2 ms·
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, pharmaceut
by 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 agoI’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.