Covid vaccine injury payouts explode to $77M, budget reveals
news.com.au
news.com.au
Asia:
$1.26m paid to 296 with serious side effects after COVID vaccination in Singapore https://news.yahoo.com/296-payout-serious-side-effects-covid...
Girl to receive NT$3 million payout for adverse COVID vaccine reaction https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202209080026
Man gets NT$400,000 payout for adverse COVID-19 vaccine reaction https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202210150017
North America:
Feds Pay Zero Claims For Covid-19 Vaccine Injuries/Deaths https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/11/04/fed...
B.C. man among first approved for Canada's Vaccine Injury Support Program still waiting for compensation https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/b-c-man-among-firs...
That has to be countered with the societal value of the vaccines they produce. The anti-vax movement creates an awkward dance of defending big pharma to deliver this aid whilst knowing that the cannot be trusted 100% to do the right thing.
Anyone who defends big pharma and gaslights other people into doing so as well has made their own, free, morally corrupt choice.
Of course this nuance might be beyond many, as it's consistently acknowledged that vaccines do come with some risk and that efficacy is not 100 percent guaranteed.
edit: first statement was awkward but essence is the same
Only if you're gaslighting for big pharma, which seems to be something you're very comfortable with. But keep blaming others for your own evil.
Pro tip: being an asshole isn't going to help win any arguments. All you've done is demonstrate why anti-vaxxers are beyond reason.
That's balanced by the fact that I think virtually all the reasoning against it is specious at best. I don't have a better answer for that problem other than the force and shame be as thoughtful and accommodating as possible.
The shame is valid in the context of the proposition that vaccine efficacy is at its best when a significant portion of the population is vaccinated. By not participating in this particular social contract one is not "doing one's fair share".
Obviously if one doesn't accept that proposition, the shame is unnecessary. C'est la guerre.
So now that they've destroyed the trust, where do we go from here? For instance, I've never met anybody who didn't get their kids the regular vaccinations (Measles, mumps, rubella etc) I'm sure those people exist, but they're rare which means we mostly trusted our government on the question of vaccines. This debacle has ruined that trust, so how do we get it back when it really matters?
And "government" is not a homogeneous body with consistent understandings/incentives/etc.
Prior to the previous administration vaccines were not political. They were the fringe group of conspiracy theorists for the most part. I don't consider them personally political but it's very much wound into millions of people that being anti-vax is part of their political identity.
tl;dr -- vaccines are never 100% safe nor 100% effective and it's a case of risk assessment on the value of participating. I'd wager that very few of those who've turned their backs on them have done an honest calculation.
Meanwhile, you can watch the testimony yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnxlxzxoZx0
They never tested the vaccine effectiveness against transmission. It is in testimony.
So basically you could have the common, harmless flu-like side effects of the vaccine, take few days off of work, and file for compensation.
But potential applicants and legal experts have criticised it as overly complex and difficult to access, since a medical professional is required to sign off on documentation linking the reaction to the vaccine, and only a small number of officially recognised side effects such as myocarditis are covered.
Figures released earlier this month showed out of 2987 people to apply for compensation, only 59 were successful, with experts describing the rate of payouts as “absolutely pitiful”.
Even if 100% of these were successful this would still mean the vaccines were complication free for the vast, vast majority of people. Even if you assume the complexity of the process meant that 1 in 10 people who thought they had an adverse reaction were put off applying, it'd be something like 0.1% of cases having adverse reactions.
Of course I'd tend to trust medical professionals figuring out if a payout was relevant a little bit more than the applicants or 'legal experts' that are complaining about the complex process.
(Anecdata: I know of one person in my entire network who had an adverse reaction (outside of cold/flu symptoms) - bursitis in his elbow - from a COVID vaccinte. I personally only ever got a mild headache from the first one & nothing more from the others I've had.)
As with pretty much every vaccination for all time, the vanishingly tiny risks are massively outweighed by the benefits.
But yes, the risks should be communicated. Maybe they are not in some areas? I feel like most times when I get a vaccination, I am reminded of the potential risks. Here they always make you wait 15 minutes after the shot for observation just in case there are any immediate adverse affects (this is in Australia).
Here, for the first two COVID shots (at least) there was a reasonably intense screening process which ran through things like heart issues, etc.
You're not aware of past vaccine disasters, vaccines withdrawn from market over safety concerns .etc? Here's from the CDC's mouth, a source I wouldn't call neutral at all: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....