Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (22 Viewers)

[itztime]

I think the poster trying to inject the VAERS data into the civil suits discussion is using it as a red herring. It's useless for those purposes, and sows doubt about every other reporting agency, basically saying that if VAERS is no good, therefore there's no good reliable reporting out there. Precisely why he's asking why we don't come up with a better system for reporting data. He's just trying to get people to question everything, because then he can make it look like his position is equally valid. He's clearly wrong, and I think deliberately misleading.

I don't see that way and I'm not saying I'm right with that perspective but just giving a person the benefit of doubt. Its an honest discussion regardless and OP is being civil about it, without taking shots but some are coming at OP trying to needle with little shots (I might be borrowing some from this thread or the other thread where this discussion moved).

I happen to have a co-worker who I travel with often, decide to get the vaccine but once that coworker was handed the paper work regarding liability, decided to not take the vaccine. So this is a real issue and does stop some people from taking the vaccine and this person had Covid before and almost lost their significant other to Covid spending weeks in ICU, so they KNOW the dangers but the non-liability was a deal breaker.

 

[Xeno]

I don't see that way and I'm not saying I'm right with that perspective but just giving a person the benefit of doubt. Its an honest discussion regardless and OP is being civil about it, without taking shots but some are coming at OP trying to needle with little shots (I might be borrowing some from this thread or the other thread where this discussion moved).

I happen to have a co-worker who I travel with often, decide to get the vaccine but once that coworker was handed the paper work regarding liability, decided to not take the vaccine. So this is a real issue and does stop some people from taking the vaccine and this person had Covid before and almost lost their significant other to Covid spending weeks in ICU, so they KNOW the dangers but the non-liability was a deal breaker.

Then they clearly didn't actually learn how dangerous COVID is. Hate to say it but maybe they'll understand when someone close to them dies.

 

[itztime]

Then they clearly didn't actually learn how dangerous COVID is. Hate to say it but maybe they'll understand when someone close to them dies.

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.

 

[Xeno]

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.

This is a case where it isn't okay to disagree. There are no equal opinions on this. We're still in the thick of a pandemic that's killing thousands of people a day. The vaccines are our best hope for stopping that, period full stop. The longer people hold out for completely illogical reasons the more people will die.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't see that way and I'm not saying I'm right with that perspective but just giving a person the benefit of doubt. Its an honest discussion regardless and OP is being civil about it, without taking shots but some are coming at OP trying to needle with little shots (I might be borrowing some from this thread or the other thread where this discussion moved).

I happen to have a co-worker who I travel with often, decide to get the vaccine but once that coworker was handed the paper work regarding liability, decided to not take the vaccine. So this is a real issue and does stop some people from taking the vaccine and this person had Covid before and almost lost their significant other to Covid spending weeks in ICU, so they KNOW the dangers but the non-liability was a deal breaker.

I don't discount that it's real for some people to think that way, but I think it's unfortunate that someone would opt-out of such meaningful protection from a widely circulating pathogen based on misplaced perceptions. Four hundred million doses administered in the US - if there was some kind of actionable negligence in the process, I think it would be apparent by now. I don't know what these people think they're giving up in taking a vaccine for which there is no liability for the manufacturer. It almost strikes me as an explanation for hesitancy that isn't really why they're hesitant. It sounds reasonable so they say that's why but if you engaged in some truthful analysis, it probably is much more than that.

 

[Saint_Ward]

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.

I agree with this overall. However, many people carry strong convictions over misinformation or incomplete information. Then, like the stereotypical older father / grandfather, get stubborn about it regardless of new information. Pride gets in the way of reason.

 

[SaintJ]

This is the EE version of Swimmer, right?

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

I don't see that way and I'm not saying I'm right with that perspective but just giving a person the benefit of doubt. Its an honest discussion regardless and OP is being civil about it, without taking shots but some are coming at OP trying to needle with little shots (I might be borrowing some from this thread or the other thread where this discussion moved).

I happen to have a co-worker who I travel with often, decide to get the vaccine but once that coworker was handed the paper work regarding liability, decided to not take the vaccine. So this is a real issue and does stop some people from taking the vaccine and this person had Covid before and almost lost their significant other to Covid spending weeks in ICU, so they KNOW the dangers but the non-liability was a deal breaker.

To your basic point, yeah, it does get a bit snarky in the pro/anti-vaccine debates. It's an emotional subject and it affects everyone in some way and patience is thin with many.

For your friends to have experienced COVID in a major way and still back down from the vaccine because of liability language sounds like they were still very much on the fence and looking for anything to dissuade them. But, it is their call and odds are they'll probably be okay because they now have some antibodies. Still surprising, though, for them to back away just because they can't call Morris Bart or Gordon McKernnan to go after Pfizer. This seems to be the crux of "OP" you mentioned.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't see that way and I'm not saying I'm right with that perspective but just giving a person the benefit of doubt. Its an honest discussion regardless and OP is being civil about it, without taking shots but some are coming at OP trying to needle with little shots (I might be borrowing some from this thread or the other thread where this discussion moved).

I happen to have a co-worker who I travel with often, decide to get the vaccine but once that coworker was handed the paper work regarding liability, decided to not take the vaccine. So this is a real issue and does stop some people from taking the vaccine and this person had Covid before and almost lost their significant other to Covid spending weeks in ICU, so they KNOW the dangers but the non-liability was a deal breaker.

I get what you're saying, but as Chuck stated much better than I could, the non-liablity is often just another layer in the litany of excuses not to get the vaccines. The problem is when pushed to support a specific reasoning for those excuses, they tend to fall apart when drilled down.

There's a legitimate reason for the non-liability from a public policy perspective, and I think to discount that, especially with the dangers related to Covid itself, is short-sighted.

And I get wanting to give both sides the benefit of the doubt, but in this case, all due respect, there really isn't room to be anti-vax. The reason why is two-fold as I see it, one, none of us live in a vacuum. We can unwittingly spread Covid because it's extremely contagious and you can be asymptomatic and still spread it. Two, the vaccines, even vs Delta, are very effective in preventing hospitalizations and death and severe side-effects are quite rare.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

In my opinion, one informed by more than 20 years of experience doing tort litigation

 

[UK SAINTS]

Why not allow the federal government to be potentially liable (especially in the sense of mandated vaccines)?

 

[superchuck500]

There's a legitimate reason for the non-liability from a public policy perspective, and I think to discount that, especially with the dangers related to Covid itself, is short-sighted.

While I think this is true, I think the far-more practical fact that it would be really difficult to prove negligence in this context is more compelling. This is not a toxic tort situation - hundreds of millions of Americans have received Covid vaccines with no particularly identifiable trend of harm or adversity. Yes, it happens but if it was based on some manufacturing defect or legal negligence, it would be much easier to identify.

So this person, hypothetically, would get a Pfizer vaccine at CVS or something - where maybe a couple thousand people got the same shot from the same location that month. And she is concerned that if she has some adverse response to it, when the vast majority (if not all) of the other people didn't, she wouldn't be able to sue and that's why she won't get it? That's just not how it works - that's not a viable lawsuit.

It's just misplaced, to me, to be so concerned about not having a right do something that you probably could never meaningfully do anyway, that you forego the substantial protection provided by the vaccine.

 

[superchuck500]

Why not allow the federal government to be potentially liable (especially in the sense of mandated vaccines)?

We continue to use this word "liability" when I don't think that's what we mean. Liability requires legal fault on some scale. Just because someone has a reaction to the vaccine doesn't mean somebody else is legally at fault.

But I think if you look at how the mandates are being pushed out, through the workplace, there is protection for injury. First, there is no universal governmental mandate for vaccine - full stop. The only federal mandates that are in place relate to the employment relationship (federal civil and military service), and I think that workplace vaccine requirements are covered by workers compensation. The employer requires it, the worker has to have it as condition of employment, so I think it's an injury arising from the scope of the worker's employment . . . and thus covered by comp.

And that result is arguably more remedial because the employee who suffers an adverse reaction doesn't have to go win a lawsuit by proving negligence in order to get compensation.

 

[superchuck500]

Ha. It's not to say it's a better opinion, it's just an informed one. I'm regularly full of sheet - which I'm sure you all know.

 

[UK SAINTS]

We continue to use this word "liability" when I don't think that's what we mean. Liability requires legal fault on some scale. Just because someone has a reaction to the vaccine doesn't mean somebody else is legally at fault.

But I think if you look at how the mandates are being pushed out, through the workplace, there is protection for injury. First, there is no universal governmental mandate for vaccine - full stop. The only federal mandates that are in place relate to the employment relationship (federal civil and military service), and I think that workplace vaccine requirements are covered by workers compensation. The employer requires it, the worker has to have it as condition of employment, so I think it's an injury arising from the scope of the worker's employment . . . and thus covered by comp.

And that result is arguably more remedial because the employee who suffers an adverse reaction doesn't have to go win a lawsuit by proving negligence in order to get compensation.

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?