3 ms·

I’d prefer that companies keep developing and manufacturing vaccines. That would stop if they had to assume liability for vaccines, especially compulsory vaccin

I’d prefer that companies keep developing and manufacturing vaccines. That would stop if they had to assume liability for vaccines, especially compulsory vaccines. The government had to step in and create programs to assume liability for vaccine injuries because pharmaceutical companies were not going to make them any longer. Don’t rip down the fence without understanding why it exists! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Comp... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_I...

sfusato 4y ago
> I’d prefer that companies keep developing and manufacturing vaccines. That would stop if they had to assume liability for vaccines. So this industry gets a "pass" on assuming responsibility for their developed products? Why would they stop if their product has a market? That's nonsense.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  You seem to want to cut off your nose to spite your face. Is ensuring companies get the punishment you think they deserve more important than the overall net improvement in public health?
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  If you think it’s nonsense, I suggest reading about the DPT vaccine lawsuits in the 1980s and how the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program came about, pharmaceutical companies almost stopped making the DPT vaccine. [0] I repeat: pharmaceutical companies were willing to stop making vaccines due to the liability inherent in making something that everyone takes. The government had two choices: start manufacturing vaccines, or come up with an alternative way to compensate victims of vaccine injuries. The second one is much easier to implement, so that’s what they chose. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Comp...
  - sfusato 4y ago
    > The second one is much easier to implement, so that’s what they chose. Easier to implement, I can agree on that, but does it lead to better outcomes in the long term? Since you already have your back covered, as one could say, doesn't that affect in any way the strive for a better product? My personal opinion is that it leads to more mediocre results than otherwise would have been. I don't believe for a second that a private company will stop developing a product that (1) has a market and (2) has a demand. Without a market and without a demand the product is useless anyway.
    - jleyank 4y ago
      I’ll say it again. They have limited resources, and can develop something else rather than a vaccine. Only so much manufacturing plant and raw materials and they keep it busy. Don’t want a higher risk, low per item vaccine? Fine, they’ll make a lower risk, high per item drug. The latter is usually a better defined problem anyway.

sfusato 4y ago

> I’d prefer that companies keep developing and manufacturing vaccines. That would stop if they had to assume liability for vaccines. So this industry gets a "pass" on assuming responsibility for their developed products? Why would they stop if their product has a market? That's nonsense.

pfdietz 4y ago
You seem to want to cut off your nose to spite your face. Is ensuring companies get the punishment you think they deserve more important than the overall net improvement in public health?
quickthrowman 4y ago
If you think it’s nonsense, I suggest reading about the DPT vaccine lawsuits in the 1980s and how the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program came about, pharmaceutical companies almost stopped making the DPT vaccine. [0] I repeat: pharmaceutical companies were willing to stop making vaccines due to the liability inherent in making something that everyone takes. The government had two choices: start manufacturing vaccines, or come up with an alternative way to compensate victims of vaccine injuries. The second one is much easier to implement, so that’s what they chose. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Comp...
- sfusato 4y ago
  > The second one is much easier to implement, so that’s what they chose. Easier to implement, I can agree on that, but does it lead to better outcomes in the long term? Since you already have your back covered, as one could say, doesn't that affect in any way the strive for a better product? My personal opinion is that it leads to more mediocre results than otherwise would have been. I don't believe for a second that a private company will stop developing a product that (1) has a market and (2) has a demand. Without a market and without a demand the product is useless anyway.
  - jleyank 4y ago
    I’ll say it again. They have limited resources, and can develop something else rather than a vaccine. Only so much manufacturing plant and raw materials and they keep it busy. Don’t want a higher risk, low per item vaccine? Fine, they’ll make a lower risk, high per item drug. The latter is usually a better defined problem anyway.