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?

Out of interest just looked at the ons covid death data. As at and including 30th October (week 1-44), there were 57,408 COVID deaths. Out of those 48,087 were in the over 70+, 5,578 in the 60-70 age range, 2,584 in the 50-60 age range, 816 in the 40-50 age range, 248 in the 30-40 age range, 80 in the 20-30, 15 in the under 20.

You can see from this exactly why age is being used to determine priority, along with those who care for the elderly and sick.

@Belladonna12

It's a bit laughable that anyone would think teachers might be a priority. They aren't more vulnerable than the rest of the population and they don't work with people who are vulnerable. In fact they work with children who are the least vulnerable.

🤦🏼‍♀️

@Duckwit

Yes but it all about viral load as well. So I chat to someone for 10 min From 1 m distance who has covid I may get it mildly; I talk to 10 teens inside in one day with no ventilation or social distancing who have covid- huge viral load, may get it worse.

Well that’s my understanding of it from the reading I’ve done.

You ‘needs your kids in school laura, sounds to me like you think that’s more important than anything.

@cassgate

Out of interest just looked at the ons covid death data. As at and including 30th October (week 1-44), there were 57,408 COVID deaths. Out of those 48,087 were in the over 70+, 5,578 in the 60-70 age range, 2,584 in the 50-60 age range, 816 in the 40-50 age range, 248 in the 30-40 age range, 80 in the 20-30, 15 in the under 20.

You can see from this exactly why age is being used to determine priority, along with those who care for the elderly and sick.

Yes but as someone said way up thread, you are more likely to have comorbidities (and multiple ones exponentially) as you age. So showing age alone doesn’t prove anything.

I don’t have the data to argue against your post btw (nor am I saying it is necessarily wrong) I’m just saying that your stats are not the whole picture

No feminist. Not from Covid anyway.

@LockdownInDressingGownAndFrown thanks

I know when it was first suggested that my asthma was severe enough to make me disabled it was difficult coming to terms with it all.

@Duckwit

What about teachers having the vaccine to protect themselves whilst hundreds of kids are filling past them every day

Protect themselves from what? For most people (and teachers are 'most people' unless they are vulnerable anyway) Covid is a relatively mild illness. They should not be getting priority above people for whom Covid could actually be very serious.

The vaccine stops the teacher from getting ill or passing the virus on to children who may have vulnerable people at home who havnt had the vaccine. Remember there is next to zero SD in school. This is not like your kids wandering round Asda with you.

The vaccine also stops the teacher having to take time off school due to possible covid exposure OR covid itself.

No teacher = no education.

@Duckwit

Why on earth are people saying teachers should be high up on the list? Unless they are CEV (in which case they will be further up the list anyway) they arent at any more risk of serious illness or death than the rest of the population, and the people they work with certainly aren't. I work in education and would definitely not expect to be bumped up above people who are vulnerable, embarrassing!

It is embarrassing.

I haven't seen people who work in retail saying they should be higher up on the list because they come into contact with people every day.

The vax is amazing news, yet a few teachers want to make it about them and how badly they have been treated throughout. Can't we all be happy that a vaccine has been found, and trust the experts know what they are doing?

Reading post from people with no expertise in this area making suggestions about the priority list is also embarrassing.

@lumberingaboutthehouse

No feminist. Not from Covid anyway.

They can 🤦🏼‍♀️

@lumberingaboutthehouse

You ‘needs your kids in school laura, sounds to me like you think that’s more important than anything.

Yes I do.

I’m not a qualified teacher. My kids don’t listen to instruction from me. Homeschooling was a nightmare and especially my dd(7) struggled. She gets the support in school I can’t give her as I’m not trained to.

I also run a small practice which sees overspill NHS patients who can’t get an appointment. I’m the sole practitioner. If I can’t get in work we don’t open and I have to cancel my patients appointments.

So yeah my kids need to be in school.

Teachers have played a massive part in getting the economy back moving. With out them thousands of people would be screwed They can’t SD. If they want a vaccination they should be given it and in a timely manner.

Yes but it all about viral load as well. So I chat to someone for 10 min From 1 m distance who has covid I may get it mildly; I talk to 10 teens inside in one day with no ventilation or social distancing who have covid- huge viral load, may get it worse.

Is there evidence that teachers who do get Covid are being affected much worse by it than the general population then?

Classrooms should be ventilated to prevent this in any event.

The vaccine stops the teacher from getting ill or passing the virus on to children who may have vulnerable people at home who havnt had the vaccine.

Wouldnt it just make more sense to vaccinate the people who are actually vulnerable then?

@Duckwit

The vaccine stops the teacher from getting ill or passing the virus on to children who may have vulnerable people at home who havnt had the vaccine.

Wouldnt it just make more sense to vaccinate the people who are actually vulnerable then?

It’s not an either or situation. Really sorry you can’t get your head around that. I dont know how many times I can explain it to you but your clearly not grasping so I’m going to give up 👍

Reading post from people with no expertise in this area making suggestions about the priority list is also embarrassing.

I know right?! Right from the first page of this thread with the 'the priority list should be....', from people who have no idea what they are talking about. Classic MN!

It’s not an either or situation.

Yes it is. A priority list is needed because there is a limited amount of vaccine, at least to start with, and a finite amount of people to give it, so we can't do everyone at once.

The idea that teachers should come above vulnerable people for a vaccine is, quite frankly, laughable.

@PaddyF0dder

Oh boy.

If we all had that attitude, we’d be f**ked.

And no, they’re not “trying it on care workers first” to experiment on you or whatever. Doing that would give precisely zero information on long-term benefit or harm, unless you think they’ll wait a few decades before vaccinating others.

I will have to disagree. Yep the virus is bad for a tiny percentage of population. but I'm not taking an experimental vaccine. I will just take my chances.

And other people’s chances.

To be honest, there’s a valid argument for excluding nursing home workers who aren’t vaccinated. It’s an occupational health issue.

It’s not an either or situation.

When you’re talking about prioritizing it’s always an either or situation. Maybe not a now or never, but in this case it’s about giving one set of people the virus weeks, months or possibly years before another set of people and so giving protection earlier. You don’t protect vulnerable people well by vaccinating the people who come into contact with them secondhand. You protect them better by vaccinating themselves and by vaccinating the people who come directly into contact with them. So better to vaccinate the children/grandchildren or vulnerable people than the teachers who teach them. If you prioritise teachers over the rest of the population more generally then those family members who aren’t themselves priorities will get pushed further down the list, get the vaccine later and be more of a risk to their vulnerable relative than if teachers had not been prioritised. There isn’t a case to vaccinate teachers in order to protect the vulnerable at the population level.

Just to throw in another “what if” (this thread is like bloodsports!) - if it turns out that I (ECV) cannot have the vaccine due to immune issues, can my DW/carer have mine?

Logically it makes sense...

That is, of course, if non-employed carers aren’t already included in “care workers” (which I presumed they weren’t)

It's not going to be given to CEV before a "healthy 80 yr old" because statistically the healthy 80 year old is more likely to die.

Being CEV means you are more at risk of complications than others of your age/ethnicity/general health etc. But age is still, so far, the most significant risk factor for severe covid/death from Covid. Most of the people dying are old, not CEV.

To an extent many people got classified as CEV because we simply didn't/don't know enough about it, rather than because we had loads of evidence or that CEV people were dropping like flies from it.

If we vaccinate teachers will the problem of sending bubbles home go away anyway? If children are super spreaders even if the teacher is vaccinated will bubbles have to be sent home anyway as children are infecting each other? Will it actually solve the problem?