Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

originally posted by: nonspecific
Where was it claimed no one has died from a covid 19 vaccine?

I don't think anyone is thinking or saying that regardless of the opinion they hold on the matter.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

It is claimed quite often online. Earlier in this thread someone was arguing that he doesn't know anyone who has been injured or died from the Covid vaccines and he doesn't know anyone else who knows anyone who has been injured or died from the vaccines.

Implying indirectly that there are no injuries or deaths from the vaccines. In a few words it's another way to say it even if you avoid to make a bold statement.

As I said earlier in the thread, He did not say that you misunderstood or chose to take it in a way that was clearly not intended.

If you need to resort to that level of tactics it might be time to reassess your ability to put forward a valid argument.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
Where was it claimed no one has died from a covid 19 vaccine?

I don't think anyone is thinking or saying that regardless of the opinion they hold on the matter.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

It is claimed quite often online. Earlier in this thread someone was arguing that he doesn't know anyone who has been injured or died from the Covid vaccines and he doesn't know anyone else who knows anyone who has been injured or died from the vaccines.

Implying indirectly that there are no injuries or deaths from the vaccines. In a few words it's another way to say it even if you avoid to make a bold statement.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What I find perplexing is that the payout seems to be the same for everyone.

£120,000 for a death caused by a vaccine is far too low and it doesn't even reflect on the fact that an otherwise healthy 48 year old had probably many more years to live and contribute in taxes and national insurance and his earnings could be well above £120,000 if we assume that men in the UK retire normally around the age of 65-66
.

Furthermore there is no price anyone can put in a human life.

Yes, it's the same for everyone because it's based on culpability, not on the earning potential of the individual.

In the UK the life of a pauper is considered equal to the life of a billionaire businessman in dollar terms. So they both get the same payout.

This is a tax free payout, and so in real terms it's worth about £200,000. Which is 8 years average salary in the UK.

As I said in another thread the person was only 48 years old and healthy. We would expect him to live much longer and usually men retire by the age of 65-66. So he had another 17-18 years of earnings and contributions and even with ab average salary he would have made much more than the compensation awarded to his partner.

However it isn't only the earnings but mostly the loss of human life which is priceless and the loss suffered by his close relatives and friends. Imagine one has a partner/wife/husband and children fir example and looses his/her life because of a vaccine.

So no I don't think most us agree with the compensation awarded to his partner.

Even if ultimately you can still take your case to the court, no family or partner has to go through this in my view.

As I said before under UK law all lives are considered equal. So it wouldn't matter if he was a bum or a billionaire. The payout is based on the culpability, not on a person's material wealth.

As I also said, this is around 8 year's salary after tax for your average person in the UK which is more than enough to allow an average family to get back on their feet.

Most of the world considers the multi-million dollar payout in the US to be ridiculous, especially in the cases of accidental deaths where there is no real culpability to be found.

It's very likely he would have lived more than 8 years and contributed up to the age of retirement. So 8 years earnings after tax isn't fair. And he could have had higher then average earnings.

The last paragraph of yours is an assertion and not really true.

The UKs highest paid CEO earned almost 10,000 times the national average.

Should they get 10,000 times bigger payment?

That's more of a strawman argument.
Never claimed anything like it or using an outlier to argue.

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said earlier in the thread, He did not say that you misunderstood or chose to take it in a way that was clearly not intended.

If you need to resort to that level of tactics it might be time to reassess your ability to put forward a valid argument.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
Where was it claimed no one has died from a covid 19 vaccine?

I don't think anyone is thinking or saying that regardless of the opinion they hold on the matter.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

It is claimed quite often online. Earlier in this thread someone was arguing that he doesn't know anyone who has been injured or died from the Covid vaccines and he doesn't know anyone else who knows anyone who has been injured or died from the vaccines.

Implying indirectly that there are no injuries or deaths from the vaccines. In a few words it's another way to say it even if you avoid to make a bold statement.

My arguments are valid and I explain myself quite well. I am not quite sure if this message is intended for me though.

There are several false claims made in various threads. From trying to present COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu or arguing that back in 1918 it would have killed as many people as the Spanish Flu, arguments about its Infection Fatality Rate, arguments about injuries and harms from vaccines and arguments about how vaccines are rolled out to the population.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

In case you want to make good comparisons my thread explains it well

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What I find perplexing is that the payout seems to be the same for everyone.

£120,000 for a death caused by a vaccine is far too low and it doesn't even reflect on the fact that an otherwise healthy 48 year old had probably many more years to live and contribute in taxes and national insurance and his earnings could be well above £120,000 if we assume that men in the UK retire normally around the age of 65-66
.

Furthermore there is no price anyone can put in a human life.

Yes, it's the same for everyone because it's based on culpability, not on the earning potential of the individual.

In the UK the life of a pauper is considered equal to the life of a billionaire businessman in dollar terms. So they both get the same payout.

This is a tax free payout, and so in real terms it's worth about £200,000. Which is 8 years average salary in the UK.

As I said in another thread the person was only 48 years old and healthy. We would expect him to live much longer and usually men retire by the age of 65-66. So he had another 17-18 years of earnings and contributions and even with ab average salary he would have made much more than the compensation awarded to his partner.

However it isn't only the earnings but mostly the loss of human life which is priceless and the loss suffered by his close relatives and friends. Imagine one has a partner/wife/husband and children fir example and looses his/her life because of a vaccine.

So no I don't think most us agree with the compensation awarded to his partner.

Even if ultimately you can still take your case to the court, no family or partner has to go through this in my view.

As I said before under UK law all lives are considered equal. So it wouldn't matter if he was a bum or a billionaire. The payout is based on the culpability, not on a person's material wealth.

As I also said, this is around 8 year's salary after tax for your average person in the UK which is more than enough to allow an average family to get back on their feet.

Most of the world considers the multi-million dollar payout in the US to be ridiculous, especially in the cases of accidental deaths where there is no real culpability to be found.

It's very likely he would have lived more than 8 years and contributed up to the age of retirement. So 8 years earnings after tax isn't fair. And he could have had higher then average earnings.

The last paragraph of yours is an assertion and not really true.

The UKs highest paid CEO earned almost 10,000 times the national average.

Should they get 10,000 times bigger payment?

That's more of a strawman argument.
Never claimed anything like it or using an outlier to argue.

It was a question based on you saying the payment didn't reflect his earnings.(it's not meant to)

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What I find perplexing is that the payout seems to be the same for everyone.

£120,000 for a death caused by a vaccine is far too low and it doesn't even reflect on the fact that an otherwise healthy 48 year old had probably many more years to live and contribute in taxes and national insurance and his earnings could be well above £120,000 if we assume that men in the UK retire normally around the age of 65-66
.

Furthermore there is no price anyone can put in a human life.

Yes, it's the same for everyone because it's based on culpability, not on the earning potential of the individual.

In the UK the life of a pauper is considered equal to the life of a billionaire businessman in dollar terms. So they both get the same payout.

This is a tax free payout, and so in real terms it's worth about £200,000. Which is 8 years average salary in the UK.

As I said in another thread the person was only 48 years old and healthy. We would expect him to live much longer and usually men retire by the age of 65-66. So he had another 17-18 years of earnings and contributions and even with ab average salary he would have made much more than the compensation awarded to his partner.

However it isn't only the earnings but mostly the loss of human life which is priceless and the loss suffered by his close relatives and friends. Imagine one has a partner/wife/husband and children fir example and looses his/her life because of a vaccine.

So no I don't think most us agree with the compensation awarded to his partner.

Even if ultimately you can still take your case to the court, no family or partner has to go through this in my view.

As I said before under UK law all lives are considered equal. So it wouldn't matter if he was a bum or a billionaire. The payout is based on the culpability, not on a person's material wealth.

As I also said, this is around 8 year's salary after tax for your average person in the UK which is more than enough to allow an average family to get back on their feet.

Most of the world considers the multi-million dollar payout in the US to be ridiculous, especially in the cases of accidental deaths where there is no real culpability to be found.

It's very likely he would have lived more than 8 years and contributed up to the age of retirement. So 8 years earnings after tax isn't fair. And he could have had higher then average earnings.

The last paragraph of yours is an assertion and not really true.

The UKs highest paid CEO earned almost 10,000 times the national average.

Should they get 10,000 times bigger payment?

That's more of a strawman argument.
Never claimed anything like it or using an outlier to argue.

It was a question based on you saying the payment didn't reflect his earnings.(it's not meant to)

I don't see why not?! And it should also reflect the age of the individual. The younger you are the more likely you would survive for many more years and earn more.

Any payments should be made on the basis of many factors including age and earnings as well as other family members who might rely on you such as children, wife, husband, and relatives. In addition much more to be awarded in relation to the loss of human life and what the relatives have to go through mentally and psychologically.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
Where was it claimed no one has died from a covid 19 vaccine?

I don't think anyone is thinking or saying that regardless of the opinion they hold on the matter.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

It is claimed quite often online. Earlier in this thread someone was arguing that he doesn't know anyone who has been injured or died from the Covid vaccines and he doesn't know anyone else who knows anyone who has been injured or died from the vaccines.

Implying indirectly that there are no injuries or deaths from the vaccines. In a few words it's another way to say it even if you avoid to make a bold statement.

Yup, I honestly don’t know anyone who has died from smoking cigarettes.

Smoke em if ya got em.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So what price do you put on a life then?

If the figure is too low then what value do you put on a life?

My stepson was killed by a dangerous driver a few years ago when he was just 19 years old.

She was found guilty and criminally charged and punished. the compensation payout to his mother as next of kin was no where near the payout for a vaccine death.

What number do you think makes up for the loss of a living human being?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What I find perplexing is that the payout seems to be the same for everyone.

£120,000 for a death caused by a vaccine is far too low and it doesn't even reflect on the fact that an otherwise healthy 48 year old had probably many more years to live and contribute in taxes and national insurance and his earnings could be well above £120,000 if we assume that men in the UK retire normally around the age of 65-66
.

Furthermore there is no price anyone can put in a human life.

Yes, it's the same for everyone because it's based on culpability, not on the earning potential of the individual.

In the UK the life of a pauper is considered equal to the life of a billionaire businessman in dollar terms. So they both get the same payout.

This is a tax free payout, and so in real terms it's worth about £200,000. Which is 8 years average salary in the UK.

As I said in another thread the person was only 48 years old and healthy. We would expect him to live much longer and usually men retire by the age of 65-66. So he had another 17-18 years of earnings and contributions and even with ab average salary he would have made much more than the compensation awarded to his partner.

However it isn't only the earnings but mostly the loss of human life which is priceless and the loss suffered by his close relatives and friends. Imagine one has a partner/wife/husband and children fir example and looses his/her life because of a vaccine.

So no I don't think most us agree with the compensation awarded to his partner.

Even if ultimately you can still take your case to the court, no family or partner has to go through this in my view.

As I said before under UK law all lives are considered equal. So it wouldn't matter if he was a bum or a billionaire. The payout is based on the culpability, not on a person's material wealth.

As I also said, this is around 8 year's salary after tax for your average person in the UK which is more than enough to allow an average family to get back on their feet.

Most of the world considers the multi-million dollar payout in the US to be ridiculous, especially in the cases of accidental deaths where there is no real culpability to be found.

It's very likely he would have lived more than 8 years and contributed up to the age of retirement. So 8 years earnings after tax isn't fair. And he could have had higher then average earnings.

The last paragraph of yours is an assertion and not really true.

The UKs highest paid CEO earned almost 10,000 times the national average.

Should they get 10,000 times bigger payment?

That's more of a strawman argument.
Never claimed anything like it or using an outlier to argue.

It was a question based on you saying the payment didn't reflect his earnings.(it's not meant to)

I don't see why not?! And it should also reflect the age of the individual. The younger you are the more likely you would survive for many more years and earn more.

Any payments should be made on the basis of many factors including age and earnings as well as other family members who might rely on you such as children, wife, husband, and relatives. In addition much more to be awarded shout the loss of human life and what the relatives have to go through.

Which means applying a whole host of quite arbitrary rules which is far from guaranteed to give a fairer outcome.

Is a 40 year old investment banker with no kids worth more or less than a 30 year old postman with 3 kids?

Courts might decide that, I am not sure a civil servant should.

To be honest its not even really an issue given that so few people in the UK have or will die as a result of the vaccination.

If a rich person does die they will have insurance and investments anyway so will leave more than a poor person so it will balance out anyway.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What I find perplexing is that the payout seems to be the same for everyone.

£120,000 for a death caused by a vaccine is far too low and it doesn't even reflect on the fact that an otherwise healthy 48 year old had probably many more years to live and contribute in taxes and national insurance and his earnings could be well above £120,000 if we assume that men in the UK retire normally around the age of 65-66
.

Furthermore there is no price anyone can put in a human life.

Yes, it's the same for everyone because it's based on culpability, not on the earning potential of the individual.

In the UK the life of a pauper is considered equal to the life of a billionaire businessman in dollar terms. So they both get the same payout.

This is a tax free payout, and so in real terms it's worth about £200,000. Which is 8 years average salary in the UK.

As I said in another thread the person was only 48 years old and healthy. We would expect him to live much longer and usually men retire by the age of 65-66. So he had another 17-18 years of earnings and contributions and even with ab average salary he would have made much more than the compensation awarded to his partner.

However it isn't only the earnings but mostly the loss of human life which is priceless and the loss suffered by his close relatives and friends. Imagine one has a partner/wife/husband and children fir example and looses his/her life because of a vaccine.

So no I don't think most us agree with the compensation awarded to his partner.

Even if ultimately you can still take your case to the court, no family or partner has to go through this in my view.

As I said before under UK law all lives are considered equal. So it wouldn't matter if he was a bum or a billionaire. The payout is based on the culpability, not on a person's material wealth.

As I also said, this is around 8 year's salary after tax for your average person in the UK which is more than enough to allow an average family to get back on their feet.

Most of the world considers the multi-million dollar payout in the US to be ridiculous, especially in the cases of accidental deaths where there is no real culpability to be found.

It's very likely he would have lived more than 8 years and contributed up to the age of retirement. So 8 years earnings after tax isn't fair. And he could have had higher then average earnings.

The last paragraph of yours is an assertion and not really true.

The UKs highest paid CEO earned almost 10,000 times the national average.

Should they get 10,000 times bigger payment?

That's more of a strawman argument.
Never claimed anything like it or using an outlier to argue.

It was a question based on you saying the payment didn't reflect his earnings.(it's not meant to)

I don't see why not?! And it should also reflect the age of the individual. The younger you are the more likely you would survive for many more years and earn more.

Any payments should be made on the basis of many factors including age and earnings as well as other family members who might rely on you such as children, wife, husband, and relatives. In addition much more to be awarded shout the loss of human life and what the relatives have to go through.

Which means applying a whole host of quite arbitrary rules which is far from guaranteed to give a fairer outcome.

Is a 40 year old investment banker with no kids worth more or less than a 30 year old postman with 3 kids?

Courts might decide that, I am not sure a civil servant should.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So what price do you put on a life then?

If the figure is too low then what value do you put on a life?

My stepson was killed by a dangerous driver a few years ago when he was just 19 years old.

She was found guilty and criminally charged and punished. the compensation payout to his mother as next of kin was no where near the payout for a vaccine death.

What number do you think makes up for the loss of a living human being?

I can't tell you a specific figure for the loss of life due to the vaccine. However the compensation scheme should have been more flexible and take into account all factors before awarding a compensation. I suppose a committee maybe responsible for such recommendations to the state and another committee will decide.

However £120,000 is a very low amount for a vaccine death. Others could claim it has to be millions of pounds.

Well it's not.

It's most likely not going to change at any point either but your disapproval is noted.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So what price do you put on a life then?

If the figure is too low then what value do you put on a life?

My stepson was killed by a dangerous driver a few years ago when he was just 19 years old.

She was found guilty and criminally charged and punished. the compensation payout to his mother as next of kin was no where near the payout for a vaccine death.

What number do you think makes up for the loss of a living human being?

I can't tell you a specific figure for the loss of life due to the vaccine. However the compensation scheme should have been more flexible and take into account all factors before awarding a compensation. I suppose a committee maybe responsible for such recommendations to the state and another committee will decide.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What I find perplexing is that the payout seems to be the same for everyone.

£120,000 for a death caused by a vaccine is far too low and it doesn't even reflect on the fact that an otherwise healthy 48 year old had probably many more years to live and contribute in taxes and national insurance and his earnings could be well above £120,000 if we assume that men in the UK retire normally around the age of 65-66
.

Furthermore there is no price anyone can put in a human life.

Yes, it's the same for everyone because it's based on culpability, not on the earning potential of the individual.

In the UK the life of a pauper is considered equal to the life of a billionaire businessman in dollar terms. So they both get the same payout.

This is a tax free payout, and so in real terms it's worth about £200,000. Which is 8 years average salary in the UK.

As I said in another thread the person was only 48 years old and healthy. We would expect him to live much longer and usually men retire by the age of 65-66. So he had another 17-18 years of earnings and contributions and even with ab average salary he would have made much more than the compensation awarded to his partner.

However it isn't only the earnings but mostly the loss of human life which is priceless and the loss suffered by his close relatives and friends. Imagine one has a partner/wife/husband and children fir example and looses his/her life because of a vaccine.

So no I don't think most us agree with the compensation awarded to his partner.

Even if ultimately you can still take your case to the court, no family or partner has to go through this in my view.

As I said before under UK law all lives are considered equal. So it wouldn't matter if he was a bum or a billionaire. The payout is based on the culpability, not on a person's material wealth.

As I also said, this is around 8 year's salary after tax for your average person in the UK which is more than enough to allow an average family to get back on their feet.

Most of the world considers the multi-million dollar payout in the US to be ridiculous, especially in the cases of accidental deaths where there is no real culpability to be found.

It's very likely he would have lived more than 8 years and contributed up to the age of retirement. So 8 years earnings after tax isn't fair. And he could have had higher then average earnings.

The last paragraph of yours is an assertion and not really true.

The UKs highest paid CEO earned almost 10,000 times the national average.

Should they get 10,000 times bigger payment?

That's more of a strawman argument.
Never claimed anything like it or using an outlier to argue.

It was a question based on you saying the payment didn't reflect his earnings.(it's not meant to)

I don't see why not?! And it should also reflect the age of the individual. The younger you are the more likely you would survive for many more years and earn more.

Any payments should be made on the basis of many factors including age and earnings as well as other family members who might rely on you such as children, wife, husband, and relatives. In addition much more to be awarded shout the loss of human life and what the relatives have to go through.

Which means applying a whole host of quite arbitrary rules which is far from guaranteed to give a fairer outcome.

Is a 40 year old investment banker with no kids worth more or less than a 30 year old postman with 3 kids?

Courts might decide that, I am not sure a civil servant should.

As I said many times all factors have to be taken into account. Given that the vast majority of people are not investment bankers (another outlier) the rest are on average salaries. Family members, profession, debts, age, and probably others should be taken into consideration.

£120,000 is low though.

a reply to: nonspecific

True but the scheme covers more than covid vaccines and serious injuries as well as death.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Well it's not.

It's most likely not going to change at any point either but your disapproval is noted.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So what price do you put on a life then?

If the figure is too low then what value do you put on a life?

My stepson was killed by a dangerous driver a few years ago when he was just 19 years old.

She was found guilty and criminally charged and punished. the compensation payout to his mother as next of kin was no where near the payout for a vaccine death.

What number do you think makes up for the loss of a living human being?

I can't tell you a specific figure for the loss of life due to the vaccine. However the compensation scheme should have been more flexible and take into account all factors before awarding a compensation. I suppose a committee maybe responsible for such recommendations to the state and another committee will decide.

Well, most will disagree with you.
Of course it is

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What I find perplexing is that the payout seems to be the same for everyone.

£120,000 for a death caused by a vaccine is far too low and it doesn't even reflect on the fact that an otherwise healthy 48 year old had probably many more years to live and contribute in taxes and national insurance and his earnings could be well above £120,000 if we assume that men in the UK retire normally around the age of 65-66
.

Furthermore there is no price anyone can put in a human life.

Yes, it's the same for everyone because it's based on culpability, not on the earning potential of the individual.

In the UK the life of a pauper is considered equal to the life of a billionaire businessman in dollar terms. So they both get the same payout.

This is a tax free payout, and so in real terms it's worth about £200,000. Which is 8 years average salary in the UK.

As I said in another thread the person was only 48 years old and healthy. We would expect him to live much longer and usually men retire by the age of 65-66. So he had another 17-18 years of earnings and contributions and even with ab average salary he would have made much more than the compensation awarded to his partner.

However it isn't only the earnings but mostly the loss of human life which is priceless and the loss suffered by his close relatives and friends. Imagine one has a partner/wife/husband and children fir example and looses his/her life because of a vaccine.

So no I don't think most us agree with the compensation awarded to his partner.

Even if ultimately you can still take your case to the court, no family or partner has to go through this in my view.

As I said before under UK law all lives are considered equal. So it wouldn't matter if he was a bum or a billionaire. The payout is based on the culpability, not on a person's material wealth.

As I also said, this is around 8 year's salary after tax for your average person in the UK which is more than enough to allow an average family to get back on their feet.

Most of the world considers the multi-million dollar payout in the US to be ridiculous, especially in the cases of accidental deaths where there is no real culpability to be found.

It's very likely he would have lived more than 8 years and contributed up to the age of retirement. So 8 years earnings after tax isn't fair. And he could have had higher then average earnings.

The last paragraph of yours is an assertion and not really true.

The UKs highest paid CEO earned almost 10,000 times the national average.

Should they get 10,000 times bigger payment?

That's more of a strawman argument.
Never claimed anything like it or using an outlier to argue.

It was a question based on you saying the payment didn't reflect his earnings.(it's not meant to)

I don't see why not?! And it should also reflect the age of the individual. The younger you are the more likely you would survive for many more years and earn more.

Any payments should be made on the basis of many factors including age and earnings as well as other family members who might rely on you such as children, wife, husband, and relatives. In addition much more to be awarded shout the loss of human life and what the relatives have to go through.

Which means applying a whole host of quite arbitrary rules which is far from guaranteed to give a fairer outcome.

Is a 40 year old investment banker with no kids worth more or less than a 30 year old postman with 3 kids?

Courts might decide that, I am not sure a civil servant should.

As I said many times all factors have to be taken into account. Given that the vast majority of people are not investment bankers (another outlier) the rest are on average salaries. Family members, profession, debts, age, and probably others should be taken into consideration.

£120,000 is low though.

I agree it should be higher.

But it's not meant to be compensation or insurance.

Disagree that its not enough or that it wont change?

Would you feel better if it was £250,000?



a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What I find perplexing is that the payout seems to be the same for everyone.

£120,000 for a death caused by a vaccine is far too low and it doesn't even reflect on the fact that an otherwise healthy 48 year old had probably many more years to live and contribute in taxes and national insurance and his earnings could be well above £120,000 if we assume that men in the UK retire normally around the age of 65-66
.

Furthermore there is no price anyone can put in a human life.

Yes, it's the same for everyone because it's based on culpability, not on the earning potential of the individual.

In the UK the life of a pauper is considered equal to the life of a billionaire businessman in dollar terms. So they both get the same payout.

This is a tax free payout, and so in real terms it's worth about £200,000. Which is 8 years average salary in the UK.

As I said in another thread the person was only 48 years old and healthy. We would expect him to live much longer and usually men retire by the age of 65-66. So he had another 17-18 years of earnings and contributions and even with ab average salary he would have made much more than the compensation awarded to his partner.

However it isn't only the earnings but mostly the loss of human life which is priceless and the loss suffered by his close relatives and friends. Imagine one has a partner/wife/husband and children fir example and looses his/her life because of a vaccine.

So no I don't think most us agree with the compensation awarded to his partner.

Even if ultimately you can still take your case to the court, no family or partner has to go through this in my view.

As I said before under UK law all lives are considered equal. So it wouldn't matter if he was a bum or a billionaire. The payout is based on the culpability, not on a person's material wealth.

As I also said, this is around 8 year's salary after tax for your average person in the UK which is more than enough to allow an average family to get back on their feet.

Most of the world considers the multi-million dollar payout in the US to be ridiculous, especially in the cases of accidental deaths where there is no real culpability to be found.

It's very likely he would have lived more than 8 years and contributed up to the age of retirement. So 8 years earnings after tax isn't fair. And he could have had higher then average earnings.

The last paragraph of yours is an assertion and not really true.

The UKs highest paid CEO earned almost 10,000 times the national average.

Should they get 10,000 times bigger payment?

That's more of a strawman argument.
Never claimed anything like it or using an outlier to argue.

It was a question based on you saying the payment didn't reflect his earnings.(it's not meant to)

I don't see why not?! And it should also reflect the age of the individual. The younger you are the more likely you would survive for many more years and earn more.

Any payments should be made on the basis of many factors including age and earnings as well as other family members who might rely on you such as children, wife, husband, and relatives. In addition much more to be awarded shout the loss of human life and what the relatives have to go through.

Which means applying a whole host of quite arbitrary rules which is far from guaranteed to give a fairer outcome.

Is a 40 year old investment banker with no kids worth more or less than a 30 year old postman with 3 kids?

Courts might decide that, I am not sure a civil servant should.

As I said many times all factors have to be taken into account. Given that the vast majority of people are not investment bankers (another outlier) the rest are on average salaries. Family members, profession, debts, age, and probably others should be taken into consideration.

£120,000 is low though.

I agree it should be higher.

But it's not meant to be compensation or insurance.

The bottom line is that the manufacturer should be responsible for their product.

That should have been arranged and set up before the sale was made and if the manufacturer wasn’t confident that their product was safe, even under the emergency use authorization, then they shouldn’t have released it.

It’s brilliant how they seem to always get away with the peasants paying for big corporation’s mistakes. The government doesn’t have money to pay, they use taxes which is our money.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What I find perplexing is that the payout seems to be the same for everyone.

£120,000 for a death caused by a vaccine is far too low and it doesn't even reflect on the fact that an otherwise healthy 48 year old had probably many more years to live and contribute in taxes and national insurance and his earnings could be well above £120,000 if we assume that men in the UK retire normally around the age of 65-66
.

Furthermore there is no price anyone can put in a human life.

Yes, it's the same for everyone because it's based on culpability, not on the earning potential of the individual.

In the UK the life of a pauper is considered equal to the life of a billionaire businessman in dollar terms. So they both get the same payout.

This is a tax free payout, and so in real terms it's worth about £200,000. Which is 8 years average salary in the UK.

As I said in another thread the person was only 48 years old and healthy. We would expect him to live much longer and usually men retire by the age of 65-66. So he had another 17-18 years of earnings and contributions and even with ab average salary he would have made much more than the compensation awarded to his partner.

However it isn't only the earnings but mostly the loss of human life which is priceless and the loss suffered by his close relatives and friends. Imagine one has a partner/wife/husband and children fir example and looses his/her life because of a vaccine.

So no I don't think most us agree with the compensation awarded to his partner.

Even if ultimately you can still take your case to the court, no family or partner has to go through this in my view.

As I said before under UK law all lives are considered equal. So it wouldn't matter if he was a bum or a billionaire. The payout is based on the culpability, not on a person's material wealth.

As I also said, this is around 8 year's salary after tax for your average person in the UK which is more than enough to allow an average family to get back on their feet.

Most of the world considers the multi-million dollar payout in the US to be ridiculous, especially in the cases of accidental deaths where there is no real culpability to be found.

It's very likely he would have lived more than 8 years and contributed up to the age of retirement. So 8 years earnings after tax isn't fair. And he could have had higher then average earnings.

The last paragraph of yours is an assertion and not really true.

The UKs highest paid CEO earned almost 10,000 times the national average.

Should they get 10,000 times bigger payment?

That's more of a strawman argument.
Never claimed anything like it or using an outlier to argue.

It was a question based on you saying the payment didn't reflect his earnings.(it's not meant to)

I don't see why not?! And it should also reflect the age of the individual. The younger you are the more likely you would survive for many more years and earn more.

Any payments should be made on the basis of many factors including age and earnings as well as other family members who might rely on you such as children, wife, husband, and relatives. In addition much more to be awarded shout the loss of human life and what the relatives have to go through.

Which means applying a whole host of quite arbitrary rules which is far from guaranteed to give a fairer outcome.

Is a 40 year old investment banker with no kids worth more or less than a 30 year old postman with 3 kids?

Courts might decide that, I am not sure a civil servant should.

As I said many times all factors have to be taken into account. Given that the vast majority of people are not investment bankers (another outlier) the rest are on average salaries. Family members, profession, debts, age, and probably others should be taken into consideration.

£120,000 is low though.

I agree it should be higher.

But it's not meant to be compensation or insurance.

The bottom line is that the manufacturer should be responsible for their product.

That should have been arranged and set up before the sale was made and if the manufacturer wasn’t confident that their product was safe, even under the emergency use authorization, then they shouldn’t have released it.

It’s brilliant how they seem to always get away with the peasants paying for big corporation’s mistakes. The government doesn’t have money to pay, they use taxes which is our money.

Define safe.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Disagree that its not enough or that it wont change?

Would you feel better if it was £250,000?



a reply to: Asmodeus3

Most here will disagree that the vaccine damage payment for a person who has died due to the vaccine is enough when it's set at £120,000

Whether it will change or not I don't know and I haven't posed such question.

I could argue it should be millions of pounds as the vaccine maybe unnecessary for a large number of people who may have been forced to take the vaccine or coerced and pressured in this specific case. You know, no jab no work, no jab no school, and other 'strange' decisions.

I am sure in a court of law one can be awarded millions for the loss of life and psychological damages that the rest of their family have to suffer and the long term consequences of the absence of their beloved person.