Is the system letting down people who were harmed by Covid vaccines-

Interviewer: Can you discuss the inherent risks associated with vaccines and the compelling evidence supporting their benefits?

Expert: Absolutely, there is no aspect of life that is entirely risk-free, and that includes vaccines. However, the data clearly shows that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the risks of serious side effects for the vaccines recommended in the UK. The Covid-19 vaccines, particularly the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, have been pivotal in saving lives—globally, it’s credited with saving 6.3 million lives in its first year, surpassing Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine, which saved 5.9 million.

Interviewer: While the benefits are significant, there have been reports regarding adverse effects. Can you shed light on this?

Expert: Yes, it’s crucial to acknowledge both the positives and the small number of individuals who have faced serious issues. Approximately 50 families affected by rare blood clots have initiated legal action for compensation, claiming that the AstraZeneca vaccine wasn’t as safe as the public was led to believe. This includes individuals left with debilitating injuries and families grieving the loss of loved ones tied to vaccine-related complications.

Interviewer: One of those families is that of Jane Wrigley. Can you share her experience?

Expert: Jane, aged 62, was once quite active, participating in half marathons and enjoying outdoor activities. However, just two weeks post vaccination in March 2021, she was hospitalized with brain blood clots and underwent emergency surgery. Her medical records indicate that these clots were a direct side effect of the vaccine. Now, her husband, Ian, has taken on the role of her full-time caregiver. Jane has expressed the profound loss of her independence and active lifestyle due to these unforeseen complications.

Interviewer: What does her case reveal about the current system supporting those affected by vaccine side effects?

Expert: Jane’s situation raises pressing concerns about whether the current framework adequately supports individuals suffering severe complications. In the UK, nearly 25 million adults received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is believed to have prevented over a quarter of a million hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Yet, despite the low likelihood of severe side effects, we expect robust support in cases where things go wrong—this is an essential part of the social contract between individuals and the state.

Interviewer: How does the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) address these issues?

Expert: The VDPS was established in 1979 and offers a one-time payment of £120,000 for individuals with at least 60% disability caused by vaccines. However, its effectiveness is being questioned due to the relatively low number of claims approved—just under 944 awards for all vaccines between the late 1970s and 2020. Since the pandemic, claims related to Covid vaccines have surged to nearly 16,000, yet the process remains slow and burdensome.

Interviewer: What concerns do legal representatives, like solicitor Sarah Moore, have about the VDPS?

Expert: Sarah Moore has pointed out that many families feel the compensation offered is insufficient, especially considering that the amount hasn’t changed since 2007. Also, her clients often face delays—some wait over two years for a decision despite clear medical evidence linking their claims to vaccine-related injuries. The claims assessment process is primarily paper-based, which may not accurately reflect individuals’ true conditions.

Interviewer: Can you elaborate on the issues surrounding the claim threshold?

Expert: There’s a significant barrier at the 60% disability threshold for compensation. Many individuals recognized as vaccine-injured do not meet this requirement, making it challenging for them to receive support. For instance, one woman who lost sight in an eye was denied compensation because her disability didn’t meet the arbitrary threshold. This situation underscores the emotional toll on families, who have been informed of their injuries but are rejected for financial relief.

Interviewer: Who is ultimately responsible for covering the costs associated with these claims?

Expert: During the pandemic, the government provided legal indemnity to vaccine manufacturers, indicating that they would cover any compensation payments if claims were successful. AstraZeneca, while not profiting from its Covid vaccine, reported substantial revenue and profits in other areas. However, recently, they’ve withdrawn specific vaccines from the market, focusing on mRNA options instead.

Interviewer: What does Prof. Adam Finn have to say about the effectiveness and public perception of the VDPS?

Expert: Prof. Finn recognizes the overwhelming success of Covid vaccines in saving lives but acknowledges that the VDPS requires reevaluation. He advocates for a compensation structure that reflects the cost of living, as well as reconsideration of the stringent disability threshold. He believes that though the adverse effects may impact a small percentage of vaccinated individuals, the serious nature of their grievances merits public attention and a fair approach to treatment.

Interviewer: In light of these challenges, how might this impact public confidence in vaccines?

Expert: Prof. Finn asserts that transparency is fundamental to maintaining public trust. Addressing the inadequacies of the VDPS is critical because even a small number of severely affected individuals can evoke concern and scrutiny. It’s vital that their experiences are acknowledged and that there are robust support systems in place, or risk eroding confidence in vaccines overall.