Can't be said often enough. The indemnity offered to Pfizer over the vaccine does NOT mean it is unsafe. It has been a part of UK law since 2012.

A small change was made this year to widen the pool of those who qualify for indemnity, but the principle is long standing.

(1/?)

All vaccines carry very small risks. From minor allergic reactions to more serious health complications. Pfizer's has been tested like any other.

But it's hard to say to a company: "make millions of this product, which we'll give to everyone, but you're taking all the liability"

Indemnifying companies is a way to ensure the product you need gets to market in an emergency. But again. Pfizer is not unique. This has been the case for years.

What the Govt has done is add the vaccine to something called the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme.

Again. Normal.

The VDPS has existed since 1989. It includes vaccines we all take, like measles and smallpox. Adding COVID vaccines to that list is a recognition of the reality that rare health complications are possible.

It does not mean this vaccine is any more unsafe than others.

Now there are probs with the VDPS. It entitles people to £120,000 compensation. But the threshold for getting that is high. And there are those who say £120,000 is less than you could get through the courts.

But these concerns are universal & not unique to Pfizer.

There is an argument to be had about whether pharma companies, who stand to profit from the distribution of vaccines, could also contribute a bit more to the compensation of those who develop rare complications.

But these are not arguments against taking the Pfizer vaccine.

So to conclude: all vaccines have risks. It is prudent to foresee those and have adult conversations about compensation for the unfortunate few. That is responsible Government.

It is not a reason to consider these vaccines any more unsafe than the ones you've already had.

Adding this important distinction to the thread. https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1336346880402448385?s=20