> I think you don't realize how unattractive vaccines are as a product. You haven't provided evidence for how unattractive vaccines are as a product. Meanwhile

> I think you don't realize how unattractive vaccines are as a product. You haven't provided evidence for how unattractive vaccines are as a product. Meanwhile, I can provide counter-evidence: even with all of the liability falling on them, over 150 million people in the United States alone got the vaccine, even before it started to be required by any companies. Now, that said - your suggestion to research the Lyme disease vaccine vaccine was a good one, and I was really taken aback by how the public reacted - I'll continue thinking about this. However, how then do you explain the literal millions of people who have taken the vaccine even without manufacturer liability? I don't see any way to read this other than a suggestion that there's high demand for it. > How long Mc Donalds and Coca-cola would stay in business if you held them liable for most cases of health service costs that resulted from obesity? Bad comparison - those companies are liable if their products cause you to get sick from, say, food poisoning, or a bad batch, or if they include a specific chemical that's toxic. Moreover, you can eat a burger without instantly getting fat, and it takes a lot of burgers to get fat, and you can get fat without eating a burger or drinking a soda - you would have to stretch very far to try to make that comparison, because McDonald's and Cocacola are not selling literally the only thing that would cause the adverse effect. A valid comparison would be the opioids sold by the McKinsey family, because the opioids really were directly responsible for the drug overdoses - they are liable for that, and should be held accountable (but aren't, due to political corruption). Meanwhile, the topic under discussion is liability for the direct effects of a vaccine - your comparison is completely irrelevant. > Even with exemption from liability, vaccines are such a bad business that we managed to develop just a handful only for most serious infectuous diseases. The business argument is not a valid one. "Manufacturers might go out of business" is never a good reason to allow a bad thing to continue. Unless you think that it's ok to keep burning oil in order to keep big oil companies afloat? Moreover, all it takes is a single vaccine manufacturer to continue producing them, and after mRNA is thoroughly tested (you can't test for decade-long side effects with a single year of testing, by definition), then we'll be able to build them extremely easily and cheaply. > "Society decided that vaccines are beneficial enough to give companies immunity from prosecution" is a shorthand for competent people in the society decided No, you don't get to redefine "society" to be "competent" people, or a group of elites. It's either the entire democracy, or you can use a different word. > competent people being epidemiologists and politicians I can guarantee you that no epidemiologists were involved - just politicians, who are notoriously corrupt, and not competent in the area of epidemiology (or any health-related field) in the general case. > Democracy is not about all people making decision. No, but the only alternative valid kind of democracy is where representatives are elected (which is what happened in the US) who, you know, represent the interests of their constituents - which never happened in this area. Again, there was no debate, no polling, no mention of this in debates - just politicians going off and doing their own thing, without any representation of the actual citizens. > It has no obligation to and might stay in power (and almost always does) regardless. In American democracy goverment only implements laws that have a support of the richest Americans. So us having vaccines is a result of richest people thinking it's good idea to exempt companies from liability over vaccines they develop. And even if you think it's a bad idea you have no saying over this, not today, not during election, because you are not a member of those elites whose opinion on laws actually matters and even if you were, majority of them doesn't share your views. This isn't an argument - you're just pointing out the state of the world. Moreover, the views of politicians or rich elites, or even "competent people" in any case, aren't representative of either "society" or democracy as a whole. > Besides manufacturers of vaccines are still liable if they make a bad batch. They are just not responsible for things nobody can know. Irrelevant - the lack of knowledge about interactions with the human body is a direct result of lack of research, not because it's fundamentally not understandable. These "random future events you have no way of predicting" you're talking about do not exist, because they're not "random" - they're the result of concrete mechanisms in the body that the pharma companies just haven't bothered to understand. I don't think that most of your arguments hold up, but I'm grateful to you for engaging honestly with this, and for your reference to the Lyme disease vaccine issue, which I'm going to continue to read and think about. Also interesting is the Wikipedia page on the NCVIA itself[1], which has given me more food for thought. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...