This makes me angry but it isn't surprising news. It just shows that the aim from this should be to protect everyone (or as many people in the world where the legal and political systems in theory allow it) from being subject to manufacturers acquiring legal indemnity for their products. Perhaps it might require the same kinds of rules that prevent NGOs from taking on legal risk being extended to governments in relation to their citizens and permanent residents when it comes to health and other bodily matters (I specify here about health and bodily matters rather than just a broad ban on legal risk as I'm sure many govts would use it as a way to absolve themselves of all public debts rather than doing what was intended). Then at least the governments can claim that they can't give the companies immunity from liability and that it would be up to each citizen to individually do so at the very most. I rather suspect that if everyone had to sign an indemnity form in order to obtain a dose of a particular vaccine that that vaccine would decrease in popularity whereas those manufacturers willing to take liability (from the article it suggests that there are a minority who would do so) would see their products soar in popularity.
I share both your anger and the expectability of this entire charade.
As regards the rest of your comment, here are my two cents: I think you're correct in assuming different legal abilities of governments vs. NGOs when it comes to assuming risks (liabilities), if 'only' for 'practical' reasons, i.e., states have longer credit lines when it comes to being able to afford payouts (which they usually won't do). I would also assume that NGOs are legally 'handicapped' from taking on such gargantual amounts of risks due to both their (non-profit/charity) status, which typically comes with certain budgetary etc. limitations, which also translate into smaller leeway for legal action.
With respect to issues of (corporate) responsibility, well, I guess that you're right about the indemnity waiver, which would be hilarious to consider in the context of streamlined and 'lean' corporate structures. Imagine for a moment the administrative overhead this would create. As to the larger issue, I'm wary with respect to more popular products, for the above example clearly shows that either Big Pharma knows its products are … 'deficient' and/or the NGOs' lawyers can clearly see Big Pharma's legal shenanigans.
In any case, if there is a 'moral' to this piece, it's that the amount of misinformation is so large, and the unwillingness by media people (I'm reluctant to call them 'journalists') to clearly and openly report on these matters is equally legendary, hence there's no chance in hell that these (bad-faith) actors, state and non-state alike, will have to face the consequences of their actions.
Lastly, isn't it strange that Covid-19 doesn't seem to be a big problem in terms of excess mortality and the like in these refugee camps?
Yes I think that's right concerning the different legal abilities of NGOs and governments. I'm thinking now why aren't governments also explicitly handicapped in a way similar to NGOs by making them essentially charities/non-profits too? It's funny isn't it how governments have evolved such that we don't assume that they should be charities (or charitable!)
I had a laugh just thinking about the overheards that individual indemnity waivers would create. It would certainly cut into the bonuses for the big boys.
In regards to the more popular products issue I was thinking that the products that didn't come with a waiver would become more popular in time even if the ones must available initially were those from "Absolve Me" Big Pharma. Because many people seem quite fine with their government giving out such blanket indemnity waivers on their behalf but I suspect that if they personally had to grant it by signing their name to it they would think long and hard about it.
And agreed re the moral of the piece (and the classification of those jokers as media people rather than journalists. You could also use propagandists. Some might suggest the term "parrots" but I think that's offensive towards our highly intelligent feathered friends)
And yes it is strange how excess mortality and covid outbreaks and mass death seem to be escaping refugee camps. Similarly I found it strange at the very beginning (when "two weeks to flatten the curve!" was still only a week old) that media people/propagandists and politicians were still allowed to work. Surely countries have an emergency broadcast system for a reason. Don't see why media people at corporate media were still going to the studio and earning their paycheck while the rest of us were told to stay home and tighten our belts for the good of everyone else and ourselves.
This makes me angry but it isn't surprising news. It just shows that the aim from this should be to protect everyone (or as many people in the world where the legal and political systems in theory allow it) from being subject to manufacturers acquiring legal indemnity for their products. Perhaps it might require the same kinds of rules that prevent NGOs from taking on legal risk being extended to governments in relation to their citizens and permanent residents when it comes to health and other bodily matters (I specify here about health and bodily matters rather than just a broad ban on legal risk as I'm sure many govts would use it as a way to absolve themselves of all public debts rather than doing what was intended). Then at least the governments can claim that they can't give the companies immunity from liability and that it would be up to each citizen to individually do so at the very most. I rather suspect that if everyone had to sign an indemnity form in order to obtain a dose of a particular vaccine that that vaccine would decrease in popularity whereas those manufacturers willing to take liability (from the article it suggests that there are a minority who would do so) would see their products soar in popularity.
I share both your anger and the expectability of this entire charade.
As regards the rest of your comment, here are my two cents: I think you're correct in assuming different legal abilities of governments vs. NGOs when it comes to assuming risks (liabilities), if 'only' for 'practical' reasons, i.e., states have longer credit lines when it comes to being able to afford payouts (which they usually won't do). I would also assume that NGOs are legally 'handicapped' from taking on such gargantual amounts of risks due to both their (non-profit/charity) status, which typically comes with certain budgetary etc. limitations, which also translate into smaller leeway for legal action.
With respect to issues of (corporate) responsibility, well, I guess that you're right about the indemnity waiver, which would be hilarious to consider in the context of streamlined and 'lean' corporate structures. Imagine for a moment the administrative overhead this would create. As to the larger issue, I'm wary with respect to more popular products, for the above example clearly shows that either Big Pharma knows its products are … 'deficient' and/or the NGOs' lawyers can clearly see Big Pharma's legal shenanigans.
In any case, if there is a 'moral' to this piece, it's that the amount of misinformation is so large, and the unwillingness by media people (I'm reluctant to call them 'journalists') to clearly and openly report on these matters is equally legendary, hence there's no chance in hell that these (bad-faith) actors, state and non-state alike, will have to face the consequences of their actions.
Lastly, isn't it strange that Covid-19 doesn't seem to be a big problem in terms of excess mortality and the like in these refugee camps?
Yes I think that's right concerning the different legal abilities of NGOs and governments. I'm thinking now why aren't governments also explicitly handicapped in a way similar to NGOs by making them essentially charities/non-profits too? It's funny isn't it how governments have evolved such that we don't assume that they should be charities (or charitable!)
I had a laugh just thinking about the overheards that individual indemnity waivers would create. It would certainly cut into the bonuses for the big boys.
In regards to the more popular products issue I was thinking that the products that didn't come with a waiver would become more popular in time even if the ones must available initially were those from "Absolve Me" Big Pharma. Because many people seem quite fine with their government giving out such blanket indemnity waivers on their behalf but I suspect that if they personally had to grant it by signing their name to it they would think long and hard about it.
And agreed re the moral of the piece (and the classification of those jokers as media people rather than journalists. You could also use propagandists. Some might suggest the term "parrots" but I think that's offensive towards our highly intelligent feathered friends)
And yes it is strange how excess mortality and covid outbreaks and mass death seem to be escaping refugee camps. Similarly I found it strange at the very beginning (when "two weeks to flatten the curve!" was still only a week old) that media people/propagandists and politicians were still allowed to work. Surely countries have an emergency broadcast system for a reason. Don't see why media people at corporate media were still going to the studio and earning their paycheck while the rest of us were told to stay home and tighten our belts for the good of everyone else and ourselves.
Those refugees and those illegal mexs are fortunate indeed. Curious.