Summary
Switzerland assumed liability for vaccine damage in Covid vaccine contracts with Moderna and Novavax, even though the vaccines were still in clinical development at the time the contracts were signed. BAG Director Anne Lévy justifies the decision by stating that Swissmedic carefully examines each approved vaccine for efficacy and safety. The federal government had little room for negotiation to obtain vaccines during the pandemic. Approximately 400 compensation applications for vaccine damage were filed, over 300 were rejected; to date, the federal government has paid out in two cases.
Persons
- Anne Lévy (Director Federal Office of Public Health BAG)
- Dominik Meier (Moderator SRF 1)
Topics
- Covid-19 vaccine procurement
- Liability law and insurance
- Pandemic management Switzerland
- Drug supply
Clarus Lead
The discrepancy between Swiss liability practices and international standards becomes a persistent political issue. While Germany applied less stringent approval requirements and now approves nine times higher compensation rates, Switzerland defends its restrictiveness with Swissmedic standards. The question of whether future pandemics would allow coordinated international liability distribution remains unanswered – a strategic failure of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its member states.
Detailed Summary
Negotiation Logic Under Pressure: Lévy confirms that the federal government "assumed certain things" with Moderna and Novavax "that one would not have done under normal circumstances." She names no concrete ultimatums from manufacturers, but hints that countries with early contract signing received priority deliveries – a classic leverage tool in supply chain negotiations. Switzerland, as a "small country," had little room for negotiation. The fact that international coordination failed is mentioned in passing: "It would be nice if the whole world always had the same opinion. That's not quite simple."
Approval Standard vs. Risk: Swissmedic rejected AstraZeneca even though it was approved in other European countries – an example of stricter Swiss standards. Lévy emphasizes that only 30,000 subjects were tested in Moderna and Novavax approvals over two months, but admits: "It was absolutely a matter of luck." She argues that benefits far outweigh harms "massively," without providing figures. In fact, the statistics show: 400 applications filed, over 300 rejected, only 2 approved. This is an approval rate below 1%, while Germany accepts approximately 9% of cases.
Transparency and Gaps: The BAG admits that government communication in 2021 was "not correct" (vaccinations protect against infection) – an implicit admission of error. Instead, Lévy points to referendums (population accepted policy with 60% yes votes) and ongoing evaluations. A nationwide compensation fund or a Grammontana-like compensation model is rejected; the University Hospital Zurich scandal remains cantonal.
Key Statements
- Switzerland assumed liability due to pandemic pressure and lack of negotiating power, not from risk assessment.
- Swissmedic standards are stricter than in Germany, but lead to significantly lower compensation rates (< 1% vs. ~9%).
- International coordination for risk distribution was not actively attempted; future pandemics will follow the same pattern.
- BAG acknowledges communication errors but rejects comprehensive compensation mechanisms.
Critical Questions
(a) Evidence/Data Quality
How can the BAG justify a compensation rate of < 1% (2 of 400 cases) when Germany with comparable vaccines accepts 9% – does causality differ so fundamentally, or is it a matter of legislation?
Approval studies involved 30,000 people over two months. What safety-specific findings from this limited data justified the federal government's unlimited liability assumption rather than the manufacturers'?
(b) Conflicts of Interest/Incentives
The BAG describes negotiations as "complex" and admits to manufacturer ultimatums (early delivery in exchange for liability assumption). Why were these conditions not documented and later published to make future negotiations more transparent?
A BAG employee unofficially accuses the pharmaceutical industry of "profit maximization and scaremongering." Does this not contradict the statement that BAG and pharma "work together very well"?
(c) Causality/Alternatives
The moderator suggests that a coordinated international refusal to assume liability would force manufacturers to bear more risk. Why was this option not seriously discussed with other countries in the early pandemic days (December 2020 – March 2021)?
Hypothetically: If the federal government had not assumed liability, how long would vaccine availability in Switzerland have been delayed – is there evidence for this, or is it pure speculation?
(d) Feasibility/Risks
The BAG plans to use similar liability clauses again in future pandemics. What new negotiating instruments or legal tools would it employ to avoid being in this position again?
With 400 applications filed, over 300 rejected, and only 2 approved: Is the compensation system deliberately designed to be restrictive to discourage claims, or are the causality hurdles scientifically justified?
Further Reports
- Hantavirus Case in Switzerland: A cruise ship passenger was admitted to University Hospital Zurich with a dangerous hantavirus variant. The BAG expects no further cases in Switzerland because the virus requires symptoms and prolonged close contact to spread – unlike Covid or influenza.
- University Hospital Zurich Scandal: Between 2014 and 2020, approximately 70 cardiac patients died in unnecessary cases. The BAG refers to quality indicators and whistleblower systems but plans no federal political intervention as after Grammontana.
- Drug Supply and Supply Chains: The Federal Council signals willingness to spend up to 500 million francs per year in subsidies for pharmaceutical companies to promote production in Switzerland and secure supply chains – a counter-proposal to a popular initiative.
Sources
Primary Source: SRF 1 Die Samstagsrundschau – Tagesgesprächh, May 9, 2026 – Interview with Anne Lévy, Director BAG
Verification Status: ✓ 2026-05-11
This text was created with the assistance of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Checking: 2026-05-11