This is not about being anti-vax – it’s about being honest that all medicines have risks

There’s no question that what happened to Jamie Scott is an utter tragedy.

He had a great career, two boys and a loving wife. And when his invitation came for the COVID jab he seized the chance to protect his elderly relatives and do his bit to bring the pandemic to an end.

But that was the day that his life was up-ended, suffering what his lawyers say was a catastrophic reaction to the AstraZeneca vaccine.

He has been unable to work since, and probably never will. His wife Kate has given up her job to be his carer.

The Scotts argue that had he been in a car accident the insurers would have settled on a sum that reflected his likely career earnings and the amount of care he needed.

But he has been given just £120,000 from the government’s vaccine damage payment scheme. That’s the maximum payout.

It is a paltry sum when you are 44 – as he was at the time – with no other source of income and decades of life ahead of you.

And to even get that amount of money he had to show that he was at least 60% damaged as a result of vaccination.

People who are assessed as having 59% damage don’t qualify.

Mr Scott can’t sue the government. That’s why he is taking action against AstraZeneca under the Consumer Protection Act, claiming a “defect” in the vaccine caused his injuries and he hadn’t been adequately informed of a risk.

The pharmaceutical company strongly denies that and argues it alerted people to rare clotting risks when they became clear.

A spokesperson said in a statement: “From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.”

It’ll be the High Court that weighs up the legal arguments in the months to come.

The Scotts say they wouldn’t have to litigate if the government Vaccine Damage Payment scheme was fit for purpose.

Vaccination hinges on a social contract. We roll up our sleeves to protect the whole population, not just ourselves.

Jamie and Kate Scott argue that if there are then life-changing side effects, there should be proper compensation.

Otherwise, they argue, come the next pandemic with the emergency rollout of another vaccine, people may not be so willing to come forward.

That’s not anti-vax.

It’s about being honest that all medicines have risks. And if the worst should happen when people have done the right thing, they will be helped.

The Department of Health and Social Care said it doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation or specific cases.

It said the AstraZeneca vaccine has not been used in the UK since the start of the booster programme in the autumn of 2021 because alternative mRNA vaccines were shown to be more effective.