Why do they waive responsibility though
This was enacted in 2005, shortly after the original SARS, partially because pharma companies were reluctant to mass produce any novel vaccine/drug under government request only for it to possibly bite their asses.
Another motivation for this was 2001, and the increasing potential threat of bioterrorism; companies lose any incentives to be responsive in the wake of such an attack.
This is just actuarial science: a relatively rare but serious side effect (i.e. not found in trials), when put on a massive scale, becomes a big enough threat for the economic viability of the company.
[0] https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default...
I know you don't write the law, so these questions are more in the vein of statements with questionmarks:
* Why only consider evidence of cost vs. benefit in an emergency?
* Why are vaccines suddenly safe in an emergency and not at other times?
This pandemic proved that we can produce a "safe and effective" vaccine in 12 months. That is apparently a record. It shouldn't be - this signals that 75% of the wait time for new cures and vaccines is red tape.
It can be kinda hard to test vaccines quickly and ethically typically as subjecting people to a disease on purpose isn't really allowed and you have to wait for them to catch it naturally and compare. Fortunately (or unfortunately) during a pandemic it's pretty easy to test vaccines as one can quickly compare one's that got the vaccine and one's that didn't effectiveness.
If everything skips the line then nothing changes.
Drug & vaccine testing should be highly parallelisable.
I had it and have Dr. letter that says so. I now have sterilizing immunity. The jab does not provide sterilizing immunity, so it is not better for me nor my family. I am not jabbed, and will not get jabbed. While I am just one, I invalidate your use of the word 'all'.
No, you don't, nobody has, 'sterilizing immunity' doesn't exist as you seem to think it does [0]. I seriously doubt a doctor would write 'sterilizing immunity' in such a letter, so I assume that's your reasoning.
> so it is not better for me nor my family.
It actually is [1]. Even if you had it, you're still better off having the jab.
> I am not jabbed, and will not get jabbed.
You just sound like someone that can't be convinced of things. Talk to your doctor.
> While I am just one, I invalidate your use of the word 'all'.
Yeah, like seatbelt doesn't save 100%. Luckily one data point doesn't count as evidence when we're talking about statistics.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
'you're still better off having the jab.'
You are not my Dr.
Supposedly vaccine reporting of harm is about 1%, though it would seem to be difficult to verify if it is 1% or 3%. 52 dead infants have been reported. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baby-of-fully-vaccinated-m...
It is not better, and not for 'all'.
Then imagined things in your head. No doctor will write what you suggest.
> You are not my Dr.
Nobody said I am.
What on earth is that piece of random rumourmongering based on?
I felt horrible for ~24 hours after my second Pfizer shot. If that counts as hard then sure, 1% is believable. If it is actually harmful side effects than that is total nonsense. 1% is a huge, huge number of people.
They could as well link vaccine shots to trampoline accidents if only VAERS collected such data.
I'm all for open data, but antivaxxers without the minimal understanding of statistics extrapolating VAERS data makes me wonder if it's a good idea.
There is also the issue of VAERS being under-reported, which can be estimated by using other sources of health surveillance, like the HMO-driven Vaccine Safety Datalink.
> Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity.
They advocate for infection having the same status as vaccination, which is reasonable, and the policies, at least in the west and in the countries I'm familiar with, they take previous infection into account.
> Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines
Then they mention Marek's disease in a gross (yet common) misunderstanding of the causes of such scenario. Luckily, humans aren't stacked up onto each other in direct contact 24/7.
> This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 139 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion.
OK, let's go through a few:
1. Results are unbelievable (0 reinfections among +1000 people who expose themselves daily) but the methodology seems solid otherwise. No complaints.
2. In vitro, small sample.
3. Conveniently skips "When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated,"
4. Doesn't even talk about COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity.
5. Shows that vaccine antibody titers wane faster than natural immunity. Interesting given that previous studies from the list focus on how T/B-cell response is much better measure than antibody levels. Kinda moving goalposts, but OK.
6. Shows 1/10 reinfection rate among infected vs infection rate among general population (since the study is from February 2021, I'd say that's roughly 90% unvaccinated). Doesn't compare against vaccines, which was the original point of the list? Funnily it directly disproves the unbelievable numbers of study 1, and this looks equally solid.
7. Says previously infected may not need a second dose (conveniently skips that they may need one).
8. Doesn't compare with anything.
9. Titers at 5 months after infection, hardly interesting.
10. Immunoglobulin levels, 2020, hardly interesting, doesn't compare with anything..
From this point the list seems to decrease in relevance to the point, just showing that infection gives some immunity, which is hardly what anyone is arguing. Some just talk about measles (55), others about possible cross immunity (85, 109), but overall it feels more like a vague Google search than a curated list of anything.
For a body to fight off cornavirus the immune system has to have reached a state of sterelising immunity, otherwise the coronavirus would just keep jumping back and forward between family members. And that immunity will probably decay at about the same speed as any vaccine.
Like any other situation where someone has non-sterilising immunity, his body may have been able to eliminate the disease without fully preventing the virus from reproducing.
For a body to rid itself of a viral disease it needs to achieve sterelising immunity. That is what it means to recover after a virus, unless the virus is permanent like ... I dunno, herpes? ... and the body is suppressing it. Even then that might technically be sterelising immunity.
The coronavirus doesn't reinfect people immediately after they recover from COVID. It is all but impossible that they don't have sterelising immunity at that point. Otherwise they would keep getting COVID over and over again. I can see how that isn't always true, but if coronavirus persisted after recovery I assume that would be big news.
Immune response isn't linear. Likewise, viral reproduction isn't linear. They're not even constant within the same tissue.
So whatever happens will depend on the virus, on the viral load, where it appears, and previous type and kind of immunity, and the speed of that immune response.
Fun fact: the overwhelming majority of HIV exposures don't result in infection, but one would be stupid to claim that most people have "sterilising immunity" to HIV. It simply can't target most cells and dies off in the mucous membranes.
> To the end of week 43 in 2021 (to 31 October 2021) 72,264 possible reinfections have been identified, of which 441 have been confirmed by identification of genetically distinct specimens.
That is from a total of 7.9 million positive cases, i.e. reinfection rate is ~0.01% to 1%. That means at least 99% of Covid-recovered people in the UK were not reinfected. Some textbooks from recent decades may call that "sterilizing immunity". Note that some words have been redefined by government agencies since 2020, including the term "vaccine" (definition updated by the CDC as recently as Sept. 2021). At this point, usage of some evolving and contested terms should be accompanied by a version number, date and changeset hash.
Regardless of terminology, the UK numbers show a 1% chance of reinfection upon exposure. If someone takes precautions to reduce their exposure to infected people (e.g. people with symptoms / positive test, or a crowded indoor space with poor ventilation), then the risk of reinfection will be a small number X 1%.
1. The closest to reality is probably the 70k figure, since the requirements for probable and confirmed are held to unusually high standards (sequencing of one or both samples).
2. The numbers have to be adjusted by date to make sense of them. That's a cumulative analysis of data since the beginning of the pandemic, meaning first infections are overrepresented because you have to have a first to have a second, and because most first infections require uninfected people and there are way more of those.
3. Page 20 shows reinfection rate was climbing along with first infections before widespread vaccination, and also that reinfection rate is receding as first infections climb lately. Statistically it's expected to grow as the previously infected population grows. This, if anything, displays that vaccination in previously infected individuals is effective at preventing reinfection.
Sometimes even that isn't enough. In some cases they demand collateral. They also demand immunity from criminal prosecution, even in cases where it's proven that people were injured through "negligence, fraud or malice":
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/company-news/...
"Government officials from Argentina and another Latin American country, which has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer and so cannot be named, told the Bureau that Pfizer demanded additional indemnity against civil lawsuits citizens might file in relation to Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
Pfizer reportedly asked governments in Argentina and Brazil to put up sovereign assets, including military bases and federal bank reserves, as collateral for potential future legal costs.
According to government officials in Argentina and the unnamed country, Pfizer asked for liability protection not only against civil claims from citizens who suffer serious adverse events after being vaccinated, but also for cases brought due to Pfizer’s own negligence, fraud or malice. Documents from Brazil’s Ministry of Health suggest that Pfizer made similar demands of the Brazilian government."
If Pfizer agreed to be held liable at any level, they'd be literally be agreeing to losing money.
These countries are free to pay the regular price other countries are, with the usual emergency levels of indemnity. I'm sure Pfizer won't mind.
What Argentina and Braz^H^H^H^H the other country want is to have the cake and eat it too: "you manufacture it, you bring it, you earn nothing, yet you're held accountable if things go wrong". Personally I wouldn't go in, not sure about you. This is actuarial 101.
[0] https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/argentina-has-paid...
Entire sections of business are (for all intents and purposes) legally required to run up-to-date AV products on all their Windows endpoints.
If so, you probably could get the government to cover you.
But the risks of these vaccines are somewhat different than usual. It’s less likely that there are some known risks the manufacturers are hiding, because they are getting so much attention. Instead, it’s about ‘unknown unknowns’ and the wish to balance them with the usefulness of vaccination. In other words: the customers, both patients and governments, are fully-informed, to the degree possible, and making an informed decision.