> If they weren't shielded from liability, would there be any company willing to take on the risk of administering the vaccines to 92%+ of the population
Absolutely yes. Every other industry is exposed to the risk created by their products - including makers of cars, heavy machinery, drugs, food, beverages, and airplanes - and continues to sell their products. There's no airliner deficit because the major companies are scared of the potential liability resulting from a crash, or beer deficit because major breweries are averse to the risk of a bad batch poisoning hundreds of people.
The claim that vaccine companies are somehow different than car companies, or drug-makers (who you can argue have also "created a massive net-good for society" - which is also a bad argument), or every other industry, is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence.
> we as a society have determined
Objectively false. There has been no general vote on this issue, there have been no politicians that ran on platforms around this issue, and most of the individuals that I know do not support this decision - in fact, as far as I know, the only inputs into the legislation were from pharmaceutical companies, which is the opposite of "society". This claim is absolutely absurd, and equivalent to arguing that "we as a society have decided that personal data mining for the purposes of advertising is OK" just because that's the way the legal system is currently set up.
> the companies that develop these vaccines shouldn't be punished for creating a massively net-good for society
This is a snuck premise. This is no "punishment" at all for developing vaccines, and no one is forcing these companies to create or sell them; this is forcing them to ensure that their products are as safe as humanly possible by providing financial incentives to do so, which not only happens with every other industry, but is the only sane thing to do - if you sell something that people put into their bodies, there is no argument that you can make that you shouldn't also be liable for any negative consequences that happen as a result.
You can make an argument that cars, or antibiotics, or phones, or cheap+healthy+readily-available food have all been beneficial for "society" - and yet, the makers of all those things are equally liable for bodily harm arising from (proper) use of their products.
Moreover, forcing manufacturers to be liable for their products has been a net good for society, as its forced them to invest significant resources in ensuring that the things that they build are safe. Consider the high standards for food safety that we have now, and the incredible amounts of testing and safety engineering that go into building automobiles and airplanes - if manufacturers weren't liable, none of that would have happened. More concretely, if vaccine manufacturers were forced to take responsibility for their products, and there were actually high numbers of long-term side effects - the manufacturers would do research into understanding their interactions with the body better, and they would get safer.
But, of course, vaccine side-effect incident rate is extremely rare, because they're completely safe, so manufacturers would rarely have to pay out in the first place, right?
I suppose that I asked "why do people think that it's a good idea" not "is this reasonable/just/excusable", and so your comment was an answer to that - but it definitely doesn't seem like this is something you can actually justify.
Also, I'm curious: if the manufacturers aren't liable for injury or death from their products, then who do you think is?
I think you don't realize how unattractive vaccines are as a product. How many manufacturers make a product that they know each customer will buy only once and cheap? And also take full legal responsibility for health and condition of a person that used your product, not only at the time of use but many years or decades later.
There were cases where companies folded a working and safe vaccine due to PR problems and very limited liability. Read about Lyme disease vaccine.
How long Mc Donalds and Coca-cola would stay in business if you held them liable for most cases of health service costs that resulted from obesity?
Even with exemption from liability, vaccines are such a bad business that we managed to develop just a handful only for most serious infectuous diseases.
When Moderna pivoted from gene therapies to vaccines investors were extremely concerned because vaccines are industry loss leaders.
"Society decided that vaccines are beneficial enough to give companies immunity from prosecution" is a shorthand for competent people in the society decided, it this case competent people being epidemiologists and politicians. Democracy is not about all people making decision. Even if a party has some program and gets support and gets elected on that program it doesn't mean in will realize it or it will implement laws supported by their voters. It has no obligation to and might stay in power (and almost always does) regardless. In American democracy goverment only implements laws that have a support of the richest Americans. So us having vaccines is a result of richest people thinking it's good idea to exempt companies from liability over vaccines they develop. And even if you think it's a bad idea you have no saying over this, not today, not during election, because you are not a member of those elites whose opinion on laws actually matters and even if you were, majority of them doesn't share your views.
Besides manufacturers of vaccines are still liable if they make a bad batch. They are just not responsible for things nobody can know. Like if thoroughly scientifically researched vaccine might have some unforseen consequences in the far future. Because noone knows that. And if you agree to be liable for random future events you have no way of predicting you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.
> I think you don't realize how unattractive vaccines are as a product.
You haven't provided evidence for how unattractive vaccines are as a product. Meanwhile, I can provide counter-evidence: even with all of the liability falling on them, over 150 million people in the United States alone got the vaccine, even before it started to be required by any companies.
Now, that said - your suggestion to research the Lyme disease vaccine vaccine was a good one, and I was really taken aback by how the public reacted - I'll continue thinking about this. However, how then do you explain the literal millions of people who have taken the vaccine even without manufacturer liability? I don't see any way to read this other than a suggestion that there's high demand for it.
> How long Mc Donalds and Coca-cola would stay in business if you held them liable for most cases of health service costs that resulted from obesity?
Bad comparison - those companies are liable if their products cause you to get sick from, say, food poisoning, or a bad batch, or if they include a specific chemical that's toxic. Moreover, you can eat a burger without instantly getting fat, and it takes a lot of burgers to get fat, and you can get fat without eating a burger or drinking a soda - you would have to stretch very far to try to make that comparison, because McDonald's and Cocacola are not selling literally the only thing that would cause the adverse effect.
A valid comparison would be the opioids sold by the McKinsey family, because the opioids really were directly responsible for the drug overdoses - they are liable for that, and should be held accountable (but aren't, due to political corruption). Meanwhile, the topic under discussion is liability for the direct effects of a vaccine - your comparison is completely irrelevant.
> Even with exemption from liability, vaccines are such a bad business that we managed to develop just a handful only for most serious infectuous diseases.
The business argument is not a valid one. "Manufacturers might go out of business" is never a good reason to allow a bad thing to continue. Unless you think that it's ok to keep burning oil in order to keep big oil companies afloat?
Moreover, all it takes is a single vaccine manufacturer to continue producing them, and after mRNA is thoroughly tested (you can't test for decade-long side effects with a single year of testing, by definition), then we'll be able to build them extremely easily and cheaply.
> "Society decided that vaccines are beneficial enough to give companies immunity from prosecution" is a shorthand for competent people in the society decided
No, you don't get to redefine "society" to be "competent" people, or a group of elites. It's either the entire democracy, or you can use a different word.
> competent people being epidemiologists and politicians
I can guarantee you that no epidemiologists were involved - just politicians, who are notoriously corrupt, and not competent in the area of epidemiology (or any health-related field) in the general case.
> Democracy is not about all people making decision.
No, but the only alternative valid kind of democracy is where representatives are elected (which is what happened in the US) who, you know, represent the interests of their constituents - which never happened in this area. Again, there was no debate, no polling, no mention of this in debates - just politicians going off and doing their own thing, without any representation of the actual citizens.
> It has no obligation to and might stay in power (and almost always does) regardless. In American democracy goverment only implements laws that have a support of the richest Americans. So us having vaccines is a result of richest people thinking it's good idea to exempt companies from liability over vaccines they develop. And even if you think it's a bad idea you have no saying over this, not today, not during election, because you are not a member of those elites whose opinion on laws actually matters and even if you were, majority of them doesn't share your views.
This isn't an argument - you're just pointing out the state of the world.
Moreover, the views of politicians or rich elites, or even "competent people" in any case, aren't representative of either "society" or democracy as a whole.
> Besides manufacturers of vaccines are still liable if they make a bad batch. They are just not responsible for things nobody can know.
Irrelevant - the lack of knowledge about interactions with the human body is a direct result of lack of research, not because it's fundamentally not understandable.
These "random future events you have no way of predicting" you're talking about do not exist, because they're not "random" - they're the result of concrete mechanisms in the body that the pharma companies just haven't bothered to understand.
I don't think that most of your arguments hold up, but I'm grateful to you for engaging honestly with this, and for your reference to the Lyme disease vaccine issue, which I'm going to continue to read and think about. Also interesting is the Wikipedia page on the NCVIA itself[1], which has given me more food for thought.
Absolutely yes. Every other industry is exposed to the risk created by their products - including makers of cars, heavy machinery, drugs, food, beverages, and airplanes - and continues to sell their products. There's no airliner deficit because the major companies are scared of the potential liability resulting from a crash, or beer deficit because major breweries are averse to the risk of a bad batch poisoning hundreds of people.
The claim that vaccine companies are somehow different than car companies, or drug-makers (who you can argue have also "created a massive net-good for society" - which is also a bad argument), or every other industry, is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence.
> we as a society have determined
Objectively false. There has been no general vote on this issue, there have been no politicians that ran on platforms around this issue, and most of the individuals that I know do not support this decision - in fact, as far as I know, the only inputs into the legislation were from pharmaceutical companies, which is the opposite of "society". This claim is absolutely absurd, and equivalent to arguing that "we as a society have decided that personal data mining for the purposes of advertising is OK" just because that's the way the legal system is currently set up.
> the companies that develop these vaccines shouldn't be punished for creating a massively net-good for society
This is a snuck premise. This is no "punishment" at all for developing vaccines, and no one is forcing these companies to create or sell them; this is forcing them to ensure that their products are as safe as humanly possible by providing financial incentives to do so, which not only happens with every other industry, but is the only sane thing to do - if you sell something that people put into their bodies, there is no argument that you can make that you shouldn't also be liable for any negative consequences that happen as a result.
You can make an argument that cars, or antibiotics, or phones, or cheap+healthy+readily-available food have all been beneficial for "society" - and yet, the makers of all those things are equally liable for bodily harm arising from (proper) use of their products.
Moreover, forcing manufacturers to be liable for their products has been a net good for society, as its forced them to invest significant resources in ensuring that the things that they build are safe. Consider the high standards for food safety that we have now, and the incredible amounts of testing and safety engineering that go into building automobiles and airplanes - if manufacturers weren't liable, none of that would have happened. More concretely, if vaccine manufacturers were forced to take responsibility for their products, and there were actually high numbers of long-term side effects - the manufacturers would do research into understanding their interactions with the body better, and they would get safer.
But, of course, vaccine side-effect incident rate is extremely rare, because they're completely safe, so manufacturers would rarely have to pay out in the first place, right?
I suppose that I asked "why do people think that it's a good idea" not "is this reasonable/just/excusable", and so your comment was an answer to that - but it definitely doesn't seem like this is something you can actually justify.
Also, I'm curious: if the manufacturers aren't liable for injury or death from their products, then who do you think is?