While there are difficulties in determining actual harm in individual cases, statistical ones are possible, such as excess deaths after mass vaccination (which notably did not happen). The excess deaths not directly attributed to COVID started at the same time as the pandemic. I have read around it, and discovered that a lot of people were buried almost certainly because of COVID, but there were simply not enough tests available.
The CDC has identified 9 deaths from the J&J vaccine (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html ), contrasted with literally hundreds of thousands who would almost certainly be dead without vaccination, based on the death rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
In the UK, some - fixed £120,000 with a stipulation of not less than 60% disability. None for sudden death if attributable to vaccination. What's the score in the US?
There is a fund, and I believe an arbitrator assigned. Now, on the other side, what should one do with someone who knows that they have active COVID, and goes out in crowded areas without a mask? We have rather a lot who have done so, intentionally.
If the "loss of income" figure was based on the complete population median income then the rich people would be a lot more careful about taking risks and the poorer people would score a little fairer compensation for the loss. We are not just talking about a minor malfunction of an automatic Teller Machine, the bread winner in the household (or even a stay at home caregiver) provide a LOT MORE than just some cash.
I think this discussion should get reframed much more aggressively whenever we discuss it. I believe that every person that voted in favour, wrote or uttered a pro-vaccine or pro-mandate statement that is shown to have caused harm after such harms were possible to predict (December 2020 in this case) must pay from their own personal fortune to full amount for every instance. If they cannot pay they have to be taxed at 90% until they have paid. ALL ASSETS, TRUSTS, BEQUESTS to be seized as compensation.
The issue here is that the harmful practices were rolled out in such large measure that the responsible parties are so numerous that the controlling interests are expecting to slip through the gaps and let the useful idiots carry any penalty.
After WWII numerous German scientists were pardoned in exchange for their technical cooperation, that is not a very good goal here and I would much rather Pfizer and WHO were to be dissolved and assets seized, all share trading stopped rather than see the medical community used to perpetrate yet another scam on the population.
Perhaps a little extreme - we need to consider how may lives saved vs how many harmed.
But it is disturbing how authoritarian the authorities became! I assume the pharma companies would have been more circumspect if they hadn't been granted immunity.
Agree your point in 1st para about non-money aspects of loss.
While there are difficulties in determining actual harm in individual cases, statistical ones are possible, such as excess deaths after mass vaccination (which notably did not happen). The excess deaths not directly attributed to COVID started at the same time as the pandemic. I have read around it, and discovered that a lot of people were buried almost certainly because of COVID, but there were simply not enough tests available.
The CDC has identified 9 deaths from the J&J vaccine (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html ), contrasted with literally hundreds of thousands who would almost certainly be dead without vaccination, based on the death rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
I'm not arguing for no vaccination at all, but for full compensation for those whom it harms. If only 9 as claimed, that's easily affordable.
And those have been compensated. There is a fund for this purpose.
In the UK, some - fixed £120,000 with a stipulation of not less than 60% disability. None for sudden death if attributable to vaccination. What's the score in the US?
There is a fund, and I believe an arbitrator assigned. Now, on the other side, what should one do with someone who knows that they have active COVID, and goes out in crowded areas without a mask? We have rather a lot who have done so, intentionally.
Separate issue. They dealt with Typhoid Mary, didn't they?
If the "loss of income" figure was based on the complete population median income then the rich people would be a lot more careful about taking risks and the poorer people would score a little fairer compensation for the loss. We are not just talking about a minor malfunction of an automatic Teller Machine, the bread winner in the household (or even a stay at home caregiver) provide a LOT MORE than just some cash.
I think this discussion should get reframed much more aggressively whenever we discuss it. I believe that every person that voted in favour, wrote or uttered a pro-vaccine or pro-mandate statement that is shown to have caused harm after such harms were possible to predict (December 2020 in this case) must pay from their own personal fortune to full amount for every instance. If they cannot pay they have to be taxed at 90% until they have paid. ALL ASSETS, TRUSTS, BEQUESTS to be seized as compensation.
The issue here is that the harmful practices were rolled out in such large measure that the responsible parties are so numerous that the controlling interests are expecting to slip through the gaps and let the useful idiots carry any penalty.
After WWII numerous German scientists were pardoned in exchange for their technical cooperation, that is not a very good goal here and I would much rather Pfizer and WHO were to be dissolved and assets seized, all share trading stopped rather than see the medical community used to perpetrate yet another scam on the population.
Perhaps a little extreme - we need to consider how may lives saved vs how many harmed.
But it is disturbing how authoritarian the authorities became! I assume the pharma companies would have been more circumspect if they hadn't been granted immunity.
Agree your point in 1st para about non-money aspects of loss.