Covid-19 response

[Amity Island]

A Covid vaccine compensation scheme could be set up after thousands claimed they have been left disabled as a result of the AstraZeneca jab, The Telegraph has learnt.

The Health Secretary is considering plans to establish a bespoke programme for those suffering from life-changing conditions as a result of the Covid jab, similar to the scheme for victims of the Infected Blood Scandal.

It comes amid concern the existing Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) is struggling to cope after becoming overwhelmed by a huge volume of claims from those suffering side-effects after Covid vaccines.

Compensation scheme could be set up for thousands ‘left disabled’ by AstraZeneca jab

Concerns raised over existing package’s ability to handle volume of Covid-related claims

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[CliffH]

A Covid vaccine compensation scheme could be set up after thousands claimed they have been left disabled as a result of the AstraZeneca jab, The Telegraph has learnt.

The Health Secretary is considering plans to establish a bespoke programme for those suffering from life-changing conditions as a result of the Covid jab, similar to the scheme for victims of the Infected Blood Scandal.

It comes amid concern the existing Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) is struggling to cope after becoming overwhelmed by a huge volume of claims from those suffering side-effects after Covid vaccines.

Compensation scheme could be set up for thousands ‘left disabled’ by AstraZeneca jab

Concerns raised over existing package’s ability to handle volume of Covid-related claims

www.telegraph.co.uk

I imagine that it's going to be tough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any disability was in fact caused by the AstraZeneca jab. Presumably there'll also claims from people who say that they suffered badly from COVID because of not being offered vaccination soon enough?

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I imagine that it's going to be tough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any disability was in fact caused by the AstraZeneca jab.

I think compensation schemes don't usually require "beyond a reasonable doubt". They're put in place to avoid the need for most people to reach such a tricky standard.

Presumably there'll also claims from people who say that they suffered badly from COVID because of not being offered vaccination soon enough?

I don't suppose this scheme would apply to that. I'm not sure it's possible to make that argument, though I suspect JCVI messed up when deciding children shouldn't (mostly) be too bothered about getting vaccinated.

Similarly, the Chickenpox vaccine situation feels a bit of a mess. I understand they're reconsidering, but I'm not sure there's any new information; I think there's been an undercurrent that it's natural (and so good) for children to recover from infections. (Which continues for COVID, for most ages, of course.)

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I fear we are in for another cash raking mini-industry springing up, just like happened with PPI. With cold-call companies created to try to game the system and take their cut.

“Did you ever have the Astra Zeneca jab? You could be eligible for £££££££££s in compensation…” etc etc.

 

[CliffH]

I fear we are in for another cash raking mini-industry springing up, just like happened with PPI. With cold-call companies created to try to game the system and take their cut.

“Did you ever have the Astra Zeneca jab? You could be eligible for £££££££££s in compensation…” etc etc.

... and whatever's paid out to lawyers reduces the total pot of money available for healthcare.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I fear we are in for another cash raking mini-industry springing up, just like happened with PPI. With cold-call companies created to try to game the system and take their cut

Probably, though I'm guessing there aren't that many people who are likely to have a good case for compensation. There are obviously some (the vaccine stopped being offered to people for reasons, after all). But this just isn't widespread miss-selling/fraud on the level of PPI.

 

[Amity Island]

“Thanks to some questionable modelling… never before has so much harm been done to so many by so few, based on so little, questionable, potentially flawed data…

A new series reviewing the pandemic called following the real science. Basically summarises everything I've said on this forum for the past almost 4 years.

Everything You’ve Always Wanted to Know About COVID-19 But Have Been Afraid to Ask – The Daily Sceptic

Dr Rachel Nicoll has made a video about the shortcomings of the government's pandemic response and in particular just how unscientific its claims to be 'following the Science' were. Here, she summarises its contents.

dailysceptic.org

COVID-19: Following The Real Science | Day 1

FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE – DAY 1 CONTENTS - HOW DID OUR IMMUNE SYSTEMS COPE WITH COVID-19? - HOW WE WENT INTO LOCKDOWN ON THE BASIS OF FALSE PREMISES. - WHAT REALLY CAUSED COVID DEATHS AND WERE THE NUMBE

rumble.com

 

[Amity Island]

I fear we are in for another cash raking mini-industry springing up, just like happened with PPI. With cold-call companies created to try to game the system and take their cut.

“Did you ever have the Astra Zeneca jab? You could be eligible for £££££££££s in compensation…” etc etc.

It was supposed to be for the over 50's. The response was so out of kilter with the science, along with all the coercion (vaccine passports, no jab no job) and mandates people took it unnecessarily and against their free will. It doesn't prevent infection and many already had previous protection from other Corona viruses and of course previous infection by the time vaccines were released.

 

[CliffH]

I realise it’s not aimed at me personally. But the crazier end of disbelief and the onward transmission of conspiracy had a knock on effect on us all. So much of what you say is repeated and half thought out theories, twisted truths and cherry picked data I don’t feel it’s worth more of my time (or sanity) trying to point out the factual errors or misconceptions.

Nor is it black and white where a person believes everything was a lie/mistake or none of it. Yes there were errors and quite possibly presentations of things that weren’t accurate, for a whole host of reasons and not all of them nefarious.

Yes there should be questions asked about a lot of what happened, but some of the theories out there are frankly ridiculous and the genuine concerns get lost in the noise of that.

I've been looking back at this thread with all the back and forth by people who obviously have too much time on their hands - which I guess applies to me as well lol.

I think that you sum the situation up well: the Government at the time tried to cope with a unique situation and got some things right and some things wrong. I'm a Labour voter and so I have no vested interest in supporting what the Conservative Government did around Covid. I am though interested in our society learning as much as it can from what went well as well as what went badly in the Government's response to Covid, in the hope that whichever Government is in charge the next time there's a comparable emergency will do better. For example, from what I remember, even the Labour Opposition at the time was broadly supportive of Sunak's Furlough scheme when it was announced.

I think a problem with the various enquiries that we seem to be inundated with nowadays is that they're not particularly focused on 'learning lessons': they seem to want primarily to assign blame and ensure that people are punished. Having had a long career in healthcare (including during the Pandemic), I'm aware that anyone (including me) trying to do their best in healthcare (when often the 'right' and the 'wrong' aren't clear) will sometimes make mistakes. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who makes a mistake at work is a bad person or completely useless.

I wonder if we need to adopt more of a 'truth and reconciliation' approach to these enquiries, so that we're focusing more on the future than on the past and hopefully encouraging witnesses to be more open, rather than feeling the need to defend their own practices first and foremost.

 

[Amity Island]

I've been looking back at this thread with all the back and forth by people who obviously have too much time on their hands - which I guess applies to me as well lol.

I think that you sum the situation up well: the Government at the time tried to cope with a unique situation and got some things right and some things wrong. I'm a Labour voter and so I have no vested interest in supporting what the Conservative Government did around Covid. I am though interested in our society learning as much as it can from what went well as well as what went badly in the Government's response to Covid, in the hope that whichever Government is in charge the next time there's a comparable emergency will do better. For example, from what I remember, even the Labour Opposition at the time was broadly supportive of Sunak's Furlough scheme when it was announced.

I think a problem with the various enquiries that we seem to be inundated with nowadays is that they're not particularly focused on 'learning lessons': they seem to want primarily to assign blame and ensure that people are punished. Having had a long career in healthcare (including during the Pandemic), I'm aware that anyone (including me) trying to do their best in healthcare (when often the 'right' and the 'wrong' aren't clear) will sometimes make mistakes. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who makes a mistake at work is a bad person or completely useless.

I wonder if we need to adopt more of a 'truth and reconciliation' approach to these enquiries, so that we're focusing more on the future than on the past and hopefully encouraging witnesses to be more open, rather than feeling the need to defend their own practices first and foremost.

There was something off with the whole thing from the very beginning and it didn't get any better from then on. Right from the outset they were posting pictures of people dying in the street. When did we ever see this?

In the post above on the real science.

The WHO came out with some important pronouncements, which subsequently proved to be completely wrong. Two of these were:

“FACT: #COVID-19 is NOT airborne”;

“COVID-19 is a new virus to which no one has immunity”.

The scientific advisers never bothered to check any of these WHO pronouncements, even though the science and observational data was readily available to them early on in the pandemic.