To think the vaccine shouldn't be given out by age criteria?

[studychick81]

I know the data says that the majority of people who get the virus and are most seriously ill or die are the elderly, over 82. But I was quite surprised by the potential order of giving out the vaccine.

1. people in care homes and care home workers- fair enough.

2. over 80s and health care workers.

3. age order oldest- youngest.

4. I don't agree with this. Surely all health care workers should get it before all people over 80? Shouldn't those 50 plus who have underlining issues which means catching it could be deadly get it over a normally healthy over 80 year old?

5. should kids who live with vulnerable adults/grand parents get it before a fit and healthy 40 year old?

6. should teachers, education workers get it before a fit 40 year old?

The programme should - and I believe is - being designed to reduce hospital admissions so we can resume a normal health service. That means elderly first. Not because they are more valuable than anyone else. No one cares or should care about Individuals. This is a mass programme. Obviously healthcare workers are part of this plan too.

The elderly and vulnerable to covid people are also a priority because they too will block up hospitals.

It’s irrelevant how much you care or worry about yourself/your mum/your child. Tough, but that’s how it has to be.

HazeyJaneII. Fair enough. I agree that people with LD often have poorer heath outcomes due to an inequality in the healthcare they are often provided with. In which case, based on the same principles as older people, they should also be prioritised for the vaccine particularly if they are in residential care, as they too will find themselves isolated from their families.

@IrmaFayLear

The programme should - and I believe is - being designed to reduce hospital admissions so we can resume a normal health service. That means elderly first. Not because they are more valuable than anyone else. No one cares or should care about Individuals. This is a mass programme. Obviously healthcare workers are part of this plan too.

The elderly and vulnerable to covid people are also a priority because they too will block up hospitals.

It’s irrelevant how much you care or worry about yourself/your mum/your child. Tough, but that’s how it has to be.

Well said

How about students? So they don’t increase transmissions into communities when moving back and forth?

Aragog yes you probably did get it at school. The governments view is schools are safe on the basis that the majority of people in them are at very low risk of death or severe Covid, and that the risks to the education and well being of millions of children outweigh the smaller level of risk to teachers and children who are in schools.

You are taking this all personally. It is not about you.

My daughter nearly died of RSV last winter. I bet you a million quid she was more poorly than you. 1 in 3 babies will get RSV. For most its mild, but for plenty it's not.So even though my daughter was the unlucky minority, I'm not suggesting all nurseries close in a bid to ensure no baby ever gets RSV, because it's not worth it on a population level to protect the small percentage of babies who will get it severely.

How about students? So they don’t increase transmissions into communities when moving back and forth?

It's not about reducing cases. Its about preventing deaths. For most people its mild, it doesnt matter how many people get it mildly it matters how many people die. Old people who get it are the ones more likely to die so they need the vaccine

Vinyl I agree with your second point, but in regards to my elderly people comment I meant that a good proportion (I think the majority) of very elderly people would not want to be first in the queue/receive a vaccine over and above younger people, which after all would include their children and grandchildren. It doesn't matter that they know their risk of dying is much higher, surely? I know that as a CEV person my risk of dying is much higher and I would still much prefer younger people to receive the vaccine before me.

This is why the advance care plans are so important, so you can state your own decisions instead of someone deciding what you want, for you.

Decisions will be taken at a population level and I agree with this as the thread shows (very clearly!) the unedifying spectacle of people with their elbows out and their own scale of worthiness in their heads.

Still though we should have some agency over own care and even though a medical intervention has been deemed suitable by professionals (eg whether we should be given a vaccine, or CPR etc etc) the final decision to accept this offered intervention should be up to the individual. I think the reality is that if everyone had an Advance Care Plan, a lot of the decisions having to be made now, would be a lot easier.

(Now obviously, before anyone starts, I am not advocating euthanasia etc). I just genuinely believe that we are extending some peoples lives and care beyond the point they would wish us to and that they may make different choices. Reading this thread is bad enough as a CEV person, I don't want (some) posters like these, who display such shit critical thinking and prejudice, making decisions for my health and life thank you.

Advance Care Plans are so important as your wishes should be respected as to whether you want to accept any medical interventions or care offered. A lot of these scenarios and lives being discussed here would be moot for a start, and people could put away their Scales Of Worthiness

(I'm amazed no one has said that within the over 80s some may be retired teachers and should go first before the other non teacher 80 year olds )!

Lockdownindressinggown
I just genuinely believe that we are extending some peoples lives and care beyond the point they would wish us to and that they may make different choices.

My grandfathers care home was constantly trying to push life extending treatment on him. My mum had to advocate strongly for his wishes to be respected. Long life in poor health is not desired by everyone.

Exactly love island. The priority for the vaccine is decided at a population by clinical need - as it should be. However I think a lot of people deemed as priority/most in need would not want to be a priority, or even want to be in the position of having that choice.

Advance care plans could solve a huge proportion of all this.

PS I'm talking about clinical need bases on age/health, not job titles. Just saying

It makes no sense for elderly/vulnerable people doing the decent thing and saying someone younger and more healthy should get first dibs.

It’s the old/vulnerable who are going to take up a bed if they catch Covid.
A bed that a young person probably won’t need for Covid, but might need for something else.

All the vulnerable will do by refusing is taking up valuable bed space and costing the public purse a fortune.
Law of unintended consequences.

I'm not sure I've ever read another Mumsnet thread where I've been so genuinely shocked at people's (some, not all) selfishness.

Yes, this.

People who are at risk of infecting vulnerable people and vulnerable people themselves need priority.

Age is the biggest risk factor for dying from covid and thus elderly people are the most most vulnerable, along with ECV of any age.

Some posters need to remember that the lives of elderly and/or vulnerable people are not worth less than the lives of other people. Once we get down the path of judging a person's life by their "worthiness" then where will it end? I think we all know.

I repeat, it’s not about worthiness, it’s about saving our society, including the NHS. It’s not elderly first because they are dear, sweet, old people. It’s because they will cripple the NHS if covid is not stalled in that demographic.

I may be high up the list, as I was a shielder. Vaccinating me is not because, “oh, poor Irma, she’s vulnerable” it’s to stop me lounging in a hospital bed for weeks when the NHS needs to get back on its feet.

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

How about students? So they don’t increase transmissions into communities when moving back and forth?

It's not about reducing cases. Its about preventing deaths. For most people its mild, it doesnt matter how many people get it mildly it matters how many people die. Old people who get it are the ones more likely to die so they need the vaccine

Yes I get that, but students go home see their parents, grandparents etc.

They go to cafes, restaurants etc where vulnerable go

Lots of them work in bars, restaurants, shops etc

"All the vulnerable will do by refusing is taking up valuable bed space and costing the public purse a fortune.
Law of unintended consequences."

Well not really @HelloMissus. A lot of us already know that we would not be ventilated or receive other interventions that a "healthy" person would. So we are not going to use up resources, it's just how it is and I'm being realistic. Valuable bed space and the public's fortune would not be used or "wasted" on us the same way it wouldn't be wasted on us if we went in via a busy A and E on a Friday night and there were more people more likely to survive with intervention.

And this is why advance care plans are so valuable - so we can be clear and stress we don't want to be a selfish burden (as you are so unpleasantly implying). We don't want the offered intervention and we know the consequences. But you carry on being patronising and rude

Yes I get that, but students go home see their parents, grandparents etc.
If their grandparents have had the vaccine then they can do so safely.

"Some posters need to remember that the lives of elderly and/or vulnerable people are not worth less than the lives of other people. Once we get down the path of judging a person's life by their "worthiness" then where will it end? I think we all know."

It'll end up in AIBU

Only tongue in cheek. I know what you mean. It is definitely a bit unpleasant seeing yourself referred to as "the vulnerable". I suppose it's a bit like hearing people say "the gays" or "the disabled". I can't quite articulate it properly though, or explain properly why I dislike it.

Teachers should wear PPE. I’m a teacher but I teach FE and am currently on mat leave so I’ve been lucky. There’s no way I’d want to enter a classroom every day without in the very least a visor. Cannot fathom why they don’t wear them...

I think the elderly and vulnerable should have first dibs along with NHS and care home staff for obvious reasons. I have a feeling it will be like the flu jab where anyone who doesn’t fall into the vulnerable category has to pay if they want one.

Aren't visors protecting others from the wearer? So lowers transmission of staff to kids but doesn't reduce transmission kids to staff.

3) should kids who live with vulnerable adults/grand parents get it before a fit and healthy 40 year old?

Good grief, the whole vaccine roll out will be complicated enough without the govt having to work out who lives with who.

Also we don't yet know if the vaccine was tested on children.

Visors are USELESS when worn without a mask.

When worn TOGETHER - the mask protects others and the visor protects the wearer.

Without the mask, there is only protection from saliva/fluid transmission. It doesn’t protect against aerosol transmission as it’s open underneath and around the sides.

@MarinPrime

3) should kids who live with vulnerable adults/grand parents get it before a fit and healthy 40 year old?

Good grief, the whole vaccine roll out will be complicated enough without the govt having to work out who lives with who.

Also we don't yet know if the vaccine was tested on children.

The Pfizer vaccine has just started recruiting 12 year olds. It’s not currently tested on children 12 and under and will not be licensed for them until it is.

experience tells me that list wont apply. if you've got money just go and see a private doctor who will administer the vaccine for a reassuringly large fee. Football clubs and others have access to private healthcare so you can be sure they'll be lining up.

Surely they'll vaccinate in a way to bring the deaths and hospitalizations down first? So first NHS/health care professionals (bevause they infect the vulnerable) and after that whoever is more likely to be hospitalised (vbasically the vulnerable/flu jab population). That's what all these lockdowns have been for and that's what they did with the mexican flu. So it isn't about who might catch it or is more worthy or whatever.

@LockdownInDressingGownAndFrown I'm sorry, I should have put it better, but you know what it's like on here....if I mention specific groups then it turns into a bunfight even more than it is already.