Too technical for me; but, "indemnification" is a bit of a worry. Sort of says that there could be problems with vaccines, which would not be surprising given the haste involved. I think vaccination is great. But there are some people who are worried about what else, apart from the obvious protection against the China virus, could be in the jabs, such as nasties for tracking people.

No! If you have vaccination issues? You can take your case to Covid-19 and ask it to give you a miss! Or for compensation if it kills or harms you or your loved ones! Me? I'll be at the head of the vaccination queue!
Alan B.

The Commonwealth is going to indemnify vaccine suppliers?

Goodness gracious!

I assume that means that if I receive the proposed AstraZeneca vaccine and it has an adverse health impact on me for example it causes permanent blindness or blood cancer I will not be able to hold anyone responsible.

Goodness gracious!

And the Commonwealth cannot tell us if there are any adverse health impacts.

Goodness gracious!

Hmmm . . . . . . . . . . I'm going have to think twice about getting the vaccine if that is the case.

Funding it from general revenue is more equitable and shouldn't adversely affect public confidence.

Aidan,

None of us here think it is coming out of Soot Morrison's pocket.

The issue under discussion is whether or not the vaccine suppliers should be indemnified against any adverse health impacts on those being inoculated.

Why would the Commonwealth want to indemnify the vaccine suppliers? I think the politicians need to answer that question.

I don't think a politician should be able to get off the hook by being able to point the finger at a vaccine supplier who is indemnified by the Commonwealth against liability for their product causing adverse health impacts on people who have been inoculated.

A comprehensive and timely article! And yes, as in so many areas of health and economics, we definitely do need to re-balance the risk of adverse effects faced by both manufacturers and consumers. It is clearly wrong that the consumer bears all the risk while the manufacturers are completely indemnified ... and at our cost! The US model appears to be a good one, but I can't see our current government being the slightest bit interested. They'd sooner demonise and ostracise informed people who seek to minimise their vaccination exposure.
And BTW, ttbn, the virus in question is called Covid-19. It is not 'the China virus'. By your own admission, a clearly-written article like this is 'too technical' for you. And so it seems, you're still having trouble in other areas of comprehension ... and in practising common decency!

Obviously both the government & the vaccine manufacturers know damn well that there has been way too short a time for adequate testing, or for any nasty side effects to be found.

Equally the manufacturers would not release their unproven vaccines with out the indemnification, it is too risky for any business model to do so.

Without a vaccine we have to either, let the virus rip & kill a lot of people, or continue with lock downs, destroy the economy, & destroy the lives of probably a whole lot more people, or use Hydroxychloroquine. Faced with an obvious catastrophe either way the government is gambling that the vaccine will do more good than harm.

Do be sure to drop us a line, if you survive Alan, it will help with the evaluation.

Mr 0,
>None of us here think it is coming out of Soot Morrison's pocket.
Correct. ScoMo isn't Australia. Equating government money with his pocket is tantamount to accusing him of corruption!

>The issue under discussion is whether or not the vaccine suppliers should be
>indemnified against any adverse health impacts on those being inoculated.
That's half the issue. The other half is how it should be funded if the first half is answered in the affirmative. John wants a user levy; I consider that to be stupid! Considering the public health benefits, I don't think the users should bear any of the cost.

We are told it is safe Why the need for an indemnity policy They really must think we are all stupid. This is a live virus It has been rushed through and allowed to circumvent normal scientific rigour It is an absolute disgrace that this is being foisted on people They have no idea of its efficacy and its long term impact on people at all Not only that but the origin of the non ethical vaccines are hideous They have used cell lines from babies who were aborted and don't believe the lie that it is a far distant link To create the cell line requires the baby's heart to be still beating for optimum chance of the cell line to be viable No good will come from these unethical vaccines Worst of all there has been a deliberate stifling of all other doctor views that have suggested there are other viable treatments for Covid and there is no need for this world wide experimental gamble being carried out Look to see who gains? Big Pharma and Big Tech and antidemocratic governance.

I heard a rumor that in the vaccine rollout to frontline workers overseas 14 health workers died after receiving the vaccine shot.

Well, I guess that justifies having to indemnify the vaccine suppliers.

I'm sure we have all heard by now of reports coming through that small numbers of people overseas have died after receiving the vaccine.

Soot Morrison has just spoken to Norway's PM re about 14 people dying from the jab of Pfizer.

Apparently there's nothing to worry about because these people were old and sick and were only expected to live for another couple weeks anyway.

WAIT A MINUTE!

If they only had a couple of weeks to live then why were they given the vaccine when the vaccine has to been given twice at a one month interval to be effective?

That means they would be dead before the second jab was ready.

Oh, I get it! The second jab was to bring them back to life.