Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 122 posts

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#11

Post by sonicggg »

I see a lot of complaints of people about the fact that Pfizer required legal immunity against side effects.

This is a must for any vaccine manufacturer, otherwise the vaccine is just not commercially feasible. That's what killed Lymerix, and why we don't have Lyme disease vaccine anymore. If the government does not back it up, the manufacturer won't stand a chance.

Even if the vaccine has a good safety profile, a 0.1% rate of side effects applied to millions is still a lot of lawsuits.

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#12

Post by JetAlone »

walterbell wrote: post #3

> Many COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have required that countries indemnify them for any adverse events suffered by individuals as a result of the vaccines, the United Nations says. Where governments are not in control, that is not possible. The concerns affect people, such as those displaced by the Myanmar, Afghanistan and Ethiopian crises, who are beyond the reach of national governments' vaccination schemes. Stat…

That's a good question with a lot of observations that could be made...

I'd say that out of concern for the (economic) consequences of harmful side effects, the choice not to get the jab is de-facto forcefully made for the stateless by the manufacturers + state. I wouldn't call this protection. As a stateless, your legal freedom (which I think ought to be inalienable) to get a particular medical product you might want is not protected because protection of the corporate manufacturer's bottom line has priority.

The manufacturers are carefully avoiding the one thing they _don't_ want which would be indemnifying individual sufferers of side effects from their bottom line. They do this by either having the people effectively indemnify themselves by paying them from their own people's money through the government, or by refusing to give it to anyone not indemnified this way. Basically, the manufacturers want riskless profit for rolling this product out, one way or another. The manufacturers will do what it takes to exercise a privilege they think ought to be inalienable, that being to help themselves our collective wealth so long as we use their product, whatever it is.

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#13

Post by fsh »

sonicggg wrote: post #11

I see a lot of complaints of people about the fact that Pfizer required legal immunity against side effects. This is a must for any vaccine manufacturer, otherwise the vaccine is just not commercially feasible. That's what killed Lymerix, and why we don't have Lyme disease vaccine anymore. If the government does not back it up, the manufacturer won't stand a chance. Even if the vaccine has a good safety profile, a 0.…

This also happened with the DPT vaccine in the 1980s. Manufacturers kept losing lawsuits based on junk science until they could no longer afford liability insurance. This is why the US congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that protects manufacturers from lawsuits.

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#14

Post by roenxi »

sonicggg wrote: post #11

I see a lot of complaints of people about the fact that Pfizer required legal immunity against side effects. This is a must for any vaccine manufacturer, otherwise the vaccine is just not commercially feasible. That's what killed Lymerix, and why we don't have Lyme disease vaccine anymore. If the government does not back it up, the manufacturer won't stand a chance. Even if the vaccine has a good safety profile, a 0.…

That is a signal your laws are bad and squelching valuable innovation. Giving random one-off exceptions when you personally feel like it is a terrible way to regulate commerce.

Vendors should be able to grade their vaccines on a curve based on how much safety and efficacy data there is, then let people choose whatever in consultation with their doctors.

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#15

Post by roenxi »

fer wrote: post #9
hmmmcurious1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they waive responsibility though

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 governme…

> 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.

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#16

Post by resonantjacket5 »

roenxi wrote: post #15
fer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governme…

> 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 effectiv…

> 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.

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#17

Post by Madmallard »

dmz73 wrote: post #10

Governments are also indemnifying the people who do not want to get the vaccines and are spreading covid through their behavior (no masks, not distancing, no isolating). It would be interesting to see what would happen if families of people that die from covid-19 in coming months/years bring a negligent homicide lawsuits against some of the prominent advocates of the above mentioned behavior.

People generally don't expose themselves around others while obviously sick. In the case that the transmissions happen it's likely not a case you can pursue in court.

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#18

Post by landemva »

fer wrote: post #9
hmmmcurious1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they waive responsibility though

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 governme…

'all evidence points at the treatment being better than the disease'.

I had it and have Dr. letter that says so. I now have sterilizing immunity. The jab does not provide sterilizing immunity, so it is not better for me nor my family. I am not jabbed, and will not get jabbed. While I am just one, I invalidate your use of the word 'all'.

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#19

Post by KarlKemp »

hmmmcurious1 wrote: post #5
hetspookjee wrote: post #4

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.

Why do they waive responsibility though

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.

Re: Refugees lack Covid shots because drugmakers fear lawsuits, documents show

#20

Post by fer »

landemva wrote: post #18
fer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governme…

'all evidence points at the treatment being better than the disease'. I had it and have Dr. letter that says so. I now have sterilizing immunity. The jab does not provide sterilizing immunity, so it is not better for me nor my family. I am not jabbed, and will not get jabbed. While I am just one, I invalidate your use of the word 'all'.

> I had it and have Dr. letter that says so. I now have sterilizing immunity.

No, you don't, nobody has, 'sterilizing immunity' doesn't exist as you seem to think it does [0]. I seriously doubt a doctor would write 'sterilizing immunity' in such a letter, so I assume that's your reasoning.

> so it is not better for me nor my family.

It actually is [1]. Even if you had it, you're still better off having the jab.

> I am not jabbed, and will not get jabbed.

You just sound like someone that can't be convinced of things. Talk to your doctor.

> While I am just one, I invalidate your use of the word 'all'.

Yeah, like seatbelt doesn't save 100%. Luckily one data point doesn't count as evidence when we're talking about statistics.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...

Post reply on HN