pull down to refresh
Because the companies pay off political figures and have a revolving door with regulators. Its sick.
That's the real reason, imo, but the official rationale was that irrational anti-vaxxers could take down this entire vital public health industry through scientifically baseless lawsuits.
If their rationale were true that would mean the legal system is a failure. Its like when they talk about sin taxes and then reject the idea that taxes affect business and consumer behavior. When one pays attention long enough and uses consistent logic one comes to the conclusion they are full of it.
You hear people make a similar case for granting immunity to Big Ag companies like Bayer (Monsanto).
My experience with jury selection certainly didn't leave me with a favorable impression of jurors, but liability is too important of a feedback mechanism to ever let someone operate without it.
This aligns with my jury experience and coming from an AG focused area I strongly believe the incentives are a big problem with AG.
I was trying to fashion this off of some of your great discussion starter posts. I feel like you do a really good job of getting into your questions and posing them succinctly. I still need to work on that.
well done!
It is a huge red flag. No treatment is free of risks. Safe is not a Boolean. Some people are at more risk with treatments than others. Medical decisions should never be coerced period. Its the ultimate violation of rights.
Immunity for vaccine industry
Sounds terrible
I guess because it's a game of statistics. 0.01% or something are expected to have serious side effects, some death. "For the greater good of the collective".
That was the official reasoning. Basically, the civil suits from those outlier cases would make it not worthwhile to manufacture the vaccines at all.
the legal immunity from liability strikes me as a big red flag.
can someone make the case for why this immunity from consumer lawsuits should persist?