4 ms·

> Being able to sue. Why is suing vital? What's insufficient about the existing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-comp

> Being able to sue. Why is suing vital? What's insufficient about the existing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html (I'm genuinely unfamiliar with any flaws it might have) > Many rights have been taken away (some permanently) What rights have been permanently removed? For that matter, what RIGHTS have been even temporarily suspended?

nsxwolf 5y ago
Many people consider the freedom of movement without constantly having to show papers to be a right, even if it's not explicitly codified in some law or constitution. I could say I have a right to breathe air and someone would probably come around and tell me I'm wrong, but most people have some intuition for what a "natural" right is, and bristle when something encroaches on those.
- handoflixue 5y ago
  I don't think anyone is stopping you from breathing air. Interstate travel is still open. I'm allowed to walk around my neighborhood. No one is requiring me to show "papers" for any of this. I know not everyone has the same set of restrictions on them, so I'm genuinely trying to understand if I'm missing something about how other areas are behaving. I know Australia is at the "papers, please" curfew stage, and that definitely bothers me a lot, but I haven't heard of anything like that in the USA.
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    Australia didn’t get there over night. It was bit by bit. Pseudo-intellectuals would have said it’s a “slippery slope” back when people urged caution though. Maybe the slope into authoritarianism is actually slippery.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  You're not addressing the issue posed by the GP. If you experience severe enough side-effects from the vaccine to warrant a lawsuit, then you are still entitled to sue for compensation. The only thing that has changes is the entity who you are suing. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program makes this process much easier than a traditional lawsuit, as you merely have to convince a judge that your symptoms were likely caused by the vaccine. If they agree, you get paid. If you sued Pfizer, then you'd probably be in a class action, going up against some of the best lawyers in the world, in a case that would drag out for a decade or more, likely have no real say in the case strategy, and would just have to accept whatever agreement the class representative agrees to.
throwawayzz007 5y ago
> What's insufficient about the existing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Max compensation is $250k. Life insurance values my life far more. Documents are under seal. Payouts are paid by the tax payer, not the manufacturers. Cases are heard by HHS and defended by DOJ (more taxes footing the bill). HHS has repeatedly refused to add certain injuries to their compensation tables even after CDC directed research indicates that such injuries have been proven to be causal (eg: motor tics in those that received thimerosol containing vaccines). Most cases now go years before any decision is made when the original stated purpose of the program was speedy settlements (6 months or less). The only expert witnesses that might be allowed to speak in secret vaccine court will likely be the scientists that were paid to design the vaccine in question by industry. Doctors that have testified against industry in this court (and others like it in other nations) have had their careers destroyed by retaliatory tactics. I find it quite funny and sad that you need to ask “what’s wrong with this special, secret court?” What’s NOT wrong with a special, secret court designed to protect a massive industry? NO PRODUCT CLASS should be protected in this manner.
- handoflixue 5y ago
  I'd heard others arguing for it and hadn't personally investigated it, so I appreciate the response! I do think that given my own evaluation of the risks and rewards, the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs, but I can certainly see how one would be opposed to this on a systemic level, or if you believe the risk-reward ratio skews differently
  - slumdev 5y ago
    > the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs How do you reach this conclusion? At a max $250k per life, paid through a secret court with the deck stacked against the plaintiff, it doesn't appear to be sufficient for anyone's needs.
    - handoflixue 5y ago
      It's a simple risk-reward calculation: the vaccine protects me from Covid-19. The chance of side effects is very low. The chance of severe, long-term complications that cause me more than $250K in damages is even lower. Yeah, there's a tiny risk that I'll end up in a situation where I get screwed over, but I'm significantly more likely to suffer harm from Covid. Your own calculations will vary, of course - this is just the math given my own risk factors.

nsxwolf 5y ago

Many people consider the freedom of movement without constantly having to show papers to be a right, even if it's not explicitly codified in some law or constitution. I could say I have a right to breathe air and someone would probably come around and tell me I'm wrong, but most people have some intuition for what a "natural" right is, and bristle when something encroaches on those.

handoflixue 5y ago
I don't think anyone is stopping you from breathing air. Interstate travel is still open. I'm allowed to walk around my neighborhood. No one is requiring me to show "papers" for any of this. I know not everyone has the same set of restrictions on them, so I'm genuinely trying to understand if I'm missing something about how other areas are behaving. I know Australia is at the "papers, please" curfew stage, and that definitely bothers me a lot, but I haven't heard of anything like that in the USA.
- wait_a_minute 5y ago
  Australia didn’t get there over night. It was bit by bit. Pseudo-intellectuals would have said it’s a “slippery slope” back when people urged caution though. Maybe the slope into authoritarianism is actually slippery.
mywittyname 5y ago
You're not addressing the issue posed by the GP. If you experience severe enough side-effects from the vaccine to warrant a lawsuit, then you are still entitled to sue for compensation. The only thing that has changes is the entity who you are suing. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program makes this process much easier than a traditional lawsuit, as you merely have to convince a judge that your symptoms were likely caused by the vaccine. If they agree, you get paid. If you sued Pfizer, then you'd probably be in a class action, going up against some of the best lawyers in the world, in a case that would drag out for a decade or more, likely have no real say in the case strategy, and would just have to accept whatever agreement the class representative agrees to.

throwawayzz007 5y ago

> What's insufficient about the existing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Max compensation is $250k. Life insurance values my life far more. Documents are under seal. Payouts are paid by the tax payer, not the manufacturers. Cases are heard by HHS and defended by DOJ (more taxes footing the bill). HHS has repeatedly refused to add certain injuries to their compensation tables even after CDC directed research indicates that such injuries have been proven to be causal (eg: motor tics in those that received thimerosol containing vaccines). Most cases now go years before any decision is made when the original stated purpose of the program was speedy settlements (6 months or less). The only expert witnesses that might be allowed to speak in secret vaccine court will likely be the scientists that were paid to design the vaccine in question by industry. Doctors that have testified against industry in this court (and others like it in other nations) have had their careers destroyed by retaliatory tactics. I find it quite funny and sad that you need to ask “what’s wrong with this special, secret court?” What’s NOT wrong with a special, secret court designed to protect a massive industry? NO PRODUCT CLASS should be protected in this manner.

handoflixue 5y ago
I'd heard others arguing for it and hadn't personally investigated it, so I appreciate the response! I do think that given my own evaluation of the risks and rewards, the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs, but I can certainly see how one would be opposed to this on a systemic level, or if you believe the risk-reward ratio skews differently
- slumdev 5y ago
  > the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs How do you reach this conclusion? At a max $250k per life, paid through a secret court with the deck stacked against the plaintiff, it doesn't appear to be sufficient for anyone's needs.
  - handoflixue 5y ago
    It's a simple risk-reward calculation: the vaccine protects me from Covid-19. The chance of side effects is very low. The chance of severe, long-term complications that cause me more than $250K in damages is even lower. Yeah, there's a tiny risk that I'll end up in a situation where I get screwed over, but I'm significantly more likely to suffer harm from Covid. Your own calculations will vary, of course - this is just the math given my own risk factors.