The forty million who are putting the government’s anti-vaxxers to shame

There is a fairly simple way to gauge the gap between propaganda and reality: look not at what a government says, but at what it includes in its budget. And in the new decree on public administration, there is a minor accounting entry that could cause some embarrassment to that section of the ruling majority which, in recent years, has continued – more or less explicitly – to give a nod to anti-vaccine campaigns. Article 4 of the decree establishes a special commissioner tasked with managing, decommissioning and disposing of materials purchased during the Covid emergency and still stored in public warehouses: face masks, gowns, coveralls, gloves – tens of thousands of tonnes of equipment that constitute one of the pandemic’s last tangible legacies. To fund the operation, 44 million is allocated in 2026 and 40 million in 2027. And it is precisely the funding for 2027 that is of interest. Those 40 million are recouped by reducing the spending authorisation provided for in Article 20 of Decree-Law No. 4 of 2022 – that is, the provision by which the state had extended the compensation scheme provided for under Law No. 210 of 1992 to include those who had suffered permanent impairment of their physical or mental well-being as a result of the Covid vaccination recommended by the health authorities. The allocation envisaged at the time was 50 million for 2022 and 100 million per year from 2023 onwards.

In 2027, therefore, the government decided to deduct forty million from that allocation: 40 per cent of the original annual budget. One clarification is important. The forty million is not used to pay the commissioner, whose remuneration is covered by a separate and far more modest budget. It is used for the management and disposal of the material. But it is precisely for this reason that the choice of funding becomes politically significant. Neither the explanatory report nor the technical report openly explains why it is possible to reduce funding for that particular budget line. They do not state, for example: ‘We have fewer claimants than expected.’ They do not provide a new tally of claims, do not quantify the compensation already awarded, and do not certify that vaccine-related harm has proved to be lower than anticipated. They merely indicate the legislation from which the resources are drawn. It would therefore be incorrect to treat this financial provision as further scientific evidence of vaccine safety (to demonstrate that, of course, one does not need the State Audit Office). But it would be equally curious to regard the move as irrelevant. The 2022 regulation stipulates that funds are transferred to the regions based on the requirements linked to the compensation to be paid, requirements which must be monitored and reported. When the government uses the reduction in a previous expenditure authorization to fund a new measure, that funding is subject to verification by the State General Accounting Office. In other words, such funding presupposes that the government considers the remaining resources to be compatible with the expected needs for compensation payments.

Herein lies the crux of the matter. We cannot say that the government has demonstrated that the number of cases of permanent injury eligible for compensation has been significantly lower than forecast. We can, however, say that the government considers it possible to substantially reduce the funds allocated to compensation without compromising the sustainability of the measure. And it is difficult to imagine that such a decision is entirely unrelated to the actual uptake of the measure and the needs reported in recent years. Propaganda can afford to thrive on suggestion. The State Audit Office, somewhat less so.