4 ms·

Even if they were market established, there would always have been conspiracy theories about any vaccines. It's about a worldview shaping your reality

logicchains 3y ago
It's about incentives: vaccines are one of the only products where manufacturers are completely immune from liability, and given big pharma's historical willingness to priotise profit over lives, it's hard to just trust them. Especially when the reason big pharma lobbied for that liability immunity was because they claimed they'd be sued into bankruptcy without it.
- astrange 3y ago
  GenX "big whatever" / "evil corporations" leftism is completely dead at this point. People should drop it since it only ever brings them to incorrect conclusions. If you want an evil corporation, it's the small ones that are usually the worst.
  - emkemp 3y ago
    Counterpoint: Oracle Corporation.
- chimprich 3y ago
  Every single company in the world tries to minimise their legal liability, for every single product. That's even more crucial when you're trying to vaccinate literally billions of people. Even for extremely safe vaccines (like these are), very low percentage bad outcomes can mean a lot of people willing to sue. Billions of people also means a lot of cranks willing to call conspiracy theories in a lot of jurisdictions.
  - artificialLimbs 3y ago
    Is there a reason the manufacturers shouldn't be liable in these cases?
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      Liability adds a strong bias towards inaction and it's in society's interests to avoid that. Like, pretty much everything has some side-effects, and if (for example) you have the choice between doing nothing and having a million people die and doing something for which everyone is certain that that will save that million people but on average might kill ten other people, then asserting liability effectively means saying that you shouldn't do that thing, because you won't be liable for the former million deaths but will be liable for the latter ten ones. So if the society wants people to choose the former option, they shouldn't be liable for such consequences.
    - chimprich 3y ago
      Yes, in order to save tens of millions of lives globally - which is exactly what happened. You really don't want to discourage that. But leaving aside pragmatics, you're assuming that the manufacturers wouldn't be liable. If they'd e.g. hid bad results from some study, they'd presumably still be criminally liable.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  Willful negligence resulting from economic incentives are endemic and I agree a major problem in every industry. It could be the long-term side effects of these vaccines prove more harmful than the side effects of multiple COVID infections... time will tell. But it's a big leap to go from "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they should be put under more scrutiny" and "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they are injecting us with 5G-enabled nanobots to enable mind control by the Council of Rome"
  - funcDropShadow 3y ago
    > But it's a big leap to go from "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they should be put under more scrutiny" and "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they are injecting us with 5G-enabled nanobots to enable mind control by the Council of Rome" They are put under way more scrutiny than other industries. Or where is the FDA equivalent demanding phase I, II, and III trials for so-called self-driving? Or imagine a pharma company embracing the slogan "Move fast and break things."
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Vaccines, however, are usually not that profitable. If anything, I'd expect more conspiracy theories about pharma companies suppressing vaccines on the grounds that, while prevention may be better than cure, it's generally less profitable.
  - fooker 3y ago
    > Vaccines, however, are usually not that profitable. That’s exactly why the idea was to get the government to pay for it and then force everyone to take it.

logicchains 3y ago

It's about incentives: vaccines are one of the only products where manufacturers are completely immune from liability, and given big pharma's historical willingness to priotise profit over lives, it's hard to just trust them. Especially when the reason big pharma lobbied for that liability immunity was because they claimed they'd be sued into bankruptcy without it.

astrange 3y ago
GenX "big whatever" / "evil corporations" leftism is completely dead at this point. People should drop it since it only ever brings them to incorrect conclusions. If you want an evil corporation, it's the small ones that are usually the worst.
- emkemp 3y ago
  Counterpoint: Oracle Corporation.
chimprich 3y ago
Every single company in the world tries to minimise their legal liability, for every single product. That's even more crucial when you're trying to vaccinate literally billions of people. Even for extremely safe vaccines (like these are), very low percentage bad outcomes can mean a lot of people willing to sue. Billions of people also means a lot of cranks willing to call conspiracy theories in a lot of jurisdictions.
- artificialLimbs 3y ago
  Is there a reason the manufacturers shouldn't be liable in these cases?
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    Liability adds a strong bias towards inaction and it's in society's interests to avoid that. Like, pretty much everything has some side-effects, and if (for example) you have the choice between doing nothing and having a million people die and doing something for which everyone is certain that that will save that million people but on average might kill ten other people, then asserting liability effectively means saying that you shouldn't do that thing, because you won't be liable for the former million deaths but will be liable for the latter ten ones. So if the society wants people to choose the former option, they shouldn't be liable for such consequences.
  - chimprich 3y ago
    Yes, in order to save tens of millions of lives globally - which is exactly what happened. You really don't want to discourage that. But leaving aside pragmatics, you're assuming that the manufacturers wouldn't be liable. If they'd e.g. hid bad results from some study, they'd presumably still be criminally liable.
passwordoops 3y ago
Willful negligence resulting from economic incentives are endemic and I agree a major problem in every industry. It could be the long-term side effects of these vaccines prove more harmful than the side effects of multiple COVID infections... time will tell. But it's a big leap to go from "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they should be put under more scrutiny" and "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they are injecting us with 5G-enabled nanobots to enable mind control by the Council of Rome"
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  > But it's a big leap to go from "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they should be put under more scrutiny" and "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they are injecting us with 5G-enabled nanobots to enable mind control by the Council of Rome" They are put under way more scrutiny than other industries. Or where is the FDA equivalent demanding phase I, II, and III trials for so-called self-driving? Or imagine a pharma company embracing the slogan "Move fast and break things."
rsynnott 3y ago
Vaccines, however, are usually not that profitable. If anything, I'd expect more conspiracy theories about pharma companies suppressing vaccines on the grounds that, while prevention may be better than cure, it's generally less profitable.
- fooker 3y ago
  > Vaccines, however, are usually not that profitable. That’s exactly why the idea was to get the government to pay for it and then force everyone to take it.