[giantg2]

"the refusal of the drug company lawyers to accept liability if something is wrong"

In theory the government is supposed to provide a settlement under the countermeasure version of the national vaccine injury compensation fund. I say in theory because the system doesn't work as well as it's marketed to (based on personal experience).

Also, I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Maybe just an unpopular opinion or the inflammatory remark? I'm of a similar opinion. I don't go anywhere except the food store, have an N95 mask (owned prior to the pandemic), work from home, under 35 with no comorbidities, only elderly I have contact with are family who have already recieved their vaccinations. If they are saying that this might be an annual vaccine and I fit low risk profiles for attributes and actions, then I might as well wait until I'm forced to go back to the office to get it.

[adamrezich]

iirc these non-FDA-approved (instead, emergency-use-authorized) products use a separate compensation fund compared to the typical vaccine compensation fund. but having these compensation funds instead of allowing legal action against manufacturers of products is kind of ridiculous on its own, when you get down to it... but it's become highly uncool to question the motives of big pharma in the past year.

[giantg2]

Yeah, that's why I said it was the countermeasure version. I just can't remember the actual name and am too lazy to look it up (or maybe too burnt out to care).

The purpose of the funds was good. It was supposed to provide an easy mechanism for victims to recover damages that would not be as arduous as traditional litigation. The purpose was to increase public trust in vaccines that are commonly required/pushed by the government. It does perform this for the common or known side effects listed in the compensation table. Although some of the amounts approved as caps may not take into account individual differences, and don't provide great flexibility.

It's extremely difficult if it's a rare issue or if the underlying mechanism is not known. This mechanism part is the real downside. You could be completely healthy, get a shot, and two days later be airlifted to the ICU with a heart issue that has no family history or even an explanation for the cause other than "some people just have this" (no genetics really identified yet either). How can you prove it was the vaccine if they don't know the factors that would normally cause it? There are other reports of the issue in VAERS, the patient is in one of the lowest risk populations for first time presentation, etc. Even if you don't have a conclusive underlying mechanism, there's no opposing theory for the "natural" mechanism that would normally cause it (even stuff like which genes cause it), but the special vaccine court will most likely say 'too bad, it might be a coincidence'. If they do that, this seems contrary to intended purpose of building public trust in vaccines and compensating victims in a less confrontational system. Now you don't fight a company, you have to fight the government.