4 ms·

Well then what are you reading. It’s well known that Pfizer and Moderna required immunity from lawsuits in order to provide the vaccine and every country gave t

Well then what are you reading. It’s well known that Pfizer and Moderna required immunity from lawsuits in order to provide the vaccine and every country gave them that immunity. Here it is from CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effec... Perhaps you were thinking about compensation from the government, but the original poster was talking about actually holding Pfizer and Moderna liable.

ethbr1 1y ago
Okay, work it out for me: how was that a bad trade for world governments and society? People still have an avenue to sue for harm -- they can sue the government. The government took on that liability in exchange for preventing the spread of a highly pathogenic, novel pandemic with moderate mortality, thereby allowing return to normal life, with fewer deaths, faster. Which part of that was a bad idea?
thephyber 1y ago
Your parent is making a useless complaint. VI claims are still paid (faster, with lower standard of evidence, and cheaper to everyone involved). Lawsuits that go through court involve law firms and the investigations become extremely expensive for everyone. Manufacturers (and rhetorical supply+delivery chain) are monitored by medical orgs and the federal government to ensure the doses remain safe, after passing the initial trials. These review systems catch incidents like the Samoa measles vaccine incident (in which a few nurses were at fault for injecting from the wrong bottles, which RFKJr was on the wrong side of) and other incidents where some vials were contaminated. Unless a VI plaintiff can prove gross negligence, the outcome is better under the current system. If they can prove gross negligence, they can still take a manufacturer (or any other defendant involved in the supply chain) to court. The government decided that vaccines are a public health net positive and designed to current system to spread the risk across manufacturers and the government to ensure the cost of litigation didn’t eliminate this very useful tool.
amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Wait. Maybe I'm misinformed, but I believe all vaccine makers are immune from lawsuits. This started back in the 80s, and had nothing to do with COVID.
- chris_wot 1y ago
  No, that’s not accurate. Any claims for vaccine related injuries are heard by the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    But that applies to all vaccines since 1988, there was no special carve out for the COVID vaccines as far as I can see. Am I missing something? Edit: evidently it's more complex than that. The COVID vaccines are covered under the 2005 Prep Act instead.

ethbr1 1y ago

Okay, work it out for me: how was that a bad trade for world governments and society? People still have an avenue to sue for harm -- they can sue the government. The government took on that liability in exchange for preventing the spread of a highly pathogenic, novel pandemic with moderate mortality, thereby allowing return to normal life, with fewer deaths, faster. Which part of that was a bad idea?

thephyber 1y ago

Your parent is making a useless complaint. VI claims are still paid (faster, with lower standard of evidence, and cheaper to everyone involved). Lawsuits that go through court involve law firms and the investigations become extremely expensive for everyone. Manufacturers (and rhetorical supply+delivery chain) are monitored by medical orgs and the federal government to ensure the doses remain safe, after passing the initial trials. These review systems catch incidents like the Samoa measles vaccine incident (in which a few nurses were at fault for injecting from the wrong bottles, which RFKJr was on the wrong side of) and other incidents where some vials were contaminated. Unless a VI plaintiff can prove gross negligence, the outcome is better under the current system. If they can prove gross negligence, they can still take a manufacturer (or any other defendant involved in the supply chain) to court. The government decided that vaccines are a public health net positive and designed to current system to spread the risk across manufacturers and the government to ensure the cost of litigation didn’t eliminate this very useful tool.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago

Wait. Maybe I'm misinformed, but I believe all vaccine makers are immune from lawsuits. This started back in the 80s, and had nothing to do with COVID.

chris_wot 1y ago
No, that’s not accurate. Any claims for vaccine related injuries are heard by the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  But that applies to all vaccines since 1988, there was no special carve out for the COVID vaccines as far as I can see. Am I missing something? Edit: evidently it's more complex than that. The COVID vaccines are covered under the 2005 Prep Act instead.