Boris Johnson agreed with some Tory MPs who thought Covid was "nature's way of dealing with old people"

[denso13]

Still £120,000 a life is not a lot given the money that's been hosed all over the place and the taxpayer picks up the tab.
One of the victims who received £120000 has now to rebuild her life with the £120000. That should cover it.

Nothing to do with manufacturer's liability.

 

[gant]

Your not going to give any ground, you've bought into it hook line and sinker.
No discussion to be had.

 

[JohnD]

That alone shows AZ were not confident in what they produced and how quickly they delivered it.

Blup

No it doesn't.

 

[denso13]

Your not going to give any ground

Not on hearsay and nonsense, no.

 

[blup]

No it merely meant there was massive commercial risk in producing a low cost vaccine that was going to be rolled out to millions. It didn’t make good business sense.

It’s actually been pretty disastrous for AZ despite the vaccine being hugely successful.

Indemnity against loss of profit or legal action or both?

Blup

 

[blup]

No it doesn't.

Indemnity against loss of profit or legal action or both?

Blup

 

[blup]

The government needed a reason for Brexit.

Fair enough if that was correct but we could have produced AZ even when we were within the EU. Another self serving BJ /brexxer lie, perhaps.

Blup

 

[denso13]

Indemnity against loss of profit or legal action or both?

Any civil liability for any loss or damage resulting from the use of the product. But this isn't a "cover all", it isn't complete immunity.

 

[motorbiking]

Indemnity against loss of profit or legal action or both?

Blup

As part of the agreement to supply the vaccine, the UK government indemnified AZ (and others) against claims for damages caused by the vaccine. In effect they insured them against the risk. The cover is unlimited. It does not mean they cannot be sued, but that the government has underwritten the liability. The terms of the agreement are not public. it was this "cover" that held up the EU deal with the manufacturers who were not willing to supply without it.

Any Pharma company would have been nuts to launch a low margin product which would have been given to so many people without such cover. However, those suing for damages are doing so under Consumer Protection Act 1987, basically because a negligence claim would likely fail. I'm not sure how far they will get, but it's certainly an interesting angle. They have to prove the product was defective.

 

[blup]

As part of the agreement to supply the vaccine, the UK government indemnified AZ (and others) against claims for damages caused by the vaccine. In effect they insured them against the risk. The cover is unlimited. It does not mean they cannot be sued, but that the government has underwritten the liability. The terms of the agreement are not public. it was this "cover" that held up the EU deal with the manufacturers who were not willing to supply without it.

Any Pharma company would have been nuts to launch a low margin product which would have been given to so many people without such cover. However, those suing for damages are doing so under Consumer Protection Act 1987, basically because a negligence claim would likely fail. I'm not sure how far they will get, but it's certainly an interesting angle. They have to prove the product was defective.

So indemnity means writing a blank check for their lawyers lol

Blup

 

[blup]

Any civil liability for any loss or damage resulting from the use of the product. But this isn't a "cover all", it isn't complete immunity.

Unlimited cover according to biker, sounds like it amounts to the same thing in practice

Blup

 

[denso13]

Unlimited cover according to biker

For some things, but not everything. There is a difference.

 

[motorbiking]

Care to give some examples? I’m not sure I’m following you.

 

[denso13]

Care to give some examples? I’m not sure I’m following you.

You've already alluded to it I think. I know it's the consultation document but it explains things quite well.

Extent of the protection​

Regulation 345 does not provide complete immunity from civil liability. As Directive 2001/83 requires, regulation 345(4) preserves the application of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA). This means that if a product does not meet the standards set by the Part 1 of the CPA, manufacturers and marketing authorisation holders are not protected from legal action. A product is defective, for the purposes of the CPA, “…if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect…”, taking all the circumstances into account.

Consultation document: changes to Human Medicine Regulations to support the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines

www.gov.uk

 

[motorbiking]

Indeed. And that is the chink the claimants are going after. It is an incredibly high bar to prove.