Correlation says nothing about causality. Otherwise you might say iPods caused the whole thing.

Shit, I'm done with this thing - I'm going back to my desktop.

 

Never claimed that it did.

No? I thought you were implying that Rush Limbaugh's analyses of the failures of liberalism somehow caused Jenny McCarthy to lose her mind. Forgive me if I got it wrong.

 

...I'm done with this thing...

It took me second to realize you meant "this thing" was your iPod or iPhone.

 

No? I thought you were implying that Rush Limbaugh's analyses of the failures of liberalism somehow caused Jenny McCarthy to lose her mind. Forgive me if I got it wrong.

Limbaugh makes McCarthy look like a genius!

 

And yet she and the other anti-vaxxers have succumbed to him and Fox News when forming their kook theories ? Rrrriiiggghhhtttt...

 

well then, insurance is the answer.
if you get hit by another driver THEIR insurance covers your costs. Car makers get sued when lots and lots of vehicles are sold with a known safety defect.
Lets make vaccination insurance available to cover the unlikely event of sickness from a vaccine. If lots and lots of kids get sick THEN sue the pharm company.

I swear, save millions or billions of kids from things like polio or diptheria and suddenly someone thinks a few sick kids mean we should just stop altogether and go back to the good 'ol days. Progress? or societal wussification?

It's not as simple as you say.

There must be something wrong with the vaccine or the makers would not be getting government immunity which is an extraordinary gesture reserved for products furnished to and administered by the military.

The jurisprudence associated with conventional product liability should be sufficient to protect the makers from unwarranted damages.

 

It's not as simple as you say.

There must be something wrong with the vaccine or the makers would not be getting government immunity which is an extraordinary gesture reserved for products furnished to and administered by the military.

The jurisprudence associated with conventional product liability should be sufficient to protect the makers from unwarranted damages.

So, what is your position on Good Samaritan immunity laws?

 

Speaking of kook theories, looks like Fox all their friends have more than their share:

A New York Times report explained how irresponsible media coverage has played a role in perpetuating this dangerous myth about vaccines. Right-wing media figures, including Fox & Friends, Sharyl Attkisson, and now Ingraham, have long helped prop up discredited science and baseless fearmongering about the safeties of vaccines. Glenn Beck and multiple Fox News figures have repeatedly floated debunked claims vaccines may be linked to autism. Rush Limbaugh even declared in 2009 that it was "hard to disagree" with claims that the swine flu vaccine was "developed to kill people."

Nothing is more absurd and looney than that last claim.
So, who is the kook?

 

The problem is a poor understanding of risk statistics by humans in general, combined with an utter loss of civic-mindedness in the last couple generations. (Both phenomenon can be traced to failing public schools, but that's another thread.)

There was a time when assuming a tiny personal risk to help the community at large was a no-brainer decision for most citizens. People stood up as a matter of duty, honor, country. Now, there are many people so selfish that they will not assume ANY risk on behalf of anyone else. That's sickening, but it is their right. A fraction of those people are additionally so skewed that they think they are better off without a vaccination. That's demonstrably wrong.

You can argue that being ignorant and wrong is also their right, but we don't let drunks drive and their are other precedents where state-mandated behavior trumps the "rights" of the ignorant. Truancy laws come to mind.

Pardon me, but your comment is a bit extreme and also lacks justification.

People look out for their own interest because no one else is going to stand up for your interest. This is obvious when the people are subjected to what they deem as excessive or unjustified government intrusion and they take the initiative to mount an opposition movement . As a prime example, extreme distrust of the government started back in the Vietnam era and the antidraft movement.

Furthermore, people are not "skewed" about getting vaccinated because they are opposed to taking any risk on behalf of someone else. There is a problem with the vaccination process that has not been addressed and for some unknown reason, the government has taken the extreme measure of immunity in order to shield the makers from liability. This is not a trivial issue and it cannot be addressed by a superfluous pep talk style rhetoric.

 

If you think the risk is worth it, do it.
If you think it isn't, don't.
Next problem.

 

So, what is your position on Good Samaritan immunity laws?

Good Samaritan immunity laws have not withstood the test of the courts and many states have rescinded them.

There are many cases that require expertise rather than casual knowledge on how to handle a given situation, but the Samaritan's actions were in fact not based on competent knowledge of handling the situation and they further exacerbated a crisis.

Obviously, there are cases where common sense should prevail before acting. For example, should a person who has no expertise about elevators attempt to rescue a person from a stalled elevator? Many people have fallen down elevator shafts because the rescuer failed to take into account the gap between the floor of the elevator and the floor of the building. Accordingly, attempts to help others in a crisis must be tempered by the state of knowledge of the helper and it may be better to refrain from giving aid if the consequences are not all that certain.

Getting back to the context of this thread about the safety of vaccines, the makers of these drugs are legally considered to be experts in the field of pharmacological/medical science and they should be fully aware of the normally acceptable level of risk to the recipient of their product. For some reason, this is/was not the case with the particular vaccine.

 

Good Samaritan immunity laws have not withstood the test of the courts and many states have rescinded them.

What states?

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some type of Good Samaritan law.

source: http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/jan14/managing3.asp

 

What states?
source: http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/jan14/managing3.asp

As a practical matter in the application of these laws, indemnification of the Samaritan is more of a social construct and it doesn't really exist. If the outcome is more favorable than if nothing was done, the concept of intended indemnity will prevail. However, if something goes wrong, the Samaritan is on the hook and in many cases, a lawsuit will result.

 

So... no states have rescinded Good Samaritan laws, I take it.

 

So... no states have rescinded Good Samaritan laws, I take it.

These "laws" never really existed as a hard statute to begin with and the jurisprudence is determined by the actual facts on a case by case basis. As I stated before, it really depends on the outcome - which may or may not be favorable. In summary, "Tort Law" is what determines the final judgement.

 

Karnak is correct, so far.

 

This thread has now become an example of "Flying off on a tangent".

The original topic has become a wad of gum that's been chewed long past its flavor.

 

These "laws" never really existed as a hard statute to begin with and the jurisprudence is determined by the actual facts on a case by case basis. As I stated before, it really depends on the outcome - which may or may not be favorable. In summary, "Tort Law" is what determines the final judgement.

You're giving a politician's answer. These laws do indeed. They are not social contracts; they are laws. The simple fact is within the limit of the various laws, a good Samaritan can have immunity. Now, as with every other law ever made, the letter and intent is subject to interpretation. That does not mean the law doesn't exist, however. If you want to play that game, we can play the same with laws that grant pharma immunity.

 

Speaking of kook theories, looks like Fox all their friends have more than their share:


Nothing is more absurd and looney than that last claim.
So, who is the kook?

Fruit loop nuttiness has no ideological leanings. Luckily most of the left, center and right can easily see the huge advantages in a total population vaccination program. The kooks are noisy but its always been that way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/

As with the vaccine choice question, these anti-vaxxers skew toward younger and less-educated Americans, along with racial minorities. Contrary to some conventional wisdom, though, they disproportionately come from places other than the West, where 90 percent see the vaccine as safe.
...
The poll also shows more Democrats (9 percent) and independents (10 percent) say the measles vaccine isn't safe than Republicans who say the same (5 percent). These differences are well within the margin of error, but the aforementioned Pew poll showed Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say vaccines should be a matter of choice.

I think most of it is just plain ignorance, most are too young to remember when childhood diseases closed schools and have never watch whole families sick because of a simple lack of vaccination.

 

As a prime example, extreme distrust of the government started back in the Vietnam era and the antidraft movement.

Ever take a history class? This country was founded on the principle of deep distrust of government. It is not a recent phenomenon, but is embodied in our founding documents.

The vaccination issue wouldn't be an issue if American's didn't inherently bristle at the idea of the government telling us what to do. That people feel they have the right to question and refuse is a positive thing.

But with freedom comes responsibility, and a part of choosing to get vaccinated is the benefit it brings to the community. That sense of community has diminished during my short life and I've been a witness to it. "Ask what you can do for your country."