The existence of risk is inherent in all aspects of life, including vaccination. Nevertheless, the available evidence suggests that the benefits of vaccination with recommended vaccines in the UK significantly outweigh the potential for severe side effects.

The benefits of Covid-19 vaccines have been extensively documented, with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine credited with saving approximately 6.3 million lives worldwide in its first year of use, surpassing the 5.9 million lives saved by the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

While Covid-19 vaccines have had a profoundly positive impact, it is also essential to acknowledge the experiences of individuals who have suffered adverse effects, including those affected by the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Around 50 families who have been impacted by rare blood clots are pursuing a group legal action under the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that the vaccine did not meet the expected safety standards.

These families include individuals who have experienced severe physical harm, are unable to work, and those who have lost loved ones due to vaccine-related injuries.

Although these cases represent a small fraction of the total number of vaccinated individuals, the impact on the affected families is significant, and they feel that their concerns have been overlooked.

One such family is that of Jane and Ian Wrigley from Buckinghamshire, who have been significantly affected by the vaccine.

Prior to receiving the vaccine, Jane, 62, was an active individual who enjoyed running, skiing, and climbing; however, she is now severely weakened on her left side and struggles to walk.

Two weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in March 2021, Jane was hospitalized due to blood clots in her brain, which required emergency surgery to remove a portion of her skull; her medical records confirm that the vaccine was the cause of these clots.

Ian now serves as Jane's full-time caregiver, and Jane has expressed that she has lost her independence, having previously been an active and independent individual.

The cases of individuals like Jane, who have experienced severe side effects from the vaccine, raise concerns about the support system in place for those who have suffered harm as a result of Covid-19 vaccination.

In 2021, nearly 25 million adults in the UK received the first dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, with the majority also receiving a second dose.

The Covid-19 vaccine program is estimated to have prevented over 250,000 hospital admissions and more than 120,000 deaths in the UK by September 2021.

Typically, vaccine side effects are mild and short-term, such as arm soreness, fever, and fatigue.

However, in rare instances where severe adverse effects occur, individuals have the right to expect support, which is a fundamental aspect of the social contract between individuals and the state.

The Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) was established in 1979 to address concerns about vaccine safety, particularly regarding the whooping cough vaccine.

The government-backed VDPS provides a one-time payment of £120,000 to individuals who have suffered at least 60% disability as a result of vaccination, as determined by the balance of probability.

Between the late 1970s and 2020, there were approximately 6,500 claims under the VDPS for all vaccines, resulting in 944 awards.

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a significant increase in claims under the VDPS, with many individuals seeking compensation for vaccine-related injuries.

The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has been credited with saving millions of lives, but it has also been associated with rare and severe side effects, including blood clots in the brain, which can be fatal.

A documentary exploring the stories of individuals affected by Covid-19 vaccines is available to watch.

Since the pandemic, there has been a substantial increase in VDPS claims, with over 16,000 claims filed against Covid-19 vaccines, resulting in 180 awards, and more than half of claimants still awaiting a decision.

The majority of awards have been for damage caused by the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, which is no longer in use.

A specific rare side effect associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, characterized by blood clots and low platelet levels, has been identified as a qualifying condition for VDPS payments.

This side effect, known as vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (VITT), was not observed in clinical trials but emerged after the vaccine was administered to millions of people.

VITT is a rare condition that can cause damage to the brain and other organs, typically occurring within a few weeks of receiving the first dose of the vaccine.

The combination of blood clots and low platelet levels is unusual, prompting experts to coin the term VITT to describe this specific condition.

Although clinical trials involving over 23,000 participants did not detect this signal, it became apparent once the vaccine was widely administered across Europe.

In response to concerns about the blood clot link, several European countries temporarily suspended use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in mid-March 2021.

The UK restricted the use of the vaccine to individuals over 30 years old in April 2021 and later to those over 40, as it became clear that younger people were at higher risk of experiencing blood clots.

Other European countries also imposed age restrictions on the vaccine, with some countries limiting its use to individuals over 55 or 60 years old, while Denmark halted its use entirely.

By early April 2021, regulatory agencies in the UK and Europe had concluded that blood clots combined with low platelet levels should be listed as a rare side effect of the vaccine.

A similar rare syndrome has been reported in recipients of the J&J Janssen Covid-19 vaccine in the United States, which uses similar vaccine technology.

According to Sarah Moore, a solicitor with Leigh Day, the families she represents are seeking legal action against AstraZeneca due to the inadequacies of the VDPS.

Moore criticizes the VDPS, stating that it provides insufficient support to too few individuals, with the £120,000 payment being "woefully inadequate" and not having increased since 2007.

If the payment had kept pace with inflation, it would now be approximately £197,000.

Moore's clients include individuals who require 24-hour care, are unable to perform daily tasks, and have suffered severe physical or cognitive impairments, rendering them unable to work again.

The case of Jane and Ian Wrigley highlights another criticism of the VDPS: delays in the payment process.

The couple waited over two years for a payment under the scheme, despite a clear link between the vaccine and Jane's condition, with assessments being conducted on paper without physical examinations.

In response to criticisms, the government has announced efforts to modernize the VDPS, increasing the number of staff handling claims from four to 80, but a significant backlog of claims remains.

Among those affected by the AstraZeneca vaccine is Peter Schulze, a 49-year-old who developed VITT blood clots after receiving the vaccine in April 2021. As a result, he now requires constant care.

Schulze submitted his claim to the VDPS in July 2022, but a decision has yet to be made, despite clear evidence of VITT blood clots in his medical records.

A significant hurdle for claimants is the 60% disablement threshold, which has disqualified numerous individuals who have been officially recognized as suffering from Covid vaccine-related damage.

According to Ms Moore, one of her clients, a woman who is now blind in one eye and suffers from other physical and psychological injuries, was informed that her condition did not meet the 60% threshold.

Under standard civil claim rules, blindness in one eye could result in compensation exceeding £200,000, making it particularly distressing for individuals to be told they do not qualify for payment despite suffering vaccine-related injuries.

During the pandemic, the government granted vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, legal indemnity, which determined the party responsible for paying compensation in the event of a successful claim.

Then-Health Secretary Matt Hancock stated in the Commons that the government was providing indemnities to cover any unforeseen adverse reactions, despite the robust checks and procedures in place.

Ms Moore believes that this indemnity means the government will cover AstraZeneca's legal costs and be liable for compensation payments if a claim is successful, although she has not seen the relevant documents.

AstraZeneca did not profit from its Covid vaccine, Vaxrevia, but the company's total revenue in 2023 was $45.8bn (£35.1bn), with profits of $5.9bn.

In May, AstraZeneca discontinued Vaxrevia, citing an surplus of updated vaccines, and the UK government did not purchase any doses for its booster programs, instead opting for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which utilize mRNA technology.

Prof Adam Finn, a leading expert on vaccines and former member of the JCVI, played a key role in advising the government on immunization policies during the pandemic.

Prof Finn was involved in crucial decisions regarding the rollout of Covid vaccines, including the order in which they were administered and the age restrictions imposed on the AstraZeneca vaccine due to blood clot risks.

While not involved in the current legal action, Prof Finn believes that the decisions made regarding Covid vaccine use in the UK were correct and that the vaccines have been highly effective in saving lives.

However, he expresses concerns that the VDPS is not functioning as intended and suggests that payments should be index-linked to reflect changes in the cost of living, while also criticizing the 60% threshold as arbitrary.

Prof Finn advocates for a thorough review of compensation for current and future vaccines, emphasizing the need for a fair and effective system.

When asked about the potential impact of this report on vaccine confidence, Prof Finn emphasizes the importance of honesty and transparency in maintaining public trust.

He warns that the inadequacies of the VDPS could erode public confidence in vaccines, which is crucial for their effectiveness.

Although the number of people affected by vaccine-related injuries is relatively small, the severity of their harm will attract public attention and raise questions about fair treatment.

AstraZeneca has issued a statement expressing sympathy for those who have experienced health problems or lost loved ones, while also emphasizing the safety profile of its vaccine.

The company's statement notes that regulators worldwide have consistently stated that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of rare potential side effects.

Recently, Health Secretary Wes Streeting met with individuals who have been injured or bereaved due to vaccine damage, in an effort to listen to their concerns.

The Department of Health and Social Care has stated that the government will carefully consider these concerns as it continues to learn from the pandemic.

The department has expressed its deepest sympathies to those who have suffered harm and is working to address the issues raised.

The VDPS administrator has implemented operational changes to reduce the waiting time for claimants, in an effort to improve the efficiency of the scheme.

The Covid inquiry, which will begin taking evidence in January 2025, will examine the workings of the VDPS in its next module.

Ms Moore, who is expected to give evidence to the inquiry, emphasizes that her clients are not opposed to vaccination, but rather seek support and fairness for those who have been affected by vaccine-related injuries.

She stresses that her clients are, by definition, pro-vaccination, having chosen to get vaccinated, and that their goal is to promote vaccine confidence through fair compensation.

The legal action against AstraZeneca is likely to be a prolonged process, with no immediate resolution in sight.

Additional research for this report was conducted by Catherine Snowdon.