That's a good question with a lot of observations that could be made...

I'd say that out of concern for the (economic) consequences of harmful side effects, the choice not to get the jab is de-facto forcefully made for the stateless by the manufacturers + state. I wouldn't call this protection. As a stateless, your legal freedom (which I think ought to be inalienable) to get a particular medical product you might want is not protected because protection of the corporate manufacturer's bottom line has priority.

The manufacturers are carefully avoiding the one thing they _don't_ want which would be indemnifying individual sufferers of side effects from their bottom line. They do this by either having the people effectively indemnify themselves by paying them from their own people's money through the government, or by refusing to give it to anyone not indemnified this way. Basically, the manufacturers want riskless profit for rolling this product out, one way or another. The manufacturers will do what it takes to exercise a privilege they think ought to be inalienable, that being to help themselves our collective wealth so long as we use their product, whatever it is.

But think about how we got here.

In US you can get 100 mil in liability damages per injured person in lawsuits, which doesn't make any sense when you consider that with that sum you could save thousands of lives (poor people, ...)

So you could easily be made to pay 10 bil for causing vaccine damage to a 1000 people, while disregarding the hundred of millions the vaccine saved.

Do you think that would be fair?

Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

I'd have to ask, do liability damages have to be 100 mil per person? Why can't they be significantly less, IE more commensurate to a reasonable (surely never 100% accurate) assessment of the rough economic value of damages actually inflicted?

If we cannot save millions of lives with meds without the following drawbacks:

    -Inadequate recourse for many of those suffering harmful side effects.

    -The effective re-distribution of the people's wealth to the harmed individual to spackle over the damage should harmful effects occur.

    -Infringing on the rights of human beings to prevent them from taking medical procedures they want to preserve corporate bottom lines.

Then beyond it being fair for a vaccine company to go under, I believe it would be just for the entire legal and civic system to collapse to be rebuilt by a structure that respects both human liberty and dignity. I believe it's a cycle that will happen again and again, every time, until we get it right and can finally keep millions of people safe enough to living meaningful enough lives without trampling their rights and without encouraging them to become too weak to preserve them. And further, I don't think we're ever actually going to get it right as a species, so things like this are going to happen, once in a long lifetime.

Without a vaccine mandate I can see your argument, however if you force people to take a drug you have decided to take ownership of the situation. In that case you are responsible for the outcome. If you don't want to be responsible for a choice, don't make it.

Careful there, that's fash-adjacent talk </s>

Stateless people are (generally) difficult for governments to impose on but have little governmental support. I'd say it tends to be a negative on net, though I guess that depends on your views on government in general.

Perhaps they need the right lawyers or agents.

What could a lawyer or agent do? Being stateless means you don't have the rights or the obligations of citizenship, more or less by definition.

Then there's no need for Pharma company lawyers to be concerned about liability. Yet they are?

> where those applying for doses, mainly NGOs, can't bear legal risks, deliveries from that stockpile can only be made if vaccine-makers accept liability.

If you injure another person you're liable for corresponding damages, that's not a function of citizenship.

Nations are willing to assume liability for vaccine side effects suffered by their citizens (which is something that requires resources beyond what an individual could put up - consider the possibility of e.g. becoming paralysed and requiring life-long round-the-clock care). The problem that stateless people have (in this context) is that they don't have a nation-like organisation that will do that for them.

>Stateless humans have more legal protection than stateful humans?

"If there is hope, it may lie with the proles..."