[Panther34543]

In summary: A.) Pfizer is raking in over $33 billion from vaccine sales. B.) Due to the PREP Act, they are completely immune from lawsuits arising from any form of complications arising from those vaccines. C.) If you don't take this vaccine, you may lose your job[0]. D.) If you don't take this vaccine, you may be barred from normal everyday social activities[1][2].

I can't be the only one who is incredibly uncomfortable about society going down this path.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27986160 [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-widens-green-pass... [2]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/San-Fra...

[mint2]

Given that:

A. Pfizer isn’t the only vaccine option.

B. If one doesn’t take the vaccine, one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher.

C. If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them.

I think it’s the best option out of all non-great options to mandate vaccines in order to participate in crowded settings. It’s a matter of civic responsibility in order to partake in civic life. Sure it would be better if there was no Covid so no one would need an extra vaccine, but that world no longer exists. I don’t like the current situation either but it is what it is.

Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days. Liability shield for vaccine makers isn’t fair, but unvaccinated allowed to romp around spreading the virus without liability is also not fair.

[incrudible]

Pfizer and Moderna have similar risk profiles, everything else seems to be much worse. Argument B is highly subjective and I would argue that "the data isn't there" for the young and healthy parts of the population. Despite being "safe and effective" by the standards of medicine, a Sars-COV2 vaccination also carries a non-zero risk of disability and death. Argument C doesn't really cut it, because "someone else" should've gotten the vaccine themselves, if they're at risk.

It's now becoming obvious that vaccinated individuals can still be infected and can spread the infection as well. At the same time, mortality is greatly diminished. At that point, we have a vague and unspecific reduction of an already modest risk. This is insufficient to make a "civic responsibility" argument. By the same token, I could argue people should not drive cars as a matter of civic responsibility, because that carries a non-zero risk of killing a pedestrian.

[swader999]

Risk of car death was actually similar where I live to death from covid for my age.

[mint2]

Elsewhere in the replies to my comment there are plenty of responses to your first paragraph, please browse them if you’re interested in why those criticisms of ABC are not good and miss some crucial aspects of it.

But the analogy to cars is flawed. A more equitable one would be to obey traffic laws and not do things like speed or lane jump. I.e driving in a responsible manner that is considerate of others safety. It doesn’t reduce traffic accidents to zero, it minimizes them. Your analogy would be like continuing the lockdown for vaccinated people because even vaccinated people can in rare cases spread the disease. That is as wacky as forbidden people to drive. Having people vaccinated to partake in large gatherings is like requiring people to obey speed limits or face a penalty. Sure some people will get around it.

[jonhohle]

The “rare” cases of vaccinated individuals infecting others are neither enumerated or fully understood. In fact, until this week the CDC seemed to downplay the idea that vaccinated individuals _could_ spread the virus. Now they seem to be so concerned about it that one of the banner benefits of being vaccinated - not having to wear a mask in public settings - has been rescinded.

At the same time employers now seemingly want to be on the hook for any communicable diseases spread on company property or function. People are being coerced into disclosing medical information or risk being treated like pariahs. It cannot be understated that people are being pressured into getting an unapproved (EUA is not approval) gene therapy (FDAs classification, not mine) that has never been widely tested in humans and has non-trivial side effects. This is unprecedented, at least in the US.

This is on top of being constantly mislead by media and government officials. NPR recently gave a stat, something to the effect of “young people under 40 make up half the positive COVID cases”. Sounds alarming, except that demographic makes up half the population _and_ that demographic had disproportionately mild symptoms from the disease.

If you want to be vaccinated, please go right ahead. But then stop. Allow others that you are not the guardian of to make their own health choices based on their personal research or decision making process.

[mrhands69]

Show people mortality rates for various things around the world. I wonder how the ones banging the "civil responsibility" drum would react.

[pan69]

The way I understand it is; you can't compare to mortality rates for other various things because these other various are spread out over a 12 month period. When there is a spike in Covid cases they all happen at the same time, which floods the health system and people die needlessly (e.g. not enough ventilators). People can get very ill (and die) from the flu as well but they don't tend to do this all at the same time (i.e. no spike) but get sick spread out over a longer period of time.

[mrhands69]

I'm all for the approach of not overwhelming healthcare. After the initial surge health care was not overwhelmed regardless of approaches to restrictions. Look at Florida vs California: They had same outcome with opposite approaches.

[akira2501]

> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher.

What is "much higher" in a number?

> If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them.

"Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated?

> Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days.

Not everyone has the same idea of what civic responsibility should be, which is probably why we have to write and then enforce laws.

[TheCoreh]

> What is "much higher" in a number?

I'm not sure about the booster dose, Delta or any other variants, but the Pfizer Vaccine has been consistently shown in several studies to reduce COVID mortality by 99%, so that number is currently ~100

[learc83]

> What is "much higher" in a number?

The Pfizer vaccine as I believe 94% effective against severe disease, so around 20x higher.

[estebank]

>> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher.

> What is "much higher" in a number?

The analysis revealed that vaccination efficacy in terms of protection against deaths was equal to 72%, with a lower reduction of number of deaths for B.1.1.7 versus non-B.1.1.7 variants (70% and 78%, respectively). Other factors significantly related to mortality were arrivals at airports, mobility change from the pre-pandemic level and temperature.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v...

An estimated 10,400 deaths have been averted [in the UK] as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme up to the end of March 2021.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

>> If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them.

> "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated?

Living in a rural environment does not mean that the virus doesn't spread, otherwise the "Cases/Deaths per 100,000" maps at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/8167071... would have wide divergence per state, but they all are around 11K deaths per 100,000.

A common thing I heard from some early in the pandemic was that places with lower density would fare better, but that never made much sense to me: even if you have only 10K people in a 50 mile diameter circle, they all still shop and socialize in a handful of places.

[swader999]

I heard they would just experience the same infection rates but at a later date than urban which seems to have played out for the rural community I'm in.

[estebank]

Right, that's what experts were warning, while I saw multiple people in the relevant locales holding the idea I mentioned. Was this something you didn't see in your immediate area? It would be interesting to see if there was wide regional variation on whether people felt "it won't be as bad here".

[swader999]

I think generally there was an expectation that you'll be safer in the sticks. But I talked to a respected epidemiologist early on and they said they had high confidence that rural rates per 100k people would reach the same as urban, just weeks later. This did in fact play out that way when I look back at the published rates for where I live and compare it with the city two hours away. Was about a five or six week lag until we reached similar case rates per 100k.

[briefcomment]

> B. If one doesn’t take the vaccine, one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher.

But for a young person with no co-morbidities, that chance is still basically 0%.

> C. If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them.

Even if others have taken the vaccine themselves? Either that particular risk is negligible if the vaccine works, or the vaccine doesn't work.

[estebank]

>> B. If one doesn’t take the vaccine, one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher.

>But for a young person with no co-morbidities, that chance is still basically 0%.

According to table "COVID-19 Fatality Rate by AGE:" at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se..., the mortality rate for everyone under 40 years of age is 0.2%. That "is basically 0", but means that for every 1000 people infected, 2 will die. Roughly half of the US is under 40 years old (https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the...). If no-one had gotten vaccinated, you would expect to see 320,000 deaths in that age group. According to https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se..., we've had 286,000 deaths so far in that age group.

>> C. If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them.

> Even if others have taken the vaccine themselves? Either that particular risk is negligible if the vaccine works, or the vaccine doesn't work.

You're forgetting the number 1 law of large numbers. Things that have a very low chance of probability happen all the time at scale. The vaccine reduces the likelihood of individuals dying by orders of magnitude, and as a group it is a great tool to reduce the R0 under 1, but contagion and transmition is still possible, and every new infection we are rolling the dice on getting "lucky" with a new vaccine resistant variant.

[briefcomment]

From your cdc link, it looks like less than 10k people have died in the under 40 age bracket. Am I looking at the right data?

Also, are you aware you can be exposed to the virus and not be infected?

[estebank]

> From your cdc link, it looks like less than 10k people have died in the under 40 age bracket. Am I looking at the right data?

I added every age group between 0 and 39, but took the incorrect column (Deaths from all causes, which is obviously incorrect), which puts me off by an order of magnitude.

> Also, are you aware you can be exposed to the virus and not be infected?

That is true, like with any virus it is a statistics game. It is also true that the Delta variant is 1000x more virulent/transmissible, so likelihood of infection is much higher today than a year ago.

[mint2]

And since being vaccinated would have saved most of those 10k people and like a small handful have died from all of the vaccines across all age groups, and a small handful is orders of magnitude smaller than 10k. It does seem like a vaccine mandate even for under 40s is the smart thing to do.

That doesn’t even get into the benefit of preventing long Covid and being able to open the economy faster with fewer restrictions

[briefcomment]

And since we all know cholesterol and saturated fats are killers, we should ban butter and institute that everyone should have at least a tablespoon each of canola and sunflower oil a day. Except the science has now reversed to the point that polyunsaturated fats are being implicated as likely causes of obesity and metabolic disease.

You statement sounds far more confident than what the science would currently permit.

[Overton-Window]

> You're forgetting the number 1 law of large numbers. Things that have a very low chance of probability happen all the time at scale.

Severe reactions to experimental vaccines for example?

[gradys]

On the last point:

1) The vaccine isn't perfect, and herd immunity nonlinearly reduces the risk of everyone including the vaccinated from getting it.

2) Unvaccinated people, who make up the vast majority of the cases, create an environment for the virus to evolve within, possibly mutating into a form that is more dangerous to everyone, including the vaccinated

[incrudible]

> The vaccine isn't perfect, and herd immunity nonlinearly reduces the risk of everyone including the vaccinated from getting it.

I would argue that the data now shows that herd immunity is not achievable with any vaccination rate. The vaccines just don't work that way, breakthrough infections are rampant.

> Unvaccinated people, who make up the vast majority of the cases, create an environment for the virus to evolve within, possibly mutating into a form that is more dangerous to everyone, including the vaccinated.

This is speculative. Vaccination-induced immunity is clearly not perfect, at the same it puts selection pressure on the virus. Natural immunity, going by reinfection rates, appears to be much stronger. I would speculate that in a population where 70% are vaccinated, where the amount of infections among the vaccinated is roughly the same, the virus is much more likely to mutate in the vaccinated individuals.

[sudosysgen]

Only for you. The argument above was from civic responsibility, by being in crowded environments while unvaccinated you risk the lives of others.

Also, the chance of being disabled for a long while if you are young without comorbidity is far from 0%. It is quite significant, certainly above 0.5%.

[mrhands69]

What is the risk for people who are vaccinated? There should be some level of personal responsibility at this point. Everyone has had a chance to get the vaccine.

[estebank]

Not everyone can take the vaccine. Which is why everyone that can, should, for everyone's sake.

[mrhands69]

What's the percentage of the population in the United States that can't get vaccinated for health reasons?

[briefcomment]

Ah yes, as soon as the world stops cultivating peanuts to accommodate my lethal (and heritable) peanut allergy. It should be a no brainer after all, with the nearly infinite other foods we have available as substitutes.

[joshuamorton]

There are some people for whom the vaccine will not be effective (those who are already immunocompromised for example, or people with certain allergies to vaccine ingredients).

> But for a young person with no co-morbidities, that chance is still basically 0%.

Having long term side effects doesn't round to zero, even for young healthy people. And vaccine side effects do.

[makomk]

Historically speaking, countries have refrained from forcing even medical workers and people caring for the elderly to get flu vaccines, even though this argument - that there are some people for whom the vaccine will not be effective - is even more true of that (in fact, as I understand it some studies suggest the flu vaccine might be basically ineffective at preventing serious complications and death in those at risk of them, leaving its ability to stop people from being infected and spreading it as the only way to reduce risk). As far as I can tell, the only reason to treat Covid differently basically boils down to partisan politics...

[sudosysgen]

Of course not. Most countries have mandated vaccines for HCW.

The reason the flu vaccine isn't one of them is because it's not that effective to begin with and you have to take it every year. It's not effective enough to really stop an epidemic, so instead vaccinating patients is the main thrust instead of HCW, because the overall impact will be fairly low.

[mahogany]

> As far as I can tell, the only reason to treat Covid differently basically boils down to partisan politics...

A difference is that COVID is much deadlier, no?

[mrhands69]

People can essentially get "long-covid" from the vaccine. Unfortunately, people are afraid to talk about it for fear of being labeled an antivax-er.

[joshuamorton]

You'll, of course, cite a source?

There aren't actually any virus particles in the mRNA vaccines, so there's no biological mechanism for that to happen.

[mrhands69]

I can get a source in a bit. IIRC it was the spike protein that causes some (still unknown) response from the human body. The mRNA vaccine elicit a response from the immune system to reproduce the spike protein.

[incrudible]

> Having long term side effects doesn't round to zero, even for young healthy people. And vaccine side effects do.

I'm hesitant to just accept this as a fact. Vaccinations can cause very strong immune reactions in young adults that would otherwise likely suffer mild or asymptomatic infections. There are many surveys that query for a basket of sometimes unspecific symptoms such as "fatigue" or "brain fog" as a follow-up of a COVID infection. I'm missing that volume of surveys in the follow-up for vaccinations.

[Someone1234]

> B.) Due to the PREP Act, they are completely immune from lawsuits arising from any form of complications arising from those vaccines.

I feel like (B) is true, but framed in such a way to get a specific [negative] reaction.

People hurt by any COVID-19 vaccine are still entitled to compensation for that injury. Essentially the US Government provides a liability shield, wherein the damages/liability is transferred to a specific government fund, because it is considered in the greater public good to have companies make vaccines at all.

This is done via the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program[0] which is easier/cheaper to win than normal civil court and pays attorneys fees on a win. This is funded via a specific tax on all vaccine sales that is earmarked for only this purpose.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen...

[spfzero]

I guess the negative part is that the people developing the vaccine can be a little bit less conservative with their design, since they have no incentive to be extra careful to avoid expensive lawsuits.

[627467]

...and I believe that's part of the point of the Act itself: free up reluctances from those in better position to be able to come up with a solution. This is the same reason why everywhere in the world the vaccines have been approved for use under Emergency Use rules.

[landemva]

I was surprised to learn they took covid vaccine injuries out of the typical and long-standing compensation program.

It apparently is using an odd countermeasure payment program, which is not approving any claims. https://yourworlddaily.blogspot.com/2021/07/covid-19-vaccine...

[Cyberthal]

I find your lack of faith in our corporate-federal oligarchs disturbing. Perhaps your name should be added to a list...

[clairity]

> "I can't be the only one who is incredibly uncomfortable about society going down this path."

it's dystopian. this is power that won't be reliquished by either major party, just like 9/11 surveillance and security theater. unlike some of currently fashionable political impetuses, this one is worth actively resisting, to keep federal powers in check.

[b0sk]

lol. vaccination is the law. you guys can't spread measles anymore and thank god for that.

[_-david-_]

The measles vaccine has been around for decades. There are plenty of long term studies on the efficacy and saftey. How many long term studies have there been on any of the covid vaccines?

[jmcgough]

Has there ever been serious long-term side effects caused by vaccines? Yes, a tiny number of people have had serious short-term complications from them, but I'll take five deaths over 3,000 deaths a day.

mRNA vaccines have been well studied - from a scientific standpoint it's hard to imagine how it even could cause problems.

[artificialLimbs]

You will take 5 deaths, meaning you will choose for others whether to risk that. Do you not realize the implication here?

[pupppet]

No worse than you choosing that the people around you may die from your not vaccinating.

[seriousquestion]

Studied or researched is not that reassuring given the replication crisis. There's a big difference between academia and real world use.

[_-david-_]

A few people have died from covid vaccines which sure seems long term to me.

Here is an example of a long term problem caused by a (traditional, non-mrna) vaccine

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...

As far as I know there hasn't been much research into the long term effects of many vaccines. After decades of availability if they were causing issues I hope somebody would have found a connection if they were causing issues. I would very much like to see research into this though.

I do agree mrna vaccines are unlikely to cause long term issues.

Just to be clear. I am very much in favor of vaccines. I just don't like being required to take it so soon after it was created.

[joshuamorton]

mRNA vaccines have been researched for decades, and the only really novel part of the covid vaccine is the particular protein, which will also be present in a natural infection.

So if you trust the decades of mRNA vaccine research, you should consider the vaccine strictly safer than covid, as getting the disease will expose you to everything the vaccine exposes you to.

[_-david-_]

Do you believe there doesn't need to be long term studies of traditional vaccines? There have been decades of research into them as well.

I believe both mrna and traditional vaccines are safer than covid. I just don't like to take vaccines or medication without longer results than a year. I also agree mRNA vaccines shouldn't have any long term negative effects, but I tend to take the position when in doubt don't take an action.

If in 5 years there hasn't been any widespread negative effects I will probably take it.

[joshuamorton]

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the amount of customization in an mRNA vaccine is much less than in more traditional vaccines, so the room for unexpected problems is essentially just the protein.

This is similar to how flu vaccines vary from year to year, but the mechanisms and changes are well understood so the approval process can be streamlined, but we don't expect issues from this year's flu vaccine that we didn't see last year, even though they are different.

[newacct583]

> it's dystopian

It's already the law, and has been for like half a century (edit: more like 80 years, actually). If you aren't vaccinated you can't attend school. You can't serve in the military. You can't work in many health care fields. We requires our citizenry to be vaccinated against major preventable diseases. We always have.

And this policy is, objectively, the second[1] biggest success story in the last few centuries of public health policy. Period.

Why did no one care about "keeping federal powers in check" in 2019? Why do you only care now? You don't think maybe that there's something polluting your priors?

[1] The invention of antibiotics gets #1.

[akira2501]

> If you aren't vaccinated you can't attend school.

Unless you get an exemption, which can be requested and are often granted on a variety of grounds.

> We requires our citizenry to be vaccinated against major preventable diseases. We always have.

We clearly don't, though. As a citizen you can be entirely unvaccinated and live a completely normal life.

[TravisHusky]

To counter your first point about school vaccination, I live in the US and the state I live in has very few exemptions which also apply to the COVID-19 vaccine. There are religious and medical exemptions, and the religious exemptions are hard to get and basically are not available for 99.9% of people.

So yeah sure, if you have a specific medical problem, or very very limited religious reason, you can be exempted from vaccination, which is the same for the COVID vaccine.

Literally nothing has changed, the COVID vaccine is now just part of the list of required vaccines (and as of right now COVID vaccination is actually not required at most universities as they are waiting for final FDA approval which will likely be here sometime in late August).

[veemjeem]

> We clearly don't, though. As a citizen you can be entirely unvaccinated and live a completely normal life.

This is only because the majority of the populace is vaccinated against polio, measles. If the majority of the population was also unvaccinated, these viruses would make life not fun. Most of us live a very sheltered life and have never directly experienced living with measles or polio.

[newacct583]

> We clearly don't, though. As a citizen you can be entirely unvaccinated and live a completely normal life.

You seem to be arguing technicalities without addressing my point. We have lots and lots of vaccine regulation that ensures that virtually all citizens are immune to diseases like measles, hep, diphtheria, etc... No, it's not absolute, and I don't believe I claimed it was. All policy requires careful tuning.

So let's include covid in the same regime. You agree with that part, right?

[learc83]

Many states don’t have non-medical exemptions for vaccine requirements.

[swader999]

The vaccine passport seems to be a whole other level of show us your papers though. It would have to be backed by a central database with scanning to really work. By definition you could be turned off or geo fenced with it.

[_-david-_]

You can attend school, just not public schools. Private schools are free to not require vaccines.

[slingnow]

Biggest success story? Have you heard about the delta variant and the surge in cases among both unvaccinated AND vaccinated?

[jjulius]

1.) The "success story" they're speaking about is the broader vaccination requirements that have been around for far longer than COVID.

2.) You mean the surge in cases that are seeing vaccinated people faring statistically far better than the un-vaccinated? I don't think that it was ever a secret that the vaccine wasn't going to be bulletproof or capable of complete success against all variants, especially variants that didn't exist at the time of development.

[newacct583]

I have not heard of a surge in cases among the unvaccinated, actually. Do you have a cite? All data I've seen points to a 90%+ effectiveness of Pfizer vs. Delta for infection, and it looks like more than 99% vs. death. It's MUCH MUCH MUCH safer to face potential infection with the vaccine than without.

[myko]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/health/cdc-mask-guidance-vacc...

There are many more breakthrough cases with the delta variant. That said, the vaccines are still very good at combatting serious illness:

    We continue to estimate that the risk of a breakthrough 
    infection with symptom upon exposure to the Delta variant 
    is reduced by seven-fold. The reduction of 20-fold for 
    hospitalizations, and deaths," Walensky said during 
    Tuesday's briefing.

[jmcgough]

If you look at the numbers, you're significantly less likely to be infected if you've been vaccinated, and hospitalization rates are 95% lower. The fact that we're seeing a good number of people infected after vaccination is classic Bayes theorem.

If we could get 70% of the population vaccinated we could be done with this and move on with our lives.

[seanicus]

How many people are you one degree of separation from that died on w/ a tube stuck down their throat? I've got 3. I'm cool with A-D and esp. C. If you aren't vaxxed, GTFO of my office. If your kid isn't vaxxed, get them as far away from my kid as possible

[s9w]

They died because of the tube, not because of some PCR test with a CT of 40 said positive.

[627467]

I get the discomfort but what is the alternative?

NOT approve emergency measures (such as PREP Act) that hopes to push risk down and face much slow development for vaccines?

Emminent domain pharmaceutical supply chain?

Nationalize vaccine research efforts to "force" the creation of a new vaccine?

Stop "forcing" people to take vaccine to reduce demand to penalize private enterprise?

These are genuine questions. All vaccines makers/suppliers are poised to rake in profits, be it in capital or some other geopolitical favours.

[swader999]

Ivermectin is a solid alternative. It saved my ass and there are enough RCT studies still standing to give it serious consideration given its long billions of doses safety history.

[nicoburns]

C and D seem fine to me. It's necessary to protect everyone else. A and B are the problem. The US government should have limited Pfizer's profit margin, and they should be using the money saved to cover people's medical costs for complications arising from the vaccine (removing the need to sue).

[k2enemy]

I could not disagree more. Pfizer should be able to profit from the vaccine. If the govt steps in and takes away their ability to benefit from the vaccine what incentive is there for bio firms to respond like Pfizer did in the future? Why work on risky and expensive vaccine technologies if, in the unlikely event it is ever needed, you won't have a chance of recouping your costs?

[nicoburns]

I didn't say they shouldn't be able to profit. Just that the profit should be limited.

[vetinari]

> Pfizer should be able to profit from the vaccine

Government-mandated vaccine from a private supplier. What could possibly go wrong.

[Larrikin]

So would you rather have your taxes increased so that it is from the government?

Would you not be making the same statement if it was a federally funded, just with a word replaced?

[vetinari]

> So would you rather have your taxes increased so that it is from the government?

It will increase my taxes anyway; who do you think is paying for all this?

The difference is, that in this way, my taxes pay for privately-held know-how. I want my taxes to pay for public know-how.

[dragonwriter]

> The US government should have limited Pfizer's profit margin, and they should be using the money saved to cover people's medical costs for complications arising from the vaccine (removing the need to sue).

They didn't have to limit Pfizer's or other suppliers profit margin to cover people's costs for recommended to diagnose, treat, or prevent COVID (or used in conjunction to enhance effectiveness of or mitigate risks or complications of such a diagnostic, treatment, or prevention measure); that's covered by the same law which shields the makers of those things from liability. [0]

[0] https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/faq#covid

[vetinari]

C and D... are you aware of Nuremberg Code, a set of principles created after Nuremberg trials?

If you are fine with C and D, you might find yourself in a company that most people would not like to be.

[mrtesthah]

Fact check: Nuremberg Code Addresses Experimentation, Not Vaccines

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/nuremberg-code-addresses-e...

[ScoobleDoodle]

This vaccine is still unapproved, meaning it's being used experimentally at this point. It has not been approved nor completed normal testing trials. Otherwise it wouldn't have had to receive emergency use authorization.

> An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge...

[mrtesthah]

> It has not been approved nor completed normal testing trials. Otherwise it wouldn't have had to receive emergency use authorization.

That's false. The mere fact that a vaccine is EUA does not mean that it hasn't been tested. The vaccines available under EUA today have gone through exactly the same testing phases as fully FDA-approved ones. The only difference is that the phases were overlapping instead of performed serially. The link you reference already explains this.

[ScoobleDoodle]

I did not say it had no testing at all. It has gone through short term testing. But it has insufficient testing to pass the standard hurdles and thus could only be used with the Emergency Use Authorization. Which carries with it the risks of consequences being unknown. As in this case, the long term consequences. And that’s where the category of experimental unknown results lays and how the Geneva Convention on human rights applies: not being allowed to force this vaccine on people through force or coercion.

[vetinari]

They didn't go exactly the same testing phases; the serialization doesn't work like that, you cannot replace time with parallelism (the 9 pregnant women is a suitable analogy).

So, the timeline is:

- Corminaty; currently doing phases 3 and 4; assumed end is december 2023;

- Spikewax: currently doing phases 3 and 4; assumed end is december 2022;

- Vaxzevria: currently doing phases 3 and 4; assumed end is second quarter 2022;

- Janssen: still doing phases 1/2a, 2a, 3; assumed end december 2023;

[newacct583]

You're genuinely more uncomfortable with the idea of unfair liability protection than you are with the persistence of a pandemic that has already taken millions of lives? I mean, I think it's possible to agree that maybe the liability waiver is too broad (or that Pfizer's net revenue is too high) and... still view this as the most important single medicine released over the past few decades.

I mean, come on. Literally billions of people have taken this drug. What "complicationss" are you expecting that we wouldn't already have data for? It's... a vaccine. We've all had dozens of them. Did you freak out about your measles jab?

[trollied]

Imagine if this pandemic was actually Smallpox? Pretty sure there'd be none of the anti-vaxxing stuff etc. Visible, horrible symptoms.

[nicoburns]

I rather suspect there still would be. Perhaps less. But a lot of the conspiracy theorists actually believe that governments (or their authority of choice) have manufactured the disease. There are also reports of people not believing the disease is real while they're dying in hospital.

[newacct583]

Yeah. I've made this point to friends too. In some sense covid sits at exactly the pessimal spot. Any less severe, and we'd have just let it roll over us without the societal breakdown. Any more severe and the mitigation strategy couldn't have become a political issue.

Maybe there's a side-channel attack where we can convince the conspiracy folks that this actually is a Chinese bioweapon designed to destroy the political cohesion of the west, so they should get on board and get their shots. Think it'd work?

[mrtesthah]

Ironically, many of them already believe that. Conspiracy-theory beliefs (i.e., evidence-free conclusions) are a symptom of underlying mental illness, which inhibits critical thinking skills. As such, they have no problem holding completely contradictory viewpoints.

[threatofrain]

Also, liability protection doesn't mean that citizens cannot receive compensation for treatment-related harms. The federal government has opted to take on the liability, and has created a compensation fund which will pay your legal feels if you win, and is easier to win than a civil suit.

[ryathal]

Persistence of this pandemic is FUD. If you get vaccinated it's over. Covid was never going to be eradicated, at best it will fade into the endemic background as a weird cold/flu. In countries with on demand access to the vaccines, the pandemic is over.

[beebmam]

If I'm forced to work in an office, and some of my colleagues don't want to get vaccinated or tested regularly, I WANT them to get fired. It is a workplace safety issue for everyone forced to work in an enclosed area.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

> If I'm forced

I agree with your sentiment, but it is not your coworkers who decided that now it's time to force everyone back into the office.

[beebmam]

I totally agree. It's supremely messed up that companies are trying to force workers back into the office.

The safest approach, beyond even vaccination, is to physically distance by simply not being around each other. It is not possible to spread this virus when people aren't around each other!

[landemva]

"It is not possible to spread this virus when people aren't around each other!"

Except that it is in the cat populations worldwide. We dont have to like this fact, but ignoring it leads to safetyism that doesn't work. Maybe when we get the cat population to 70% vaccination rate we will be safe.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Well then, since we know that not only cats but also vaccinated people get ill and spread the disease, and some people can't be vaccinated not just because of personal fears but for valid health reasons, forcing everybody back to the office seems like an irresponsible cruelty.

[swader999]

If you are vaccinated you can still get and spread it. This was said by Fauci yesterday and prompted the renewed indoor mask guidance. And unvaccinated can to of course. With likely more severe symptoms they may be at home though.

You should benefit from less severity of illness. Why does others status matter to you given both can spread?

[b0sk]

(I am very comfortable with a few million deaths, and maybe the variant turning more deadly in the process)

[mnowicki]

yeah, I'm very far from being right-wing or anti-vaccine or anything like that, but I've been unsettled by this whole thing. I don't think there are microchips in the vaccine, and it's probably a good idea to get the vaccine, but this level of control + lack of responsibility is a perfect recipe for negligence-caused disaster. Or even intentional disaster. Plus it seems quite a bit like it could be one of those slippery-slope situations.

Ideally, companies would create a vaccine as fast as possible(but safely, without being immune from lawsuits - especially if negligence or malice can be 'proven', why make someone immune from consequence then?) because that's always going to a profitable endeavor anyway. And people would be smart enough to get the vaccine and take precautions about spreading dangerous diseases. I don't know what the right solution is, given that we don't live in such a reasonable world

[swader999]

The censorship and limiting of discussion in the public square is the most troubling aspect of this to me.

[artificialLimbs]

You're not.

One upshot to this situation is that we are able to see the people who are willing to become hyperventilating statists with a bit more clarity.