that never made much sense to me: even if you have only 10K people in a 50 mile diameter circle, they all still shop and socialize in a handful of places.

omgwtfbbq 5y ago

C. and D. are both false, you are free to take the Moderna, Astra-Zeneca or J&J Vaccines, particularly J&J if you have insane worries about safety since it is an old fashioned viral vector vaccine. The choice is of course yours and no where in the US constitution do you have a right to work wherever you want or enter private businesses at will.

b0sk 5y ago

(I am very comfortable with a few million deaths, and maybe the variant turning more deadly in the process)

mnowicki 5y ago

yeah, I'm very far from being right-wing or anti-vaccine or anything like that, but I've been unsettled by this whole thing. I don't think there are microchips in the vaccine, and it's probably a good idea to get the vaccine, but this level of control + lack of responsibility is a perfect recipe for negligence-caused disaster. Or even intentional disaster. Plus it seems quite a bit like it could be one of those slippery-slope situations. Ideally, companies would create a vaccine as fast as possible(but safely, without being immune from lawsuits - especially if negligence or malice can be 'proven', why make someone immune from consequence then?) because that's always going to a profitable endeavor anyway. And people would be smart enough to get the vaccine and take precautions about spreading dangerous diseases. I don't know what the right solution is, given that we don't live in such a reasonable world

swader999 5y ago
The censorship and limiting of discussion in the public square is the most troubling aspect of this to me.

artificialLimbs 5y ago

You're not. One upshot to this situation is that we are able to see the people who are willing to become hyperventilating statists with a bit more clarity.

Someone1234 5y ago

> B.) Due to the PREP Act, they are completely immune from lawsuits arising from any form of complications arising from those vaccines. I feel like (B) is true, but framed in such a way to get a specific [negative] reaction. People hurt by any COVID-19 vaccine are still entitled to compensation for that injury. Essentially the US Government provides a liability shield, wherein the damages/liability is transferred to a specific government fund, because it is considered in the greater public good to have companies make vaccines at all. This is done via the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program[0] which is easier/cheaper to win than normal civil court and pays attorneys fees on a win. This is funded via a specific tax on all vaccine sales that is earmarked for only this purpose. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen...

spfzero 5y ago
I guess the negative part is that the people developing the vaccine can be a little bit less conservative with their design, since they have no incentive to be extra careful to avoid expensive lawsuits.
- 627467 5y ago
  ...and I believe that's part of the point of the Act itself: free up reluctances from those in better position to be able to come up with a solution. This is the same reason why everywhere in the world the vaccines have been approved for use under Emergency Use rules.
landemva 5y ago
I was surprised to learn they took covid vaccine injuries out of the typical and long-standing compensation program. It apparently is using an odd countermeasure payment program, which is not approving any claims. https://yourworlddaily.blogspot.com/2021/07/covid-19-vaccine-injury-claims-using.html https://yourworlddaily.blogspot.com/2021/07/covid-19-vaccine...

beebmam 5y ago

If I'm forced to work in an office, and some of my colleagues don't want to get vaccinated or tested regularly, I WANT them to get fired. It is a workplace safety issue for everyone forced to work in an enclosed area.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
> If I'm forced I agree with your sentiment, but it is not your coworkers who decided that now it's time to force everyone back into the office.
- beebmam 5y ago
  I totally agree. It's supremely messed up that companies are trying to force workers back into the office. The safest approach, beyond even vaccination, is to physically distance by simply not being around each other. It is not possible to spread this virus when people aren't around each other!
  - landemva 5y ago
    "It is not possible to spread this virus when people aren't around each other!" Except that it is in the cat populations worldwide. We dont have to like this fact, but ignoring it leads to safetyism that doesn't work. Maybe when we get the cat population to 70% vaccination rate we will be safe.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      Well then, since we know that not only cats but also vaccinated people get ill and spread the disease, and some people can't be vaccinated not just because of personal fears but for valid health reasons, forcing everybody back to the office seems like an irresponsible cruelty.
swader999 5y ago
If you are vaccinated you can still get and spread it. This was said by Fauci yesterday and prompted the renewed indoor mask guidance. And unvaccinated can to of course. With likely more severe symptoms they may be at home though. You should benefit from less severity of illness. Why does others status matter to you given both can spread?

seanicus 5y ago

How many people are you one degree of separation from that died on w/ a tube stuck down their throat? I've got 3. I'm cool with A-D and esp. C. If you aren't vaxxed, GTFO of my office. If your kid isn't vaxxed, get them as far away from my kid as possible

s9w 5y ago
They died because of the tube, not because of some PCR test with a CT of 40 said positive.

627467 5y ago

I get the discomfort but what is the alternative? NOT approve emergency measures (such as PREP Act) that hopes to push risk down and face much slow development for vaccines? Emminent domain pharmaceutical supply chain? Nationalize vaccine research efforts to "force" the creation of a new vaccine? Stop "forcing" people to take vaccine to reduce demand to penalize private enterprise? These are genuine questions. All vaccines makers/suppliers are poised to rake in profits, be it in capital or some other geopolitical favours.

swader999 5y ago
Ivermectin is a solid alternative. It saved my ass and there are enough RCT studies still standing to give it serious consideration given its long billions of doses safety history.

Cyberthal 5y ago

I find your lack of faith in our corporate-federal oligarchs disturbing. Perhaps your name should be added to a list...