Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (4 Viewers)

Will you get the covid vaccine when offered?

  • Yes

    Votes: 278 73.2%
  • No

    Votes: 106 27.9%

  • Total voters
    380
I appreciate your respectful response. You are correct in that I am probably misusing the word "liability".
It just seems to me that an injured party (especially resulting in permanent disability or death) should receive substantial compensation.
Are you saying that the injured party or his family may have a legitimate claim against the employer (if not the government) in a mandated instance?

Also, doesn't the mandate effect employers with over 100 employees?
Please remember that the mandate is not limited to vaccination. There is the ability to do weekly testing. If an employer mandates vaccination, they have stepped beyond the government mandate.
 
I appreciate your respectful response. You are correct in that I am probably misusing the word "liability".
It just seems to me that an injured party (especially resulting in permanent disability or death) should receive substantial compensation.
Are you saying that the injured party or his family may have a legitimate claim against the employer (if not the government) in a mandated instance?

Also, doesn't the mandate effect employers with over 100 employees?

I'm not sure of the state of the private business mandate - if it's in place now, that would have to be included in the scope of federal vaccine mandates. But even so, that's still through the auspices of workplace safety (i.e. OSHA) and where the employer requires it, I believe vaccine injury in those circumstances would be a covered workplace injury for purposes of workers compensation.

Employers have workers compensation insurance to pay claims and there's a whole establishment under state law (or the Labor Department for federal employment) to manage that compensation.
 
Again how are cars different from vaccines?

Stop dodging the question.
Well, first, you hadn't asked that question. Which was probably for the best, because it is, frankly, a stupid question.

But since you apparently need an answer, I asked my five year old, and he says cars are machines and have wheels, and vaccines are a little jab that keeps you healthy.

Evasiveness is a "bad faith" response.
Accusing others of that which you are guilty is a bad faith response.

Where was civil immunity for vaccines prior to 1986 and why are other non-emergency vaccines afforded immunity?

Gonna dodge again?
You're confusing choosing not to engage, in much the same way someone might choose not to engage with a person who stumbles up to them in the street and demands to know if they're one of the lizard people, with 'dodging'. Not really the same thing.

But since other people - albeit apparently not you, because if you'd really wanted to know, you could easily have found out - might be genuinely interested in what happened: there was no substantial need for it prior to the 1980s in the US, because people weren't wildly suing vaccine manufacturers for vast sums for anything that happened to occur to their child on a date after they got vaccinated.

"Only one such case was filed in 1978, whereas 73 were filed in 1984. During the seven-year period from 1978 to 1984, the average amount claimed per suit has risen from $10 million to $46.5 million." Hinman AR. DTP Vaccine Litigation. Am J Dis Child. 1986;140(6):528–530.

Why? Substantially, the anti-vaccine movement, driven by a scaremongering 1982 TV documentary 'DPT: Vaccine Roulette'.

That caused manufacturers to halt or restrict sales, causing a shortage: "Earlier this year, Wyeth Laboratories of Radnor, Pa., said it was halting production because of rising litigation costs. A second company, Connaught Laboratories Inc. of Swiftwater, Pa., said this week that it was accepting no new orders for the vaccine because it was unable to obtain liability insurance at a satisfactory cost. A company official has said that Connaught was filling only a handful of remaining contracts." New York Times, Dec. 14, 1984.

That left just one manufacturer, Lederle, a continuing shortage, and greatly increased costs; in 1982, one dose of DPT vaccine was 10-12 cents, by 1984 it was $2.80.

That was bad, because whooping cough is highly contagious and highly dangerous in infants. Pre-vaccination, it killed thousands of young children in the US every year. "For example, from 1926 to 1930, there were 36,013 pertussis-related deaths in the United States. The average death rates from 1940 to 1948 per 100,000 population per year were 64 in children less than 1 year old, 6.4 in those 1–4 years of age, and 0.2 in those 5–14 years of age. More than 90% of the reported pertussis cases occurred in children less than 10 years of age, with about 10% of those in children less than 1 year of age." James D. Cherry, Historical Perspective on Pertussis and Use of Vaccines to Prevent It, Microbe Magazine, March 2007.

The crucial thing is, the alleged condition, 'pertussis vaccine encephalopathy', wasn't actually a thing. It was an unrelated condition, infantile epilepsy. But proving the negative, that a rare condition is unrelated to a vaccine, is highly complex, requires a lot of time and data to fully establish, and, in the context of a civil court, isn't guaranteed to succeed (and I should add, the opposite can also be true, showing that a rare reaction was caused by a vaccine can be hard to establish).

So without passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the US would have been facing at best continued shortages and high costs, or at worst a cessation of manufacturing altogether, and would not have been able to keep up their high level of DPT vaccine uptake. Which would likely have resulted in the 10 to 100 times higher case incidence that occurred in countries that were unable to maintain high vaccine coverage when it was compromised by anti-vaccine movements (Gangarosa, Eugene J., et al. "Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story." The Lancet 351.9099 (1998): 356-361.). Which, again, would have been bad.

The same thing that happened with the DPT vaccine can happen with any vaccine in principle. As we all know, the anti-vaccine movement isn't limited to just that one vaccine. It's easy to attribute a rare condition that happens to occur after vaccination to the vaccine, regardless of whether it's actually related or not, and when you are trying to vaccinate virtually everybody, there will inevitably be unrelated, rare, conditions occurring in the time frame after vaccination. Which is why the principle applies beyond just the DPT vaccine.

And, just to be completely explicit, none of that scenario is applicable to cars.
 
Last edited:
Well, first, you hadn't asked that question. Which was probably for the best, because it is, frankly, a stupid question.

But since you apparently need an answer, I asked my five year old, and he says cars are machines and have wheels, and vaccines are a little jab that keeps you healthy.


Accusing others of that which you are guilty is a bad faith response.


You're confusing choosing not to engage, in much the same way someone might choose not to engage with a person who stumbles up to them in the street and demands to know if they're one of the lizard people, with 'dodging'. Not really the same thing.

But since other people - albeit apparently not you, because if you'd really wanted to know, you could easily have found out - might be genuinely interested in what happened: there was no substantial need for it prior to the 1980s in the US, because people weren't wildly suing vaccine manufacturers for vast sums for anything that happened to occur to their child on a date after they got vaccinated.

"Only one such case was filed in 1978, whereas 73 were filed in 1984. During the seven-year period from 1978 to 1984, the average amount claimed per suit has risen from $10 million to $46.5 million." Hinman AR. DTP Vaccine Litigation. Am J Dis Child. 1986;140(6):528–530.

Why? Substantially, the anti-vaccine movement, driven by a scaremongering 1982 TV documentary 'DPT: Vaccine Roulette'.

That caused manufacturers to halt or restrict sales, causing a shortage: "Earlier this year, Wyeth Laboratories of Radnor, Pa., said it was halting production because of rising litigation costs. A second company, Connaught Laboratories Inc. of Swiftwater, Pa., said this week that it was accepting no new orders for the vaccine because it was unable to obtain liability insurance at a satisfactory cost. A company official has said that Connaught was filling only a handful of remaining contracts." New York Times, Dec. 14, 1984.

That left just one manufacturer, Lederle, a continuing shortage, and greatly increased costs; in 1982, one dose of DPT vaccine was 10-12 cents, by 1984 it was $2.80.

That was bad, because whooping cough is highly contagious and highly dangerous in infants. Pre-vaccination, it killed thousands of young children in the US every year. "For example, from 1926 to 1930, there were 36,013 pertussis-related deaths in the United States. The average death rates from 1940 to 1948 per 100,000 population per year were 64 in children less than 1 year old, 6.4 in those 1–4 years of age, and 0.2 in those 5–14 years of age. More than 90% of the reported pertussis cases occurred in children less than 10 years of age, with about 10% of those in children less than 1 year of age." James D. Cherry, Historical Perspective on Pertussis and Use of Vaccines to Prevent It, Microbe Magazine, March 2007.

The crucial thing is, the alleged condition, 'pertussis vaccine encephalopathy', wasn't actually a thing. It was an unrelated condition, infantile epilepsy. But proving the negative, that a rare condition is unrelated to a vaccine, is highly complex, requires a lot of time and data to fully establish, and, in the context of a civil court, isn't guaranteed to succeed (and I should add, the opposite can also be true, showing that a rare reaction was caused by a vaccine can be hard to establish).

So without passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the US would have been facing at best continued shortages and high costs, or at worst a cessation of manufacturing altogether, and would not have been able to keep up their high level of DPT vaccine uptake. Which would likely have resulted in the 10 to 100 times higher case incidence that occurred in countries that were unable to maintain high vaccine coverage when it was compromised by anti-vaccine movements (Gangarosa, Eugene J., et al. "Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story." The Lancet 351.9099 (1998): 356-361.). Which, again, would have been bad.

The same thing that happened with the DPT vaccine can happen with any vaccine in principle. As we all know, the anti-vaccine movement isn't limited to just that one vaccine. It's easy to attribute a rare condition that happens to occur after vaccination to the vaccine, regardless of whether it's actually related or not, and when you are trying to vaccinate virtually everybody, there will inevitably be unrelated, rare, conditions occurring in the time frame after vaccination. Which is why the principle applies beyond just the DPT vaccine.

And, just to be completely explicit, none of that scenario is applicable to cars.

Thanks for providing this history - I think it is essential to understanding what motivated Congress to pass the vaccine injury program.

So often the context of these kinds of legitimate policy decisions fades over time, leading some to see them with contempt that they serve cynical corporate interests and nothing more. There usually is a persuasive, if not compelling history behind it.
 
No.

What actually happened is you attempted to steer this discussion about all products in general into a conversation solely about your pet product in order to claim a false victory.

What makes it worse is you accusing me of bad faith while failing to provide any good faith arguments in favor of immunity for the products you seek to defend.

Talk about bad faith.
No.

You started another vaccine discussion thinly-veiled as an abstract policy discussion.

Per the legal advice of @superchuck500, I move to dismiss this discussion on grounds that it was filed in the wrong thread.
 
No.

You started another vaccine discussion thinly-veiled as an abstract policy discussion.

Per the legal advice of @superchuck500, I move to dismiss this discussion on grounds that it was filed in the wrong thread.
I merged it to the COVID vaccine thread.
 
I would say they learned but they have their own conviction and I am not going to attack that whether a person is pro or vaccine hesitant. Talk to people understand their point whether its right/wrong in each individual's opinion, its okay to agree to disagree if that's where you stand at the end of the day. In the end, when both walk away, each discussion will fester in that person's mind but attacking will only drive an opposite.

No. I'm sick and tired of coddling stupid people and pretending as if their stupid nonsense is equally valid. I'm tired of the "both sides do it" nonsense between political parties. Frankly, I'm tired of a lot of things, but tolerance of stupidity is no longer a polite option.

If someone tells you that eating your own feces will stave off disease, I'm going to figure out whether they're serious or joking. If they're joking, I'll laugh. If they're serious, I'm going to simply tell them they're useless idiots and move on.

The sooner the rest of us grow up and stop pretending all viewpoints are valid the better. It's as bad as tropies for 4th place.
 
Thanks for providing this history - I think it is essential to understanding what motivated Congress to pass the vaccine injury program.

So often the context of these kinds of legitimate policy decisions fades over time, leading some to see them with contempt that they serve cynical corporate interests and nothing more. There usually is a persuasive, if not compelling history behind it.
Good to know (and sad to know) that "people suck" has been a relevant answer for over 40 years.

Heck, you could make the argument back to biblical times.
 
Again, this isn't a question about misuse.


Clearly, any random person can die simply from drinking too much purified water.

This question is addressing manufacturer liability and responsibility to customers.

Can we stay on topic?

Quite frankly, I'm not sure if it's even allowed to question accountibility in relation to certain products on this board so I'm asking in general terms as to what the justification would be.

What are the ethical and legal grounds for immunity?

I think he's trying to sue the Saints for not trading up for Mac Jones.

I sure hope Mac Jones starts playing better so he can be right....about something.....
 
Where an entire separate judicial court has been established to process claims.

It's not unlike workers compensation where the injured employee gets scheduled benefits without having to file suit and prove negligence to recover.

I was about to say this guy has never heard of Worker's comp....having worked in a Worker's comp program for 20+ years I can tell you folks still litigate and yes, unless I'm mistaken, an entire separate judicial court (OALJ) has been established for this purpose....so what is the point here exactly?
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom