The number of claims for the UK’s vaccine injury scheme has risen as recipients allege they were left severely disabled by mRNA jabs.
The Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) is a one-off tax-free payment of £120,000 ($160,000) if someone is proved to have been severely disabled or have died as a result of vaccination from diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), swine flu, and more.
In December 2020, ministers agreed to add COVID-19 to the scheme, to demonstrate “government confidence in the safety profile” of any vaccine being used in the vaccination program.
According to a recent FOI (Freedom of Information) request, the number of COVID-related claims submitted to the VDPS is currently 920. If accepted, this would cost the Government more than £110 million ($146 million).
Claims relating to COVID-19 vaccines have not yet been medically assessed, therefore there have been no payments made to date, and no claims have been disallowed.
Last year, it was revealed that the number of claims for the UK’s vaccine injury scheme was set to increase. Claims are handled by the National Health Service Business Services Authority (NHSBSA), an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care.
In the UK, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines have been approved for use. All three have legal indemnity protecting companies from being sued for damages.
But claimants may find themselves facing significant red tape making a claim. The government’s high bar for acceptance requires that all eligible applicants in the UK must meet a strict 60 percent disablement criteria.
The law firm Hausfeld represents more than 40 families and individuals in England including those who have experienced a range of severe health conditions and death following the COVID-19 vaccination.
Partner Sarah Moore told the publication Payment Source that the scheme requires applicants to prove causation on the “balance of probabilities,” that is to show that it is more likely than not that the vaccination caused the injury reported.
Furthermore, the sum of £120,000 ($160,000) has been criticized as being far too little to provide proper financial support.
“Taking an extreme case, a child might suffer significant neurological damage—in a court case they might receive millions of pounds under the scheme they would receive £120,000, which—depending upon their needs might fail to afford the care that they need for a single year, let alone a lifetime of high dependency,” said Moore.