4 ms·

So these companies get swaths of subsidies. They get price agreements with the liberty to bump it with double digit percentages. They get waivers for any and al

So these companies get swaths of subsidies. They get price agreements with the liberty to bump it with double digit percentages. They get waivers for any and all responsibilities and orders en masse. Yet helping the hopeless and poor is too much to ask in fear of lawsuits. What a shameful situation.

hmmmcurious1 5y ago
Why do they waive responsibility though
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  It is not possible to sue vaccine manufacturers if you are injured/killed. You (or your family if you are killed) have to go to a special court and very likely lose your case. In the unlikely event you win, the government pays you, not the manufacturers.
  - jgod 5y ago
    How do I get the same thing going for my software? That is, to get it mandated or legislated that people have to buy it (preferably multiple times: subscription). And no matter what happens, I can't be held liable or pay damages. Sounds like a very solid business model.
    - bostik 5y ago
      Become an AV vendor. A good one. Entire sections of business are (for all intents and purposes) legally required to run up-to-date AV products on all their Windows endpoints.
      - lmm 5y ago
        You mean a good one in regard to the business, right? Because that seems to have very little to do with producing a good AV product.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Is your software potentially saving lives but also have the risk of potentially damaging some people? If so, you probably could get the government to cover you.
- fer 5y ago
  They don't waive more than what was defined in the PREP Act[0], they're exempt because it's an emergency and all evidence points at the treatment being better than the disease, and its production, distribution and administration is under government request. This was enacted in 2005, shortly after the original SARS, partially because pharma companies were reluctant to mass produce any novel vaccine/drug under government request only for it to possibly bite their asses. Another motivation for this was 2001, and the increasing potential threat of bioterrorism; companies lose any incentives to be responsive in the wake of such an attack. This is just actuarial science: a relatively rare but serious side effect (i.e. not found in trials), when put on a massive scale, becomes a big enough threat for the economic viability of the company. [0] https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default.aspx https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default...
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > they're exempt because it's an emergency and all evidence points at the treatment being better than the disease I know you don't write the law, so these questions are more in the vein of statements with questionmarks: * Why only consider evidence of cost vs. benefit in an emergency? * Why are vaccines suddenly safe in an emergency and not at other times? This pandemic proved that we can produce a "safe and effective" vaccine in 12 months. That is apparently a record. It shouldn't be - this signals that 75% of the wait time for new cures and vaccines is red tape.
    - resonantjacket5 5y ago
      > This pandemic proved that we can produce a "safe and effective" vaccine in 12 months. That is apparently a record. It shouldn't be - this signals that 75% of the wait time for new cures and vaccines is red tape. It can be kinda hard to test vaccines quickly and ethically typically as subjecting people to a disease on purpose isn't really allowed and you have to wait for them to catch it naturally and compare. Fortunately (or unfortunately) during a pandemic it's pretty easy to test vaccines as one can quickly compare one's that got the vaccine and one's that didn't effectiveness.
    - gretch 5y ago
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  Liability seeks to align interests with power: they who might be tempted to sell something they know to have some serious flaw should also have to pay for any damages. But the risks of these vaccines are somewhat different than usual. It’s less likely that there are some known risks the manufacturers are hiding, because they are getting so much attention. Instead, it’s about ‘unknown unknowns’ and the wish to balance them with the usefulness of vaccination. In other words: the customers, both patients and governments, are fully-informed, to the degree possible, and making an informed decision.

hmmmcurious1 5y ago

Why do they waive responsibility though

artificialLimbs 5y ago
It is not possible to sue vaccine manufacturers if you are injured/killed. You (or your family if you are killed) have to go to a special court and very likely lose your case. In the unlikely event you win, the government pays you, not the manufacturers.
- jgod 5y ago
  How do I get the same thing going for my software? That is, to get it mandated or legislated that people have to buy it (preferably multiple times: subscription). And no matter what happens, I can't be held liable or pay damages. Sounds like a very solid business model.
  - bostik 5y ago
    Become an AV vendor. A good one. Entire sections of business are (for all intents and purposes) legally required to run up-to-date AV products on all their Windows endpoints.
    - lmm 5y ago
      You mean a good one in regard to the business, right? Because that seems to have very little to do with producing a good AV product.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Is your software potentially saving lives but also have the risk of potentially damaging some people? If so, you probably could get the government to cover you.
fer 5y ago
They don't waive more than what was defined in the PREP Act[0], they're exempt because it's an emergency and all evidence points at the treatment being better than the disease, and its production, distribution and administration is under government request. This was enacted in 2005, shortly after the original SARS, partially because pharma companies were reluctant to mass produce any novel vaccine/drug under government request only for it to possibly bite their asses. Another motivation for this was 2001, and the increasing potential threat of bioterrorism; companies lose any incentives to be responsive in the wake of such an attack. This is just actuarial science: a relatively rare but serious side effect (i.e. not found in trials), when put on a massive scale, becomes a big enough threat for the economic viability of the company. [0] https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default.aspx https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default...
- roenxi 5y ago
  > they're exempt because it's an emergency and all evidence points at the treatment being better than the disease I know you don't write the law, so these questions are more in the vein of statements with questionmarks: * Why only consider evidence of cost vs. benefit in an emergency? * Why are vaccines suddenly safe in an emergency and not at other times? This pandemic proved that we can produce a "safe and effective" vaccine in 12 months. That is apparently a record. It shouldn't be - this signals that 75% of the wait time for new cures and vaccines is red tape.
  - resonantjacket5 5y ago
    > This pandemic proved that we can produce a "safe and effective" vaccine in 12 months. That is apparently a record. It shouldn't be - this signals that 75% of the wait time for new cures and vaccines is red tape. It can be kinda hard to test vaccines quickly and ethically typically as subjecting people to a disease on purpose isn't really allowed and you have to wait for them to catch it naturally and compare. Fortunately (or unfortunately) during a pandemic it's pretty easy to test vaccines as one can quickly compare one's that got the vaccine and one's that didn't effectiveness.
  - gretch 5y ago
KarlKemp 5y ago
Liability seeks to align interests with power: they who might be tempted to sell something they know to have some serious flaw should also have to pay for any damages. But the risks of these vaccines are somewhat different than usual. It’s less likely that there are some known risks the manufacturers are hiding, because they are getting so much attention. Instead, it’s about ‘unknown unknowns’ and the wish to balance them with the usefulness of vaccination. In other words: the customers, both patients and governments, are fully-informed, to the degree possible, and making an informed decision.