Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

Vaccinnation wasn't mandated in the UK except for health and social care workers (and even then I don't think was ever applied).

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

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.

Anyone who has searched a little on the issue of smoking.... Was it the tobacco companies that had a huge PR machine back in the good old days and were affecting public perception by claiming through sponsoring press releases and scientists that smoking isn't really causing anything and those who get lung cancer get it from other factors.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

Vaccinnation wasn't mandated in the UK except for health and social care workers (and even then I don't think was ever applied).

It was mandated only for specific types of workers but later abandoned. Although many were pressured and coerced into taking them. If your employer has a no jab no work policy then you are left with very few choices. But as we all know there is something really wrong with the whole response to COVID-19 from whichever angle you look at it.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

This alone is proof that the UK government isn't covering up deaths, and that it is fully admitting that the vax does kill people. Which debunks most of the conspiracies on this site off the bat.

Do you think it's okay for governments to force a deadly vaccine on their people?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

Vaccinnation wasn't mandated in the UK except for health and social care workers (and even then I don't think was ever applied).

It was mandated only for specific types of workers but later abandoned. Although many were pressured and coerced into taking them. If your employer has a no jab no work policy then you are left with very few choices. But as we all know there is something really wrong with the whole response to COVID-19 from whichever angle you look at it.

Again wasn't really a thing in the UK.

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

This alone is proof that the UK government isn't covering up deaths, and that it is fully admitting that the vax does kill people. Which debunks most of the conspiracies on this site off the bat.

Do you think it's okay for governments to force a deadly vaccine on their people?

Define deadly and wasn't forced in the UK.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

This alone is proof that the UK government isn't covering up deaths, and that it is fully admitting that the vax does kill people. Which debunks most of the conspiracies on this site off the bat.

Do you think it's okay for governments to force a deadly vaccine on their people?

Define deadly and wasn't forced in the UK.

The poster I replied to said the vaccine is deadly. I asked that poster if it's okay to force a deadly vaccine.

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

This alone is proof that the UK government isn't covering up deaths, and that it is fully admitting that the vax does kill people. Which debunks most of the conspiracies on this site off the bat.

Do you think it's okay for governments to force a deadly vaccine on their people?

Define deadly and wasn't forced in the UK.

The poster I replied to said the vaccine is deadly. I asked that poster if it's okay to force a deadly vaccine.

Pencilion and its derivatives kill people.


Do you describe antibiotics as deadly?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

I could go with what Mr Oxford says but in my own words I’d say it’s a condition that does the least harm or threat to life and limb derived at through risk / benefit and hazard assessments.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

I could go with what Mr Oxford says but in my own words I’d say it’s a condition that does the least harm or threat to life and limb derived at through risk / benefit and hazard assessments.

Sounds good to me.

By that measure the vaccines are very safe

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

Vaccinnation wasn't mandated in the UK except for health and social care workers (and even then I don't think was ever applied).

It was mandated only for specific types of workers but later abandoned. Although many were pressured and coerced into taking them. If your employer has a no jab no work policy then you are left with very few choices. But as we all know there is something really wrong with the whole response to COVID-19 from whichever angle you look at it.

Again wasn't really a thing in the UK.

Actually it was for a very important part of the workforce, the healthcare workers.

www.theguardian.com... javid


"Mandatory Covid jabs for health and social care workers in England will be scrapped on 15 March 2022, Sajid Javid has said, as he confirmed staff will no longer be required by law to get vaccinated.

The rules came into force for care home staff in November, and had been due to be introduced for frontline NHS and wider social care staff in regulated settings from 1 April."


Many others were coerced, pressured, or even forced to get vaccinated in other professions even if it wasn't mandated by law.


Compound this with the fact that the IFR for COVID-19 is 0.15% and the average age of death from Covid is 80.3 together with the unknown medium and long term affects of the vaccine and you see how terrible was the idea of mass and mandatory vaccinations.

www.ons.gov.uk...

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Already discussed above it wasnt mandated except for health and social care workers and even then I think was repealled before fully implemented.

The IFR was higher than .15% in the UK and no the mass vaccination program wasn't a terrible idea.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Already discussed above it wasnt mandated except for health and social care workers and even then I think was repealled before fully implemented.

The IFR was higher than .15% in the UK and no the mass vaccination program wasn't a terrible idea.

Of course it was a terrible idea.

The IFR is measured at a global level and not at a local one. Even if you are able to make estimations at a local level still you will find a very low number which doesn't justify any of the measures taken.

The mandates had an effect though. Many healthcare workers lost their job. It was in effect between November 2021and March 2022. Others were coerced, forced and pressured into taking the vaccines even if they were not mandated.

Do you have any evidence of a much higher IFR in the UK?

Mass vaccinations without knowing short, medium, and long term effects, are terrible ideas. Especially when all risk groups are regarded as one. There is no justification from a medical viewpoint to vaccinate young and healthy people with something you don't know what effects has.

But they did rely on the fact that a lot of ordinary people were scared and panicked as well as being scientifically illiterate to make informed decisions.

This is a temporary stop gap to shut people up, but its a joke.

I'm guessing the coming economic collapse and war will erase these problems but people will keep dropping like flies afterwards. Gotta get in sync with those blown up Georgia guide stones.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

I could go with what Mr Oxford says but in my own words I’d say it’s a condition that does the least harm or threat to life and limb derived at through risk / benefit and hazard assessments.

www.hhs.gov...

From the site above

Before a vaccine is ever recommended for use, it’s tested in labs. This process can take several years. FDA uses the information from these tests to decide whether to test the vaccine with people.

During a clinical trial, a vaccine is tested on people who volunteer to get vaccinated. Clinical trials usually start with 20 to 100 volunteers, but eventually include thousands of volunteers. These tests can take several years and answer important questions like:

Is the vaccine safe?
What dose (amount) works best?
How does the immune system react to it?



Emphasis given to 'several years' taken in order to get to the right conclusions.

In our case we had mass vaccinations between the beginning of 2021 and now. You understand what the problem is I believe and the 'safety' concept has been massively violated.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
This is a temporary stop gap to shut people up, but its a joke.

I'm guessing the coming economic collapse and war will erase these problems but people will keep dropping like flies afterwards. Gotta get in sync with those blown up Georgia guide stones.

As one of the top cardiologists said a few days ago:

"What we are dealing now is perhaps one of the greatest miscarriages of medical science we have witnessed in a lifetime"

Referring to the vaccines and the mass vaccinations program. If you have watched the video he and others have asked the vaccination program to stop immediately at a global level and an international enquiry on the matter.

But I was thinking of creating another thread for this as there is plenty of material. I believe I have found his publications.

Some of the replies in this thread are absolutely abhorrent... 120k is literally nothing for a human life and it's appalling that some here are trying to defend such a low number... I DO NOT CARE WHERE YOU LIVE OR WHAT YOUR LINK SAYS OR WHAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION IS OR YOUR REASONINGS... It's gross....

I wish this site had a voice chat so i hear how some of you sound as you spew this revolting trash...

originally posted by: tacoman101
Some of the replies in this thread are absolutely abhorrent... 120k is literally nothing for a human life and it's appalling that some here are trying to defend such a low number... I DO NOT CARE WHERE YOU LIVE OR WHAT YOUR LINK SAYS OR WHAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION IS OR YOUR REASONINGS... It's gross....

I wish this site had a voice chat so i hear how some of you sound as you spew this revolting trash...

I agree very strongly that's why I created this thread.

Those who defend it are in most cases proponents of the vaccine ideology and proponents of the lockdown ideology. Put them together and you have followers of the Covid-19 ideology.

It reminds me of those who defend the claims made that a man is a man because he feels like it and woman is whoever identifies as a woman. All these claims such as the ones made in the name of vaccines, are not grounded in science and common sense. They are driven politically and ideologically.

World Council For Health & Dr. Aseem Malhotra: All mRNA Vaccines Need To Be Immediately Suspended

rumble.com...

This is a very interesting presentation.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
World Council For Health & Dr. Aseem Malhotra: All mRNA Vaccines Need To Be Immediately Suspended

rumble.com...

This is a very interesting presentation.

I am about to make a very good thread on this.
See his video on YouTube here

youtu.be...