"Well, that may be true, but if live virus vaccines can shed and harm immunocompromised individuals and infants, shouldn't this also be viewed as "putting others at risk" or violating the NAP, as well?"
Not at all. Immuno-compromised people sometimes need a full clean-room, as in even the air is filtered. They can't even walk outside. You can't extrapolate this level of vulnerability to the general population and call it risk if it's below our normal immunological threshold. You did not establish that these shed vaccines can harm anyone except immuno-compromised individuals, you assumed it without providing data.
"Why pay billions in compensation if "the science is settled," and "vaccines are safe"?"
Well, for the same reason we would if we swapped "cars" with "vaccines". Cars have risks that we generally agree do not exceed the rewards. Doesn't mean that shit doesn't happen. The question is not one of "how much risk" but "is this less risky than other options".
"What's more, it is always a NAP violation to force someone to put something into their body, no matter which way you slice it."
I don't agree. What about a patient with dementia, mental issues, hysteria, temporary insanity refusing to eat, drink, etc? We assign power of attorney over these individuals to next of kin and things are put into their body "against their (influenced) will". I have been in this situation. I do not see this as a violation.
Of course, who decides when someone meets that criteria is a bit stickier.
These comments should not be construed as disagreement with your overall premise.
I can certainly extrapolate it to infants (immune system not developed) and the sick elderly (immunocompromised).
Car companies do not have legal immunity. I can sue them. Vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued.
Special pleading. I do not have these issues, and if someone attempts to force something into my body against my will, I will defend myself, up to and including using lethal force, if necessary.
I appreciate that clarification. ;)
Infants and elderly definitely sound like they could fall into either the immunocompromised, or "arguably-immunocompromised" category.
I don't agree with the immunity (I mean, no reason they should have it). Good point.
As for point 3, I only want to point out one possible example since you had said all. Kind of a nitpick there.
Thanks for the reply!
Yep. That's my point.