It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

page: 19
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

So who decides the outcome, a government based panel of some kind? you know that they will be pushing for as little as possible as with anything in the welfare sector.

You cant base the pay-out on the things you state anyway as this from your own text says "Vaccine Damage Payments are not a compensation scheme. You can still take legal action to claim compensation, even if you get a Vaccine Damage Payment."

It's not a compensation claim so the things you want cannot be factored in.

And if they had a mortgage they should have life insurance to cover the repayments in the event of their death so are you saying they should have the house paid for twice? if so why?



originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You still haven't said how much you think it should be?


I can't tell you a specific figure.
That will depend on someone's circumstances.
For example it could a minimum of £120,000 plus an amount that depends on age, income, family members, lose of income, dependent family members such as children, any debt like or mortgage, and of course it has to factor the loss of life, so the family would not be going to the courts to seek justice.

It could add up to multiple times that or even millions of pounds.


Yes I know it's not a compensation claim but the state through its scheme can also have an additional function where a panel could decide how much one can gets in total. Apart from the minimum of £120,000 let's say.

I can base the payout in anything I want. Nobody restricts me.

Not everyone has a life insurance by the way. So personal circumstances must be factored with let's say a minimum of £120,000. In reality the payments should be much higher.



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

So who decides the outcome, a government based panel of some kind? you know that they will be pushing for as little as possible as with anything in the welfare sector.

You cant base the pay-out on the things you state anyway as this from your own text says "Vaccine Damage Payments are not a compensation scheme. You can still take legal action to claim compensation, even if you get a Vaccine Damage Payment."

It's not a compensation claim so the things you want cannot be factored in.

And if they had a mortgage they should have life insurance to cover the repayments in the event of their death so are you saying they should have the house paid for twice? if so why?



originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You still haven't said how much you think it should be?


I can't tell you a specific figure.
That will depend on someone's circumstances.
For example it could a minimum of £120,000 plus an amount that depends on age, income, family members, lose of income, dependent family members such as children, any debt like or mortgage, and of course it has to factor the loss of life, so the family would not be going to the courts to seek justice.

It could add up to multiple times that or even millions of pounds.


You seem particularly concerned with this topic.

I noted that you don't favour a higher payout from deaths caused by a vaccine. It's mind boggling.
Who sits on the panel is another story. But as long as there is minimum payout, let's say £120,000 with the possibility of getting a lot more, it's a much better deal than the one there is now in the UK.
edit on 3-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't see that a higher number would make any difference. If it saw £150,000 people would say that its not enough, £200,000? thats nothing for the loss of a life either is it?

If he'd got food poisoning and died he'd have got nothing, that happens quite a lot.



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't see that a higher number would make any difference. If it saw £150,000 people would say that its not enough, £200,000? thats nothing for the loss of a life either is it?

If he'd got food poisoning and died he'd have got nothing, that happens quite a lot.


A higher amount and payout makes a difference and especially if one has family and dependent members as well as other obligations. So £200,000 is much better than £120,000.

If people think that £200,000 isn't enough then it's because it reflects their idea that human life cannot worth only this amount.

I don't know what law or scheme covers food poisoning. But that's not what the topic discusses.

You still seem somehow bothered that compensation is given when someone has died as a result of a vaccine.


edit on 3-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Do you live in the UK?



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't see that a higher number would make any difference. If it saw £150,000 people would say that its not enough, £200,000? thats nothing for the loss of a life either is it?

If he'd got food poisoning and died he'd have got nothing, that happens quite a lot.


A higher amount and payout makes a difference and especially if one has family and dependent members as well as other obligations. So £200,000 is much better than £120,000.

If people think that £200,000 isn't enough then it's because it reflects their idea that human life cannot worth only this amount.

I don't know what law or scheme covers food poisoning. But that's not what the topic discusses.

You still seem somehow bothered that compensation is given when someone has died as a result of a vaccine.



You can't really consider in isolation from other deaths.

Should someone dying as a result of the vaccine be more or less than the payment for murder under the Criminal injuries scheme?

And if you are applying personal circumstances it involves arbitrty judgement about whose life is worth more. Is higher income more or less of a factor than having children etc. That isn't necessarily fairer.

I think most people agree the payment should be higher however its not as simple as saying they are under-valuing peoples life's. There is limit to the amount of money the government can spend, all these things have to be judged in a balanced way.



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Do you live in the UK?


I can't tell you where I live.
We keep our details secret on this site.

Don't you think the compensation should be let's say £1M due to loss of life.

In the US the compensation is much higher on average

National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

That link does not mention Covid 19 vaccines, are they included and if so where does it say that?

It also says that its compensation and has to go to court, 43 percent of claims are successful



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:02 AM
link   
www.bmj.com...

Patients and lawyers say that America’s system for covid vaccine injury claims is costly, opaque, and yet to issue a single payout. Maryanne Demasi reports



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

That link does not mention Covid 19 vaccines, are they included and if so where does it say that?

It also says that its compensation and has to go to court, 43 percent of claims are successful


Why would the Covid-19 be treated any differently?

The link is about the average awarded from all claims made for all vaccine damages. If you go to the bottom of the table it's: $456,113.95

At the time of publication covid vaccines didn't exist for public use. So the table is about all other vaccines.



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I'm not surprised the US system is clearly built to not pay out, it's the way they do things over there.

That's why I'm in favour of the no quibble flat payout system we have.

In the rare cases of vaccine related death or disablement you get the set amount and can still look to claim compensation if you choose to.


a reply to: Asmodeus3



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

That link does not mention Covid 19 vaccines, are they included and if so where does it say that?

It also says that its compensation and has to go to court, 43 percent of claims are successful


Why would the Covid-19 be treated any differently?

The link is about the average awarded from all claims made for all vaccine damages. If you go to the bottom of the table it's: $456,113.95

At the time of publication covid vaccines didn't exist for public use. So the table is about all other vaccines.


Your own second links (bmj) seems to say they are treated differently.



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
I'm not surprised the US system is clearly built to not pay out, it's the way they do things over there.

That's why I'm in favour of the no quibble flat payout system we have.

In the rare cases of vaccine related death or disablement you get the set amount and can still look to claim compensation if you choose to.


a reply to: Asmodeus3



Actually the payout is much larger as it seems for every type of vaccine. Around $456,113.95

From the same page

"Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity"



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
I'm not surprised the US system is clearly built to not pay out, it's the way they do things over there.

That's why I'm in favour of the no quibble flat payout system we have.

In the rare cases of vaccine related death or disablement you get the set amount and can still look to claim compensation if you choose to.


a reply to: Asmodeus3



In the UK and the US they can adopt a minimum payment such as the £120,000 (UK) and whatever amount in the US and then add according to circumstances of each individual. I find this much more fair



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:18 AM
link   


When the US secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency in early 20202 this triggered the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, meaning that any injuries arising from covid countermeasures—including ventilators, antivirals, and vaccines—would instead have to be filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).

Critics say that the CICP is inferior to the VICP in terms of its payouts and the way claims are assessed. Only the most serious injuries and death are compensated, claims have to be made within a year after vaccination, and it has a higher burden of proof than the VICP. Loss of income under the CICP is limited to $50 000 (£38 250; €45 900) a year, and no compensation is included for pain or emotional distress.


Unclear if this is still the case.



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Yes, the bmj article clearly says that COVID 19 vaccines are dealt with by an entirely different system to the first link provided.

So the first link and any figures quoted have nothing to do with any COVID 19 vaccine related death or disablement.


a reply to: ScepticScot



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
Yes, the bmj article clearly says that COVID 19 vaccines are dealt with by an entirely different system to the first link provided.

So the first link and any figures quoted have nothing to do with any COVID 19 vaccine related death or disablement.


a reply to: ScepticScot



That's how how I understand it, with the caveat that the link is from April so things may have changed.



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
Yes, the bmj article clearly says that COVID 19 vaccines are dealt with by an entirely different system to the first link provided.

So the first link and any figures quoted have nothing to do with any COVID 19 vaccine related death or disablement.


a reply to: ScepticScot



I don't see why you think this is irrelevant as I did put the two on purpose. Why should the vaccine injuries caused by Covid-19 vaccines should be treated any differently.

If anything it creates suspicion.
You see the point and comparison?
edit on 3-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Back tracking much?

You didn't put them both up on purpose you put the first one up thinking it applied to COVID vaccines.

Shoddy research there my good man.

There's no rush here, take your time and get it right rather than rushing it and making a total arse of yourself.

And if you do make a mistake then have the good grace to admit it, it improves your credibility if you are seen to be willing to admit your mistakes.


a reply to: Asmodeus3



posted on Oct, 3 2022 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
Yes, the bmj article clearly says that COVID 19 vaccines are dealt with by an entirely different system to the first link provided.

So the first link and any figures quoted have nothing to do with any COVID 19 vaccine related death or disablement.


a reply to: ScepticScot



The first link has to do with the majority of the vaccines. See the table in the link.

The question is why the Covid-19 vaccine should be treated differently?




top topics



 
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join