Scrutable

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:06 am

headshot wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:40 am

Go on then. How would you increase uptake of a perfectly safe vaccine? If people are too stubborn to get it voluntarily, why not mandate it in certain settings?

I would say that there's some evidence that mandates actually increase hesitancy.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:14 am

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:12 am

These are both classic anti-vaccine talking points.

I've Pfizer vaccinated, if it helps you see that I'm not making these points out of some superstitious distrust of vaccines. I do actually think it's reasonable to object to being pressured to take a medication the manufacturer refuses to accept liability for.

headshot wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:40 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:02 am

That is a pretty Kafkaesque argument, shpalman. eta; the other restrictions could be dropped too. It's a political choice.

Go on then. How would you increase uptake of a perfectly safe vaccine? If people are too stubborn to get it voluntarily, why not mandate it in certain settings?

It gets to a point where a person’s choice not to get the vaccine is damaging to so many other parts of society that a mandate is perfectly acceptable.

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:19 am

What are people's experiences with bars etc. checking vaccination status?

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:37 am

Well if you have been duped by the anti-vaxxers into believing their nonsense, it shows a lack of research on your part.

Vaccine manufacturers are not protected from liability in the UK. If there is a defect in the vaccine, you can sue under consumer law. If the vaccine causes a known problem, you don't even need to sue, you will get an ex gratia vaccine damage payment.

COVID is massively more dangerous than the pandemic in 2009 was, but there was the same need for a vaccine, urgently…and indemnity has been given to all the manufacturers," says Todd.

In the U.K., a manufacturer's immunity is theoretically whipped away if their vaccine is shown to be "defective," meaning it isn't as safe as people should reasonably expect. But, Todd says, it "would be difficult to prove a reasonable expectation of consumer safety" when most people know COVID-19 vaccines have been rushed out before their large-scale, long-term testing can be completed, to urgently fight an extremely dangerous disease.

That leaves the statutory scheme, which pays out a fixed sum of £120,000 to those suffering severe disablement—not a lot of money in such circumstances, and legal costs are also not reimbursed.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:01 pm

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:37 am

Well if you have been duped by the anti-vaxxers into believing their nonsense, it shows a lack of research on your part.

Using labels like 'anti-vaxxer' is really not helpful to good debate. It puts people in 'teams' and shuts down proper discussion. Please try and avoid it. You should also generally try and make your points without an insulting flourish.

Vaccine manufacturers are not protected from liability in the UK. If there is a defect in the vaccine, you can sue under consumer law. If the vaccine causes a known problem, you don't even need to sue, you will get an ex gratia vaccine damage payment.

This is not the case for vaccines pushed out for emergency use in the UK. In particular, it is not the case for some of the Covid vaccines we've been discussing.

https://fullfact.org/health/unlicensed- ... liability/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astr ... SKCN24V2EN

The above dates from last year, so here's the current status on Astrazeneca's vaccine, as an example. It is still operating on a temporary approval

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... strazeneca

The following is commentary from Peter Todd, a consultant with the British law firm Scott Moncrieff, speaking in April this year.
Taken from: https://fortune.com/2021/04/07/covid-va ... liability/

COVID is massively more dangerous than the pandemic in 2009 was, but there was the same need for a vaccine, urgently…and indemnity has been given to all the manufacturers," says Todd.

In the U.K., a manufacturer's immunity is theoretically whipped away if their vaccine is shown to be "defective," meaning it isn't as safe as people should reasonably expect. But, Todd says, it "would be difficult to prove a reasonable expectation of consumer safety" when most people know COVID-19 vaccines have been rushed out before their large-scale, long-term testing can be completed, to urgently fight an extremely dangerous disease.

That leaves the statutory scheme, which pays out a fixed sum of £120,000 to those suffering severe disablement—not a lot of money in such circumstances, and legal costs are also not reimbursed.

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:37 am

It is in the US where the rules are fundamently different, but that is a consequence of the US legal system where juries are involved in some civil trials and deciding damages. Even in the US the manufacturers are not able to avoid liability for damages as they can be sued for vaccine defects.

Lydia Gwilt wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:27 pm

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:19 am

What are people's experiences with bars etc. checking vaccination status?

In Italy, in my small village pizzeria they don't check, but in the local town/city people have to show a green pass in bars etc, but no backup ID to show it's their green pass. In Vancouver both pass and ID are scrutinised closely. In Cape Town, temperatures but not passes are checked.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:30 am

Lydia Gwilt wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:27 pm

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:19 am

What are people's experiences with bars etc. checking vaccination status?

In Italy, in my small village pizzeria they don't check, but in the local town/city people have to show a green pass in bars etc, but no backup ID to show it's their green pass. In Vancouver both pass and ID are scrutinised closely. In Cape Town, temperatures but not passes are checked.

I've not been checked yet in Portugal, but I haven't yet tried to do any of the things I'd need a pass for (shows and sports events, bars and discos, old people's homes and vulnerable people in hospital). Back when we needed them to sit indoors in cafes etc at peak times I never got checked either.

N=1 but I'm really regretting taking that vaccine. It's nowhere near mandatory enough. I want the smug glow of a masked employee on minimum wage scanning my QR code, even if they don't upload the result to a government tracking database like the conspiracy theorists believe.

It's easily one of the most disappointing results from accepting an injection a stranger told me would improve my weekend.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:51 pm

I didn't know that. Thanks

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:59 am

headshot wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:40 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:02 am

That is a pretty Kafkaesque argument, shpalman. eta; the other restrictions could be dropped too. It's a political choice.

Go on then. How would you increase uptake of a perfectly safe vaccine? If people are too stubborn to get it voluntarily, why not mandate it in certain settings?

It gets to a point where a person’s choice not to get the vaccine is damaging to so many other parts of society that a mandate is perfectly acceptable.

Vaccine A gives 100% protection against infection and subsequent transmission.

Vaccine B gives 0% protection against infection and subsequent transmission.

Obviously refusing B doesn't lead to other people getting ill. But refusing A would be ethically dubious.

The Covid vaccines are around 60%? I'm not convinced it's enough. Others refusing the vaccine doesn't damage me enough to make forcing them valid.

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:03 am

The NHS is coping.

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 23, 2021 1:33 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:03 am

The NHS is coping.

As far as I can see, the NHS shut down 18 months ago. All it's done since is deal with covid and repeat prescriptions. I know several people round here (Shropshire) in need to new knees or hips and none of that has gone on. Another friend living with breast cancer had her treatment halved in early 2020 and it's still not gone back to what she needs.

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:37 am

Vaccine manufacturers are not protected from liability in the UK. If there is a defect in the vaccine, you can sue under consumer law. If the vaccine causes a known problem, you don't even need to sue, you will get an ex gratia vaccine damage payment.

Perception counts

The wording of the government’s new regulations may also have slipped in some immunity for the government and the agencies rolling out mass-vaccination programmes, although this might not have been the intention. At this critical moment, however, perception is every bit as important as intention.

Consumer protection rights still apply for people injured by the COVID-19 vaccine as the government wasn’t allowed to take away those. But due to the legal definition of defects and a rule known as the state-of-the-art defence, it is difficult to get compensation when we know some people might react badly, but specific problems with the vaccine are not yet known.

Generally, vaccine safety is excellent, which makes it even more incongruous that the government is not putting its money where its mouth is and providing a clear, generous and uncomplicated compensation scheme that would immediately quash any concerns the public has.

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 23, 2021 2:04 pm

Obviously. You seem to think not doing most of the things it used to do (and patients need) is coping. I don't count that as coping.

headshot wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:46 pm

The NHS, or at the very least, parts of it, are very much not coping adequately with the pressures added by having to deal with Covid and Flu, health leaders are sounding alarm bells because they’re concerned that the struggle to cope will tip into an inability to cope.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:16 pm

headshot wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:46 pm

The NHS, or at the very least, parts of it, are very much not coping adequately with the pressures added by having to deal with Covid and Flu, health leaders are sounding alarm bells because they’re concerned that the struggle to cope will tip into an inability to cope.

Have you entertained the possibility that reports of the NHS struggling are because of supply and staff absence issues rather than massive numbers of additional people requiring treatment (referencing our mortality level which jumped up to.. 2009 norms at the peak).