>>13228644>>13227859To put it another way, lets say a doctor has a pool of 10 patients, 5 of which will die and 5 will survive this year. He wants to do an experiemental surgery which would cause 7 to live and 3 to die. However, the 3 who die can due stating that if the surgery were never done, they had a 50% chance of living, and the doctor should compensate them accordingly. This will bankrupt the doctor although he actually saved two lives, leading future doctors to practice "defensive mechanism" where they have a strong incentive to practice medicine in a way which murders patients to avoid getting sued.
This is all wrapped up in a systemic bias in society where intervention is penalised but non-intervention is not. Medicine even has the maxim "First, do no harm". Vaccine courts are a way to deal with this systemic bias by capping torts.
Your demand that vaccine companies face an indemnity for any vaccine injuries, but how there isn't actually any corresponding demand that vaccine companies face an indemnity from inaction that results in people dying from COVID, is a good example of this irrational systemic bias. You want to see action penalised if it goes wrong, but are silent on the penalisation of inaction if that goes wrong, thus you are effectively calling to fiscally incentivize inaction.
