Covid legal cases.

[490808]

I thought it might be worth having one thread for any legal cases resulting from covid legislation?

There are two currently in the news relating to covid the second I saw was

Judge says no free legal aid for those who breach Covid regulations

Not sure how I feel about that one the one hand I think great but the other I think everyone up before the courts should be dealt with in the same way?

Then there's Golf Gate.

Really hasn't that been dealt with yet? I tend to think that politicians have got away with a lot worse so why bother making a case of this. Maybe they should be made an example of but just two of them and the hotelieres? Nah if you went then you also have a case to answer so there should be far more up befpore a judge rather than a couple of scape goats.

[PureIsle]

Judge says no free legal aid for those who breach Covid regulations

I believe the judge was wrong.

[kadman]

I believe the judge was wrong.

Maybe he is making up his/her own rules.As in payments regarding the poor box contributions in court .

I dare say it will be challenged as its a means tested payment.

[Del.Monte]

Golfgate Court Case

What this all about?

Who is taking the case?

Why?

What is it going to cost the taxpayer?

Will anybody be held responsible and for what?

[marhay70]

Then there's Golf Gate.

Really hasn't that been dealt with yet? I tend to think that politicians have got away with a lot worse so why bother making a case of this. Maybe they should be made an example of but just two of them and the hotelieres? Nah if you went then you also have a case to answer so there should be far more up befpore a judge rather than a couple of scape goats.

I think the charges relate to organising the event rather than with attending it. Grealish and Cassidy were the Golf Society officers who organised the event and of course the hoteliers who provided the location.
What strikes me as unfair is that somebody must have organised the infamous party in the Dept. of Foreign affairs yet the Gardaí are not even going to investigate that. Inconsistency breeds discontent.
Whatever the merits it'll probably amount to nothing, just another example of Government wanting to be seen to do something.

[490808]

For anyone interested there is a Wikipedia page for Golfgate which includes the dates for the restrictions and the dinner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oireachta ... ty_scandal

... in response to an increase in confirmed cases, Taoiseach Micheál Martin announced on 18 August that more restrictive measures would be reintroduced across the country until 13 September, in an effort to limit the spread of the virus. Among the restrictions announced were a limit on indoor gatherings and events to six people from no more than three households, with exemptions granted for weddings, certain religious ceremonies and cultural facilities, provided appropriate protective measures could be maintained

The Oireachtas Golf Society scandal, also known informally as "Golfgate", was a political scandal in Ireland involving past and present members of that country's parliament, the Oireachtas, who attended a gathering of the Oireachtas Golf Society in Clifden, County Galway, on 19 August 2020.

So I think the timings here may become an issue here? Remember this was a 2 day event and I can't find out when it started. If for example it started on the 18th and the dinner was the culminating event of the meeting (which is often the case) on the 19th then all the planning was done and a lot of the attendees would have arrived before the rules were changed. That shouldn't make a difference under law but how can you plan to break the law by planning something that isn't against the law when you plan it?

However https://www.irishpost.com/news/what-is- ... ces-191602

Some of those present had been in the meeting with the National Public Health Emergency Team where the new restrictions had been suggested, and the Supreme Court Judge had helped sign the initial lockdown restrictions into law.

https://waterford-news.ie/2022/01/06/fo ... te-dinner/

All men face a single charge that on August 19th, 2020 they organised an event that contravened the Health Act 1947, as amended, to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of Covid-19.

[schmittel]

I think this is a total farce. We got our pound of flesh with the resignations and humiliation, and nothing is to be gained by hauling these guys before the courts. I'd be feeling very sore about the Merrion Hotel garden party getting off scot free if I was them.

[schmittel]

So the charges in the Golfgate fiasco have been dismissed: Golfgate trial: Charges against all four defendants dismissed by judge

“I’m satisfied the organisers did everything to comply - not in a court of public opinion - but in the court of law in my opinion."

I think the trial should never have been held, as I said above the court of public opinion had already delivered a verdict, and it should have been left at that.

The most serious fall out from golf gate was that we lost an Irish person in the position of EU Trade Commissioner. That is a pretty big deal.

All we have learned from the trial is that he was forced out because he attended a dinner that was fully compliant with the regulations.

I'd probably rather not have had that confirmed. And I'm pretty sure those who forced him out aren't feeling too clever this evening.

[490808]

So the charges in the Golfgate fiasco have been dismissed: Golfgate trial: Charges against all four defendants dismissed by judge



I think the trial should never have been held, as I said above the court of public opinion had already delivered a verdict, and it should have been left at that.

The most serious fall out from golf gate was that we lost an Irish person in the position of EU Trade Commissioner. That is a pretty big deal.

All we have learned from the trial is that he was forced out because he attended a dinner that was fully compliant with the regulations.

I'd probably rather not have had that confirmed. And I'm pretty sure those who forced him out aren't feeling too clever this evening.

I don't buy that the meeting was compliant in anyway shape or form.

Those regulations that they complied with seem to have been pulled out of someone's arse.

So under those regulations used as a get out of jail card at the trial you could have had a funeral, wedding etc of 100's of people provided everyone was bundled into a group of 50 or less and partitioned off from the other groups? Why has no one else used the groups of 50 or less to get around the regulations?

I can understand they were caught out by the regs starting in the middle of their meeting but at that stage they should have all gone home not carried on trying to find a way around the regulations.

I'm sure Boris is following this with interest looking for pointers.

[kadman]

Whether it was or wasn't compliant then, its been made compliant now

[schmittel]

I don't buy that the meeting was compliant in anyway shape or form.

Those regulations that they complied with seem to have been pulled out of someone's arse.

So under those regulations used as a get out of jail card at the trial you could have had a funeral, wedding etc of 100's of people provided everyone was bundled into a group of 50 or less and partitioned off from the other groups? Why has no one else used the groups of 50 or less to get around the regulations?

I can understand they were caught out by the regs starting in the middle of their meeting but at that stage they should have all gone home not carried on trying to find a way around the regulations.

I'm sure Boris is following this with interest looking for pointers.

I think you have a valid point, and public opinion has a right to feel aggrieved, but that is exactly why I think there was never anything to be gained by a trial. We got our pound of flesh already.

But having had a trial, the judge, an expert in such matters, has ruled that nobody did anything illegal.

And as we all know by now, we must "trust the experts".

[BadaBing]

Video clip online of some Irish woman lodging a criminal complaint at a Garda station over vaccine side effects.
Interesting to see what will unfold in the coming months.

[BadaBing]

Oh God, nothing more amusing/painful than watching the anti vaxxers wrestle with the law.

She goes to the Gardai about the side effects of medication she took? Does she understand basic concepts like criminal law and the role of the Gardai.

Yet again you miss the point.
Once people start to come forward with vaccine side effects those within the legal community who know what they are doing will smell blood and take up a case.
Only a matter of time before we see a real proper legal challenge, the crackpots may lead the charge but be certain serious players will be taking note and will enter when they are fully ready.

[schmittel]

Anyone who goes to the Gardai about the side effects of a vaccine falls fairly and squarely within the crackpot territory. S/he may as well have asked a traffic warden or a farmer on a tractor to take the case on. It's not the function of the Gardai. Maybe there will be cases about side effects, there are whole libraries written about the law of medical negligence...but they are civil cases.

There is undoubtedly no shortage of crackpots who have vaccine/5G/Bill Gates issues and I suspect the gardai will end up dealing with more than their fair share of these.

But there is equally undoubtedly no shortage of sane people who object to the idea of having been coerced into taking a vaccine that does not stop transmission.

There will be civil cases on this, and the solicitors and barristers will definitely smell blood.

[schmittel]

Oh there will be cases. But the bar in medical negligence is set very high and cases are notoriously expensive to maintain. So claims based on "coercion" won't cut much ice with the insurance companies, and it's not the basis of negligence anyway, which of course will go back to first principles of duty of care, breach of that duty, losses etc.

I’d agree it will all come down to principles of duty of care etc, but informed consent is very much in that ball park.

Key principal of the duty of care that all doctors and medical professionals must uphold is informed consent before they carry out any medical procedure. Part of that is explaining the risks/rewards of the procedure and satisfying themselves that a) the patient fully understands the risks and rewards and b) is not feeling coerced in anyway to proceed with the procedure.

If the doctor is not 100% sure of both of these they are not allowed to complete the procedure as to do so would mean they made a medical intervention without informed consent.

Now most will say that these sort of issues have been tried before with little success, there is a very high bar etc. and this is true, but largely because previous cases have been about the risks/reward/consent question was down to the individual doctor/patient relationship and that the bulk of the claims came down to either misunderstanding or not knowing a particular risk involved.

The covid vaccine question is very different.

If I was minded to take a case, which I’m not, I’d take one against government and HSe, and challenge informed consent on the basis of the coercion from the top down, everybody on message with the talk of herd immunity, the way out of the pandemic is vaccination, #ForUsAll, vaccine passports etc.

And I’d also challenge informed consent, not on risk as in previous cases, but on reward - when I got vaccinated the message was vaccine was 90%+ effective against symptomatic infection, it would help reduce transmission etc, they even gave me a #ForUsAll badge and asked me if I wanted to pose for a #ForUsAll selfie for social media.

Now the message is very different, it’s acknowledged that the vaccines do not prevent infection/transmission as much as originally thought, and the risk/reward is all about ICU/death.

It would not be difficult to drum up a ton of evidence for the above, take it to the court and say:

“Forget about the risks of vaccination, you obtained my informed consent by telling me that the rewards of vaccination were protection against symptomatic infection and reduction of transmission, neither of which were true. How can you claim to have obtained my informed consent if the information you gave me to inform myself was false?

This was information was also heavily endorsed and spread by the government, the minister, the media etc etc. Vaccine passports and travel restrictions, and promises of the end of lockdowns when enough people were vaccinated etc were a form of mass coercion.”

In order to win the case the HSE and government would have to argue that all of the above was nonsense. I don’t think that’s an argument they would be very keen to make, because it would turn into a giant game of whack a mole.

Sooner or later, somebody will take a case on the above grounds. It will be very interesting to watch.

[Frank]

Video clip online of some Irish woman lodging a criminal complaint at a Garda station over vaccine side effects.
Interesting to see what will unfold in the coming months.

Hopeflly, and most likely, she will get the €0 she deserves.

[schmittel]

Not allowed by what?

I've heard experts across all professions give guarded opinions -I think it's probably better to do this, on balance you should do that etc.

I haven't heard this 100% certain requirement, where are you getting it?

Of course they give opinions, it's part of the job in explaining the risks and rewards of the procedure.

I mean before they proceed they have to be 100% sure that the patient a) understands the risks and rewards and b) the patient has not been coerced in anyway

[Peregrinus]

They don't have to ensure that the patient "has not been coerced in any way", particularly if you are including public opinion, publicity campaigns, etc, as a form of coercion. The doctor is absolutely not required to satisfy himself that the patient has not been influenced by public opinion, etc.

Turn the situation around; if somebody have been fed a pack of lies by antivaxxers, and on the basis of those lies is "coerced" into choosing not to be vaccinated, can we reason that they have been coerced, and so their apparent choice not to be vaccinated is invalid, so we can strap them to the table and jab away? No, we can't.

The doctor's job is to inform the patient so that the patient is capable of making an informed choice. The patient may choose to disregard or downplay what the doctor says and instead attach more weight to information they have obtained elsewhere. Note that this could be information encouraging vaccination, or information discouraging it. Either way, that is the patient's right, and the doctor must respect the patient's choice.

Any civil action against medics who have vaccinated people with their consent, based on the claim that consent influenced by public opinion or public information campaigns has been "coerced" and is invalid will be shot down in flames - judgment for the defendant, with costs.

To be fair to Schnittel, he's not contemplating an action against a doctor who has administered a vaccine; he's talking about an action (a hypothetical action; he's not proposing to take this action himself) against the government for "coercing" someone into taking the vaccine through its campaigning on the subject.

Let's imagine that I take the vaccine, and I suffer ill effects, and there is medical evidence that these ill effects are definitely a consequence of taking the vaccine - i.e. they didn't merely happen after I took the vaccine, but because I took the vaccine. I sue the government for "coercing" me into taking the vaccine by giving me false information. As Schittel himself put it:

Forget about the risks of vaccination, you obtained my informed consent by telling me that the rewards of vaccination were protection against symptomatic infection and reduction of transmission, neither of which were true. How can you claim to have obtained my informed consent if the information you gave me to inform myself was false?

How does this action play out?

In the first place, I don't think we can "forget about the risks of vaccination". Unless I've suffered some kind of injury, I don't have a case. So I've got to have an injury which is a consequence of taking the vaccine; otherwise I fall at the first hurdle.

Secondly, the claim is that it was untrue to say that vaccination offered protection against symptomatic infection and reduction of transmission. But was it untrue? The publicity campaign happened before the omicron variant emerged. The claims may have been true in relation to the variants in circulation at the time they were made. There's substantial evidence that the vaccine was - and still is - considerably effective against earlier variants of the virus. (Indeed, the reason omicron is now the dominant variant may be precisely because the vaccine is effective against other, more lethal variants.)

Thirdly, even if the claims were untrue when made, you'd need to show that the government knew or should have known that they were untrue. The thing about a novel coronavirus is that it's, well, novel. We're learning stuff about it all the time. We can only act on the best information we have at the time. If the claims made were supported by the evidence available at the time, the government doesn't become retrospectively liable if later information changes the picture.

And, finally, the question raised is "how can you claim to have obtained my informed consent?" But the government doesn't need your informed consent; the medics who administer the treatment do. Even if it were true that a doctor had given you the vaccine without your informed consent, that wouldn't give you a cause of action against the government; only against the doctor. Yet what we are looking at here is suing the government. It's possible you could construct some kind of claim against the government based on something like fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, but that wouldn't be framed in terms of whether they had obtained your "informed consent" to anything.

[isha]

There will hopefully be plenty of legal cases. Here and around the world. Vaccine injury is just the start of it.

Loss of livelihood not only directly due to unjustifiable mandates but possibly due to unjustifiable lockdowns. There has been massive loss of small businesses globally. 20% of all small businesses in US closed permanently.

Late diagnoses of illness. Delayed treatments. Loss of life.

Elderly patients transferred to residential settings which caused spread of disease and many deaths early on. Particularly done in Ireland.

Arbitrary masking mandates that have impeded education, speech, general development eg late in the game with children, which has just been admitted was a coercive measure to encourage child vaccination and not an epidemiological measure.

Mental stress from not being able to attend family funerals, accompany loved ones as they died. Suicides. Just the massive impact of state over reach into people's lives that was never justifiable and that caused huge suffering - class actions hopefully.

But yeah, the injuries are astounding. Well out of sight of the ordinary media most people consume the properly recorded instances of mind-bogglingly dreadful injuries and deaths pile up. In numbers that would have had any other product withdrawn long ago. This is going to be huge.

Warnings have been given by many for a long time that there was massive recklessness re adverse events, that VAERS, EUDRA, MHRA yellow card databases etc were showing very worrying trends, at the very least worthy of being seriously considered as signal among noise - and it has all been largely ignored. That will change. I feel like I have been living in a different Universe that most people for a long time. The harms caused by all of this response have dwarfed the godforsaken germ we came to know as Covid.

[isha]

Yes, I say hopefully, because it may give future rulers pause before their 2 weeks to flatten the curve turns into firing people, freezing bank accounts and stopping people going into shops because they refuse to be coerced into participating in medical trials. So yep, hopefully.

[isha]

Time, Mountain. Give it time. It moves like a dopey lumbering beast, this whole sh1tshow of a pandemic, but in the end it all eventually comes out in the wash.

[schmittel]

They don't have to ensure that the patient "has not been coerced in any way", particularly if you are including public opinion, publicity campaigns, etc, as a form of coercion. The doctor is absolutely not required to satisfy himself that the patient has not been influenced by public opinion, etc.

Turn the situation around; if somebody have been fed a pack of lies by antivaxxers, and on the basis of those lies is "coerced" into choosing not to be vaccinated, can we reason that they have been coerced, and so their apparent choice not to be vaccinated is invalid, so we can strap them to the table and jab away? No, we can't.

The doctor's job is to inform the patient so that the patient is capable of making an informed choice. The patient may choose to disregard or downplay what the doctor says and instead attach more weight to information they have obtained elsewhere. Note that this could be information encouraging vaccination, or information discouraging it. Either way, that is the patient's right, and the doctor must respect the patient's choice.

Any civil action against medics who have vaccinated people with their consent, based on the claim that consent influenced by public opinion or public information campaigns has been "coerced" and is invalid will be shot down in flames - judgment for the defendant, with costs.

To be fair to Schnittel, he's not contemplating an action against a doctor who has administered a vaccine; he's talking about an action (a hypothetical action; he's not proposing to take this action himself) against the government for "coercing" someone into taking the vaccine through its campaigning on the subject.

Let's imagine that I take the vaccine, and I suffer ill effects, and there is medical evidence that these ill effects are definitely a consequence of taking the vaccine - i.e. they didn't merely happen after I took the vaccine, but because I took the vaccine. I sue the government for "coercing" me into taking the vaccine by giving me false information. As Schittel himself put it:

Forget about the risks of vaccination, you obtained my informed consent by telling me that the rewards of vaccination were protection against symptomatic infection and reduction of transmission, neither of which were true. How can you claim to have obtained my informed consent if the information you gave me to inform myself was false?

How does this action play out?

In the first place, I don't think we can "forget about the risks of vaccination". Unless I've suffered some kind of injury, I don't have a case. So I've got to have an injury which is a consequence of taking the vaccine; otherwise I fall at the first hurdle.

Secondly, the claim is that it was untrue to say that vaccination offered protection against symptomatic infection and reduction of transmission. But was it untrue? The publicity campaign happened before the omicron variant emerged. The claims may have been true in relation to the variants in circulation at the time they were made. There's substantial evidence that the vaccine was - and still is - considerably effective against earlier variants of the virus. (Indeed, the reason omicron is now the dominant variant may be precisely because the vaccine is effective against other, more lethal variants.)

Thirdly, even if the claims were untrue when made, you'd need to show that the government knew or should have known that they were untrue. The thing about a novel coronavirus is that it's, well, novel. We're learning stuff about it all the time. We can only act on the best information we have at the time. If the claims made were supported by the evidence available at the time, the government doesn't become retrospectively liable if later information changes the picture.

And, finally, the question raised is "how can you claim to have obtained my informed consent?" But the government doesn't need your informed consent; the medics who administer the treatment do. Even if it were true that a doctor had given you the vaccine without your informed consent, that wouldn't give you a cause of action against the government; only against the doctor. Yet what we are looking at here is suing the government. It's possible you could construct some kind of claim against the government based on something like fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, but that wouldn't be framed in terms of whether they had obtained your "informed consent" to anything.

There is unlikely to be any case against an individual vaccinator in a vaccination centre, but if somebody expressly sought the archive of their GP as recommended by HSE, then that maybe different. In any event I am talking about a case against the HSE/government rather than the specific person who obtained the informed consent - hence my point about covid vaccines being different because "previous cases have been about the risks/reward/consent question was down to the individual doctor/patient relationship"

The key question you ask here is "How does this action play out?"

Exactly. Do the HE/Government defend the claim that vaccination offered 90%+ protection against symptomatic infection and reduction of transmission?

And if so, how, against a backdrop of case numbers that rose in tandem with the vaccination rate and the CMO publicly saying he was disappointed with how effective the vaccines were in preventing transmission. This was in October, long before Omicron became a thing.

If these sort of statements can be found with a quick google you can be sure that there are stacks of memos, internal correspondence and minutes documenting exactly what how disappointed they were with things like the highest case rates occurring in places that had the highest vaccination rates. All this stuff will be available in discovery.

If they decide they can't defend the effectiveness and herd immunity claims, how does it play out? Do they go down this road as suggested:

Thirdly, even if the claims were untrue when made, you'd need to show that the government knew or should have known that they were untrue. The thing about a novel coronavirus is that it's, well, novel. We're learning stuff about it all the time. We can only act on the best information we have at the time. If the claims made were supported by the evidence available at the time, the government doesn't become retrospectively liable if later information changes the picture.

DO you really need to prove the government knew the claims were untrue? We have consumer protection rights to protect us against snake oil vendors who claim some wonderful benefits of the product they sell. If somebody sells defective/not fit for purpose goods, they cannot rely on a defence of ignorance.

Are the HSE really going to try and claim that the administering of medicines should enjoy a lower bar of protection than consumer goods? It's difficult to imagine how they can credibly argue this without undermining confidence in the entire system.

It's pretty simple, in explaining the risk/reward case in order to obtain informed consent for the vaccine the HSE overstated the rewards. it does not matter why the information that the informed consent was based on was flawed, the fact that is was flawed is enough to demonstrate that the consent was not informed.

In order to defend this the HSE will either have to prove that the information was not flawed, which seems like a big ask.

Or failing that they have to argue that it is legitimate to obtain informed consent using flawed information. That also seems like a big ask.

On top of that they have to argue that is legitimate to "encourage" this granting of informed consent using flawed information by placing restrictions on those people who do not grant the consent. That also seems like a big ask.

How would this play out?

Either the HSE think the above is the ramblings of tinfoil hatters and defend it robustly irrespective of what other problems their defence will cause.

Or they think it may be better not to shine too big a spotlight on who knew what when about vaccine effectiveness etc and settle.

I am a tinfoil hatter so my money is on them settling!

[Peregrinus]

But, Schittel, you still haven't explained exactly what your claim against the government is. If I tell you something that turns out to be untrue, that does not in itself give you a cause of action against me. This is true even if I am the government. You need some addtional facts in order to have any kind of a claim against me. You mention consumer protection rights as an analogy, but the analogy doesn't work. If I tell you X in order to get you to give me money, and you give me money in reliance on what I have said, then you can complain if what I said turns out to be untrue. But you haven't given the government any money in reliance on their statements about the efficacy of the vaccine.

If the government urges you to stop smoking, suggesting that it will lessen the chances of you getting lung cancer, and you stop, but you get lung cancer anyway, can you sue the government?

On a separate point, you say:

"In order to defend this the HSE will either have to prove that the information was not flawed, which seems like a big ask.

Or failing that they have to argue that it is legitimate to obtain informed consent using flawed information. That also seems like a big ask."

I think this is wrong on both counts. If you're suing the HSE on the basis that they gave you flawed information, the onus is not on the HSE to prove that it was not flawed; the burden of proof is on you to show that the information was flawed.

And, as to whether it's legitimate to obtain informed consent using flawed information — it depends on what we mean by "flawed". If by "flawed" we mean "it could be wrong", well, all scientific understandings could be wrong. That's fundamental to the concept of "scientific". If we mean that it was wrong (something you have to show, remember) then, if you have shown that, you have a number of other hurdles to cross. You have to show that it was wrong in a material way, for one thing. As to whether it is "legitimate" to rely on it, again that is going to come back to whether the HSE could or should reasonably have known that it was wrong. And, again, the burden of proof will be on you.

I think if you're contemplating an action of this kind, you have to start by looking at exactly what the HSE said to you - not what you remember, or what was said in the papers, or the general vibe at the time, but what you can verifiably trace to the HSE. And you have to look at the totality of what the HSE said; you won't win by just picking one statement in isolation and pretending the HSE said nothing else to you.

Step 2 is to establish that it was wrong. You're going to need expert medical evidence on this. Bear in mind that the HSE will have their own expert medical evidence, so yours will need to be fairly persuasive.

Step 3 is to establish that the HSE knew or should have known that it was wrong — again, this will be a battle of the experts. Or, alternative step 3, you're going to have to construct an argument that says it doesn't matter even if the HSE couldn't reasonably be expected to have known that it was wrong; that they must be taken to unconditionally guarantee that the information they give you cannot be falsified by subsequent knowledge. Which, I have to tell you, is a novel legal principle. I think you'd be fighting an uphill battle on this one.

And finally step 4 will be to establish injury. if your injury is that you accepted an injection that you wouldn't otherwise have accepted, but you've had no adverse consequences, you risk falling at this last hurdle - the court finds that you have suffered a legal wrong, but that it's a negligible one that attracts only token damages, and no award of costs (or possibly an award of costs against you). Different matter if you have a serious reaction to the vaccine and, e.g., develop pericarditis. In fact, perhaps step 0, before even step 1 above, is to find someone who was injured by the vaccine and have them, rather than yourself, as the plaintiff in this action.

[BadaBing]

If you listen carefully you can hear the herd coming in the distance.
… you could get a one-off tax-free payment of £120,000
https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment

The Vaccine Damage Scheme Team works on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care to process claims for a one-off payment to people who have suffered a severe disablement due to direct affects from a qualifying vaccination.
https://www.jobs.nhs.uk/xi/vacancy/917036734

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -reactions

[Peregrinus]

You think there's a herd of people who have been severely disabled as a result of being vaccinated against Covid-19?