Vaccine roll out news this morning

[outofthemoon]

Quite shocking. Only half the population listed. Over 80s before NHS staff. Nothing for under 50s. No mention of teachers, bus drivers... Entire focus on very elderly.
So all this suffering, destruction of economy and young people's futures has been to protect the boomer generation and those even older?

Surely it makes sense to protect the weakest first?

Over 80s are most vulnerable to coronanvirus aren't they?

If those most likely to get it worst are protected, that means the test of the population should be able to have less restrictions and still be able to access the NHS for all other requirements?

Would you feel as outraged if you were over 80?

Surely it has to be organised somehow and it makes sense to start with the weakest. How would you suggest it's organised otherwise?

Hasn't it always been about primarily protecting older people? Not sure what's surprising about this.

@outofthemoon

Quite shocking. Only half the population listed. Over 80s before NHS staff. Nothing for under 50s. No mention of teachers, bus drivers... Entire focus on very elderly. So all this suffering, destruction of economy and young people's futures has been to protect the boomer generation and those even older?

Yes, and the Govt have said that the MMR jab is also to be prioritised for the over 80s too.........d'oh!!!

Sensible view :- Protect the weakest

Cynical view :- test it on those who are in their final decade or two.

What a nasty tone in this OP. I sure as hell hope in my older years I'd be protected, a life isn't less valuable because it has been longer than your own.

You don't understand. The reason the very elderly die of normal flu every year is not because they are not vaccinated, it's because geriatric immune systems are weak and don't respond efficiently anyway. The very elderly will still need to be shielded. A cv 19 60% efficient in trials of much younger people will hardly protect them at all.

That's not right - they list 11 categories, and although the u50s do not make it to the top 10, they are not excluded.

And the list is subject to change (it already has a couple of times) depending on whether the first vaccine/s (when they emerge) are suitable for the elderly and the vulnerable.

It's got care home residents and staff first, then the extrenelymeldery and HCPs (any age) then next most elderly and shield group, then others by age, until they reach the u50s which will,then be done according to need (unspecified, but I guess it'll be a mixture of clinical need and key occupation)

"The very elderly will still need to be shielded"

There were no age categories on the original shielding list

OP - the point is that for young people the risk of side-effects from the vaccine is greater than the risk of harmful effects of the virus itself. It would be madness - and unethical - to risk side-effects in children/ young adults to protect their grandparents.

This was published around 6 weeks ago. A friend is on the committee that planned it. The risk if you are under 50 is incredibly low but if you have significant underlying health issues you will be vaccinated under 50

Not entirely the case, op. The elderly die from flu for myriad reasons. Also their immune systems are just as effective as others if no underlying conditions.

I also suspect before children/child bearing age adults are given it it may need further testing for long term effects (as surely how can they tell what impact the e vaccine could possibly have) whereas I don't mean to sound harsh but you may as well give a vaccine to someone who is 80 that protects from covid right now but may have sone more nasty long termside effects they don't yet know about as possibly they wouldn't be around to be affected by them. I hope I'm getting my point across right 😜

Well, if it means I can get back to work then it’s fine by me!

Sarah, are you suggesting elderly are being used as guinea-pigs?

Gilead, then they will also die of CV19 for a myriad of reasons.

I loathe the government’s handling of this but I agree with this approach. The most vulnerable have to get a vaccine first surely? What other way would you do it

I’m very low risk and don’t want or need a vaccine in the same way I don’t need a flu vaccine. I wouldn’t dream of taking a vaccine an older person could have

Over 80s are the most likely to become hospitalised by covid, using up NHS resources so it makes sense to me.

We don't even know what the vaccine will look like.
And it's a priority list. Surely vulnerable health workers, teachers and drivers will get it too.
The death rate in under 50s is very very low.

How would you make it? Leave out the over 80s?

I had my flu vaccine (65) for this reason - so I won't get flu and subsequent possible complications requiring a hospital stay.

@Eyewhisker

OP - the point is that for young people the risk of side-effects from the vaccine is greater than the risk of harmful effects of the virus itself. It would be madness - and unethical - to risk side-effects in children/ young adults to protect their grandparents.

Absolutely this. Ethically, a vaccine should only be given to people who' have a greater risk from the illness than the risks from being given the vaccine. This is particularly true with a new vaccine.

My husband is a double decker bus driver, he works on private contracts doing school and college runs etc. Because it is private they are not required to social distance and his bus is full of students every morning. He can't refuse entry to the bus if people don't have a mask and there is no zoning for Seurat bubbles etc. He doesn't have any screens for his own protection and doesn't get Ppe for wiping down the bus after his shift. He gets a spray bottle and a cloth.

But even so, knowing he is at risk every day , and in at home immuno compromised, he won't be getting a jab that has been produced so rapidly. Definitely not when the manufactures have been given immunity from prosecution for if people are badly affected by it.