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?
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...
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.
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.