Why is AstraZeneca asking for exemption from liability claims stemming from their COVID-19 vaccine? https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccin...
> “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects,”
However, considering that we cannot, there is some threshold level of danger above which society will deem your personal rights forfeit and you will be forced to swallow your personal risk because others do not want to swallow the risk of your externalities. There is no objective coefficient that weights the two things, so you're pretty much subject to the wisdom of the mob.
So far, if it makes you feel happy, it is unlikely that you will be forced to take the vaccine. There will be no TB DOT-equivalent, internet comments notwithstanding.
And do you think you have this right only regarding this disease, or other similar diseases as well?
My rationale for this case is quite simple. I have very effective protocol around this disease, high risk tolerance, and I want to retain the life I had before (going out, restaurants, clubs, etc.). In exchange, I'm willing to allow you to sue me if I get you sick. I think this will create a freer society, and allow people to find their own position on the risk-benefit curve. It doesn't make sense to subject me to the conditions less-risk-tolerant people want. However, it doesn't make sense for me to subject them non-consensually to conditions I want. A good mechanism to balance these things is a near-continuous universal value measure. A good near-continuous universal value measure is money.
FWIW I've rewritten your question from "why do you feel you are entitled to sue..." to "why do you think it is a good idea for society to permit people to sue..." since I think that's more interesting. The answer to "what gives you the idea that you are entitled to sue" is "nothing, since I do not believe I can right now" which is sort of a boring (though correct) response.
Of course the whole thing is moot. Hard to prove who really caused an infection when community transmission is rampant.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. It’s an unproven method of vaccine creation and hasn’t been tested by anyone. I really can’t imagine this holding up in courts though.
Why not? Liability waivers are common in other industries.
Same thing with the Nazis. Nuremberg was a kangaroo court but people stop caring about due process when you ruin the lives of everyone in their country.
I will gladly line up for the Covid vaccine and I'll definitely be vaccinating my children, but there is a remote risk of harm.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 is the relevant law. The USSC upheld it 6-2 in a 2010 case.
The risks are low, and the benefits of the vaccine vastly outweigh them.
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
Essentially the government runs the trial.
If you are (healthily) afraid of a vaccine because its not tested enough, just take your responsibility and dont take it. Or take it but dont come complain and attack other people for something that no one can do anything about now.
Is that going to be allowed? Do we seriously believe at this point that governments aren't going to make these vaccines mandatory, if not for everyone explicitly then at least in practice by making them mandatory for access to public services and spaces?