As Mary Ward reports in today’s Sun-Herald, patients and academics have expressed concerns about the management of the COVID-19 Vaccine Claim Scheme, which will end on September 30.
- Advertisement -
The scheme existed to provide compensation to people who experienced incredibly rare, but also incredibly debilitating and devastating, reactions to a COVID-19 vaccine.
The Sun-Herald has previously reported on how people with reactions that left them unable to work and severely compromised their health waited months to receive the outcomes of claims, or had their claims rejected.
These rare reactions were overwhelmingly experienced in response to initial doses of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines, when the public was asked to act for the good of the community and come forward for vaccination, to allow businesses and society to safely reopen after lockdowns.
- Advertisement -
It was, as was often said, “unprecedented times”, and Australians placed their faith in the public health response and rolled up their sleeves for a great outcome.
For the group of people who experienced a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine, this decision has become a complex one. As the world reopened and people celebrated, they endured lengthy periods of disability, often unable to work. The Coverse patient group for people who experienced a vaccine injury is not anti-vaccination, but they do want their suffering acknowledged.
Loading
- Advertisement -
Vaccine experts say a robust compensation scheme is essential for maintaining public confidence in vaccination. Two of Australia’s finest, the University of Sydney’s Professor Julie Leask and Professor Nick Wood, say rather than shuttering the current scheme for COVID-19 vaccinations, a universal compensation scheme for adverse reactions caused by any kind of vaccination is in order.
But “caused” is the operative word, and there is disagreement about where limits on this should be imposed. It is possible Australia’s scheme, with a list of 11 adverse reactions eligible for compensation, is too narrow, but robust evidence should guide any public health policy.
The concern is that the federal government has been unwilling to review or reconsider its approach.
