Thread by @VikiLovesFACS

"If #COVID19 #vaccines are so safe, why aren't the manufacturers accepting liability for any potential injuries?"

It's a fair question. And it's clearly bothering a lot of people, judging by my inbox.

But actually the answer differs depending on where you are... 🧵

Starting in the UK... 🇬🇧

In the mid-70s, ppl became concerned about the potential for long-term injuries associated with the whooping cough vaccine (although it turned out there was no problem). To bolster confidence, the govt passed the Vaccine Damage Payment Act in 1979. 2/

This makes a payment of (now) £120,000 to anyone who suffers permanent injury as a result of a govt-recommended vaccination. Following approval, COVID19 vaccines were added to the list of vaccines for which the govt accepts liability under the act. 3/

gov.uk/vaccine-damage…

So in the UK, someone will accept liability for anything that goes wrong with a COVID19 (or any recommended) vaccination... it's just the government 4/

In the USA... 🇺🇸

The situation is similar. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program began in 1988. This was in response to a situation in which several vaccine manufacturers were sued and, as a result, said they could no longer afford to produce vaccines for the USA. 5/

In order to secure continued vaccine production, the US government agreed to accept liability for injuries resulting from certain vaccines that the government recommends in childhood. 6/

hrsa.gov/vaccine-compen…

In the USA, unlike the UK, there is a separate compensation scheme to cover vaccines given in the context of a pandemic, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. 7/

hrsa.gov/cicp

Although the details and flavour are slightly different, the logic of the UK and US approaches are similar... the state asks vaccine manufacturers to make lots of vaccines and sell them to us cheaply... 8/

If the manufacturers also have to bear the costs of court cases and payouts in the case of injury, they can't afford to do that and simply won't. So the government accepts the liability.

But this isn't the case everywhere... 9/

So for example in the EU... 🇪🇺

Some countries have a compensation scheme, but not all of them do. To secure COVID19 vaccines, the EU negotiated as a bloc, and since they did not all have such schemes, they couldn't accept liability. 10/

The EU negotiated different deals with different manufacturers, but broadly, they asked vaccine manufacturers to accept liability if they were selling the vaccines for profit, but were willing to take on more liability themselves when they were getting vaccines at cost. 10/

Here is an article that discusses this, in the context of the EU vaccine supply negotiations... 11/

politico.eu/article/europe…

So... why don't the vaccine manufacturers accept liability for injuries?

Well... in some countries they do (the EU).

But in other countries (UK, USA) there is a long-established precedent that the state accepts liability for vaccines is asks its citizens to accept... 12/

... and this precedent was followed for the new COVID19 vaccines.

It's not that they're not safe. Or that the manufacturers refuse to accept liability. It's just that the government accepts the liability, as they have done for the past 40-odd years. 13/13