“In the contracts we have in place, we are asking for indemnification. For most countries it is acceptable to take that risk on their shoulders because it is in their national interest,” he said, adding that Astra and regulators were making safety and tolerability a top priority.
Dobber would not name the countries.
………..
The names of the countries would take a long time to list. It includes Socialist and Communist nations which run their healthcare systems.
Indeminifying drug-makers is in the interests of citizens, whose governments are obligated to protect against such perils.
I’m not saying it’s happening now, but let me ask you a hypothetical….
If a drug company falsifies reports of their trials and claims their vaccine is safe with no side effects when knowing full well that it is not safe and there are side effects, should they still be indemnified even though they lied about the safety of their product?
Excerpted from my OP, for trolls to ponder:
” …adding that Astra and regulators were making safety and tolerability a top priority. ”
As regulators will be actively involved in monitoring, there is little opportunity for falsifying reports. Thus, ‘falsification of reports’ is an outlier scenario in terms of probability, and thus deserves no further consideration by analysts and serious, non-troll commenters.
“outlier scenario in terms of probability, and thus deserves no further consideration”
So if something could only possibly happen, we shouldn’t consider that it might actually happen even though you admit it’s possible that it could? Seems shortsighted to me
The government indemnifies a PLC? Fine so long as the Government does not make the vaccine compulsory.
In which case the members of the government who sign of on compulsory vaccination should be liable
“In the contracts we have in place, we are asking for indemnification. For most countries it is acceptable to take that risk on their shoulders because it is in their national interest,” he said, adding that Astra and regulators were making safety and tolerability a top priority.
Dobber would not name the countries.
………..
The names of the countries would take a long time to list. It includes Socialist and Communist nations which run their healthcare systems.
Indeminifying drug-makers is in the interests of citizens, whose governments are obligated to protect against such perils.
I’m not saying it’s happening now, but let me ask you a hypothetical….
If a drug company falsifies reports of their trials and claims their vaccine is safe with no side effects when knowing full well that it is not safe and there are side effects, should they still be indemnified even though they lied about the safety of their product?
I don’t entertain hypothetical scenarios.
So you’re not willing to consider all potential pro’s and con’s of proposed legislation that you support?
No, not ALL. Especially NOT those suggesting scenarios involving falsifications by pharmas that are authored by trolls.
Excerpted from my OP, for trolls to ponder:
” …adding that Astra and regulators were making safety and tolerability a top priority. ”
As regulators will be actively involved in monitoring, there is little opportunity for falsifying reports. Thus, ‘falsification of reports’ is an outlier scenario in terms of probability, and thus deserves no further consideration by analysts and serious, non-troll commenters.
“outlier scenario in terms of probability, and thus deserves no further consideration”
So if something could only possibly happen, we shouldn’t consider that it might actually happen even though you admit it’s possible that it could? Seems shortsighted to me
‘PolarBeaRepeal’, not ‘PoarBeaRepeal’ for two posts above. bear cupa, umm, culpa.
The government indemnifies a PLC? Fine so long as the Government does not make the vaccine compulsory.
In which case the members of the government who sign of on compulsory vaccination should be liable