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?

What did you expect OP?

If it means the elderly are protected so the rest of us can get on with our lives it’s fine by me.

Surely it makes more sense to vaccinate those who will be the biggest spreaders if they catch it? Kids, teachers, NHS staff, bus drivers, etc.

Say, you get batches of 100 000 vaccine doses at a time, say, every week.

How would you roll them out and why?

I'm sure there's a committee of public health professionals waiting for your learned opinion.

So all this suffering, destruction of economy and young people's futures has been to protect the boomer generation and those even older?

Well yes, it always was, wasn't it?

@Tashface

So all this suffering, destruction of economy and young people's futures has been to protect the boomer generation and those even older?

Well yes, it always was, wasn't it?

No, it was to protect the economy and health of an entire population from a virus running rampant, with a high transmission rate. The disease that it causes, and even the relatively low fatality rate, means that with large numbers of people affected, the impact on the population and the economy would have been huge.

There is a bit of confusion amongst those of us who were told to shield, I think we're 5th or 6th on the list. My in laws didn't need to shield but will be vaccinated before me despite it being 'so' dangerous for me I was advised to pack a hospital bag and not even take my own bins out. TBH though I'd just like to see it rolling out so we can get back our lives.

@HotPatootiebootie I don't think you can immunise immune compromised people? Or is that just with live vaccines? Hope your DH is ok ❤️

If people are immunoconpromised then vaccines will be useless rather than dangerous. The point of vaccines is to elicit an immune response. If the body isn't capable of producing an immune response, then a vaccine will be the same as a placebo.

@redvest It depends on if the vaccine is liver or not. We can't have live vaccines. But what's meant was no chance my husband or kids are getting it either. Not without rigorous testing etc and that takes time and can't be rushed.

@HelplessProcrastinator

If it means the elderly are protected so the rest of us can get on with our lives it’s fine by me.

This

As I pregnant woman I certainly will not be having it.

Protecting the elderly and nhs staff first makes perfect sense to me.

@hotpatootiebootie

Just to clarify on your post, the manufacturers don't have immunity from prosecution. If anyone dies or suffers personal injury as a result of the rushed vaccine they will still be able to claim damages in the usual way as they would for any medicinal product or vaccine that goes wrong. What the Government/NHS have said is that they will indemnify the manufacturers against any damages they have to pay out to people (basically the government will underwrite any successful claims). Doesn't mean people will be any less worried, but it doesn't mean there wouldn't be any pay outs etc if things went wrong.

@outofthemoon absolutely not, I knew someone would take it the wrong way. However the is vaccine is very new, there's been no long term trials on it so they have no way of knowing if it has developmental problems with children/pregnancy etc. So if there are short term gains then to the elderly may as well take the risk, as benefit/risk ratio is higher towards the benefit for them, that is what I meant. Just like the benefit of chemo out weighs it's awful side effects do it is therefore given x

Surely it makes more sense to vaccinate those who will be the biggest spreaders if they catch it? Kids, teachers, NHS staff, bus drivers, etc.

Yes, that's what I assumed would happen (well, not children) but those with the most face to face contact with people. Not me (60 and can wfh perfectly well) nor my 87 yr old mother (who is confused by the whole situation re. masks, seeing elderly friends, who should and shouldn't be visiting).

It's hard enough to get the MMR into children let alone a new, untested vaccine in children, not aimed at protecting children.

If anything, vaccinate the parents.
But those are huge numbers.

And why are NHS staff and bus drivers among the biggest spreaders on your list?

And you said on your OP that NHS staff are on the list, just after over 80s.

For the record, my mum is 80 and perfectly healthy. With probably 10 years or more ahead to look forward to. Shouldn't she be protected?

Sorry, I was quoting but it didn't show as a quote.

I wouldn't give an untested vaccine to children either.
I would give it to those in contact with children on a close daily basis, eg. teachers, school bus drivers.
Of course your mum should be protected, if she understands what she is agreeing to, and possible side effects. Which it would be very difficult for my own mother to understand, and retain in her memory.

OP, if you're under 50 and otherwise healthy, can you share why you think you need the vaccine? As there is overwhelming evidence that it poses a very low risk to you. If you are not aware of that then perhaps do some reading and calm yourself down.

Which it would be very difficult for my own mother to understand, and retain in her memory.

Don't you think it would be safer for her to get a vaccine than to try and keep all the changing rules in her mind?
With a vaccine you and her could be more relaxed, and possibly even able to be more often with friends and family.

I really don't understant why you think it would be a bad thing to vaccinate her.

Lweji
The side effects of the vaccine might be more than she could tolerate. Both lungs are already scarred from pneumonia and she is post cancer.

Tfoot75
I am 60, perfectly healthy, wouldn't dream of having a CV19 vaccine for years. If I was looking after GC I would perhaps think differently.

The vaccine is not for under 18's. It's be made clear in the research from the beginning.

It's care home residents and staff who are first on the list, followed by the over 80's.

Many of the Vaccines are at phase 3. The Oxford one for example, findings aren't expected until March next year.

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?

Do you really think protecting the most vulnerable in our society is a bad thing? That's awful.
Think about others rather than putting yourself first.

Surely it makes more sense to vaccinate those who will be the biggest spreaders if they catch it? Kids, teachers, NHS staff, bus drivers, etc.

I agree.

It’s so we can keep functioning as society and as economy and can actually take care of the most vulnerable.

Instead of reading what vaccine spokesperson said, look up the JCVI recommendations.
The elderly plus those in care homes and NHS are top of the JCVI list, followed by everyone else in descending age order. There is no suggestion that all under 50s are excluded.
The JCVI are the scientists advising ministers and 99% of the time their advice is followed