Coronavirus 2020



Eh this is the norm for governments across the world to indemnify big pharma from any liabilities from their vaccines causing death or injury for decades.

Payouts are in the billions.

Do a search. Not hard to find stories. For example.

Maybe it news to the majority of people. :whistle:


Brazil's President Bolsonaro says he will REFUSE to take Covid-19 vaccine | Daily Mail Online

  • Bolsonaro said he won’t take vaccine after it receives approval from government
  • He said in social media video: 'I’m telling you, I won’t take it. It is my right’
  • Brazil has recorded 170,000 coronavirus deaths, making it 2nd-worst hit country
  • Bolsonaro faces criticism for handling pandemic, including opposing lockdown


He has already caught and recovered from COVID, so I can see his point.
Does anyone know if he had much in the way of symptoms?


Indemnifying vaccines makes for a sick health system (

Indemnifying vaccines makes for a sick health system

If firms are shielded from cost of side effects, why should problems during trials worry them?

Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 05:52

Now we hear that the European pharma industry vaccines lobby is pushing the EU to exempt drug companies from lawsuits if a vaccine leads to unexpected side effects. This is not unusual, we are told. It should be.

Pharma companies must make a return on investment in vaccines and other drugs. They are private companies, undertaking highly risky research in pursuit of cures or vaccines at great cost. The nature of such research is that it comes with no guarantee that a commercial product will ever emerge.

Profits on the successful drugs and vaccines need also to cover the cost of other, failed projects.


But indemnifying drug companies unravels the raison d’etre for the industry model. If companies are to be shielded from the cost of unanticipated side effects or other problems that emerge, why should they worry too much about addressing issues that arise during trials? Why should they ensure that trials are sufficiently robust to be confident that they will identify potential problems in the development phase?

As Ireland and others have learned with Pandemrix and swine flu, undue haste in vaccine development can have unintended and costly outcomes. Ireland Inc indemnified GlaxoSmithKline as part of the deal to secure supplies of Pandemrix: over a decade later it is now facing 100 cases relating to serious side effects from the vaccine.

In a world where vaccine sceptics, or anti-vaxxers, are becoming a growing issue for health policymakers, cutting corners to deliver potentially risky vaccines seems a curious own goal for health authorities and pharma companies. And paying market price when the buyer assumes all the downstream financial risk makes no financial sense.

Kudos to this journalism that somehow made it into the Irish Times over the summer. Using the auld ceann


Notice they are anonymous. Cant risk being cancelled. Maybe they have been since.


An import point is being made here. Our laws on civil liability are not designed to enrich defendants. They are, above all, a means to ensure responsible behaviour by holding people responsible for their actions even if there is no criminal intent.

It is not acceptable that someone can injure another person through negligence, even gross negligence, and simply walk away from the consequences.

Oh, but wait! That is exactly what insurance does. All those compo claims are met by insurance companies and the defendant (e.g. the car driver, the pharmaceutical company) is absolved and freed from the consequences.

And here’s a twist, when insurance is compulsory (e.g. motor, public liability) and there is no real competition among insurers, there is no incentive to reduce the amount of compensation paid out because the premiums will always cover the loss. In fact, there is a perverse incentive because higher claims justify higher premiums.

So, it is reasonable that pharmaceutical firms don’t want to sucked into the plaintiffs’ playground where vast sums are paid out without regard to the public interest e.g. in playgrounds or in vaccines.


No, not an accurate comparison. Car driving is not a profit making business. If the government started underwriting car manufacturers for mechanical faults that would be equivalent. Which it doesn’t.


This authoritarian airhead Liz Canavan is at it again. God help us.


Testing reliability less than 3%

3. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles);

In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]

It is widely reported and acknowledge the cycles used are in excess of 35 cycles (in fact the Irish gov have clarified they follow manufacturer instructions as to the level of cycles applied)

Apply to official figures for Ireland:

Total confirmed cases for 2020 would be 2176 instead of the current 72,455.




The development of these vaccines is very exciting and potentially significant, but it’s not going to change the need for these measures, particularly in the weeks and months ahead because the vaccine is only likely to become available next year.

So exciting for some but not others.

(EXCITING = Zero Risk Profits! )

“It’s really important now, and after these vaccines are produced, that we keep up a commitment to public health practices.”

Expect Orwellian non-seuqitors to rise going forward.

The Government needs a two-pronged communications strategy for a Covid-19 vaccine, to tackle disinformation and win over people who have concerns and questions, according to Fine Gael Senator John McGahon.

Translation: The people are the enemy. We are at War with the people. We have always been at War with the people


This video is gas. Why?

When it first appeared it had nearly 100% negative comments that appeared to freeze at 58 in total (on the counter) by around sunday afternoon maybe sooner.

Strange but not really… :whistle:


Ah! So we must hold the profit-makers liable? What if the vaccine is produced by a non-profit e.g. the University of Oxford?

Car driving can be for profit (e.g. taxis) but we allow - no we oblige - all car drivers to insure themselves against third-party liability. Of course we don’t allow drivers to insure themselves against criminal liability (there was a scheme some years ago to insure against losing your driving licence but the courts, rightly, shot that down.)

Bottom line, if we want the vaccine, we can’t expect the makers to submit themselves to the impossible standards which our courts have imposed to make extravagant awards. Our government hasn’t the guts to simply abolish liability for any risks arising from the vaccine so it is only a matter of time before we have a stream of plaintiffs before our courts seeking vast monetary compensation from the public purse for alleged ill-effects of the vaccine. It will be immaterial in the eyes of our courts if the vaccine rescued all of humanity from this accursed virus. Still less will the courts care where the money comes from e.g. adding to our mountain of debt or taken from spending on public health. It won’t come from the pharmaceutical companies because they have learned their lesson with Irish courts.


Yep. The vaccine makers are the good guys . Vaccine for what exactly BTW.

As a slight retort specifically to your point on Taxi insurance, you do know what this costs here don’t you?


If you poison your parish with your non profit apple cake you’ll go to jail. But Astrazeneca team up with non profit Oxford and get an indemnity.

You think that the Dáil should introduce an act to “abolish liability” in this matter? So we nationalise the debt then we decide it doesn’t exist. Where were you in 2008 ?:rofl:


Boom ! Direct hit !

“It would stick in the Taoiseach’s throat if he mentioned Jesus at all,” said Fr Hughes. “All he could talk about the other evening was Mr Fox and Roald Dahl. It is not about Jesus anymore.”


But sure we knew that…but it’s cheaper than a “Look at Me” T-shirt…

“As a HSE clinical lead, I have a role in supporting the National Public Health Emergency Team and HSE position. I accept that decision was arrived at by the decision-making process in place.

“There is a very broad consensus in public health nationally and internationally that masks are of value. There is also a body of opinion that is less convinced.”

He cited a large Danish study published earlier this month which found there was no significant protective effect from mask-wearing at a time virus transmission in the country was low.


The emphasis on PPE has been wrong from the start. PPE aids those professionals in a clinical environment to avoid infection when other measures are being taken. As a stand alone defence they have limited use. This is another example of the message being unclear when communicated to the public.

Throughout August I was fairly shocked to see elderly people standing next to each other talking and chatting whilst ignoring social distancing on the basis that they were wearing a paper mask over their mouth. They didn’t understand and nor was the reality explained to them.


I fixed your post for clarity like. :wink:


I linked that Danish report to my farcebook page and it has been flagged as “false information” followed by a link that chirps the party line that masks are good!

Along with all the RTE propaganda to ensure viewers ignore alternative sources of information, they’re making sure there is “only one version of the truth” a good practice in inventory control but very bad outside in the real world that has more than 50 shades of gray.


We’re all Trump now. :dipso: