Some may interpret the explicit shielding from legal liability of the vaccine manufacturers by the Federal government to be an acknowledgment that risks are hig

Some may interpret the explicit shielding from legal liability of the vaccine manufacturers by the Federal government to be an acknowledgment that risks are high enough to require such protections. Else why implement the liability shield? And why set the standards for establishing harm to qualify for compensation from the Feds so much higher for COVID than for previous vaccine claims? Why the higher court costs and the shorter window to qualify? (NVICP vs. the COVID CICP) The industry pretty clearly doesn’t want their money at risk from damages resulting from release of their COVID vaccine product. Following the money is often an insightful strategy in these complicated issues. It “cuts to the chase” and rarely leads to nonsense. Which speaks to the “may very well harm them”. And that’s OK if the vaccine is voluntary and you are a knowledgeable adult. You assess the benefits and risks and make your choice. And we can be grateful to the pharmas for their hard work in making the option of vaccines available. Not so OK if you are a child and there is a government mandate. There was a neologism back in our day…Califascist. Seems applicable.