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?

Thanks sheep - wasn't sure if UK would use that or their own data

We are the only country to have a shielding list. Worldwide, the most deaths have been amongst people with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney conditions, and severe pulmonary issues.

Worldwide, the most deaths have been amongst people with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney conditions, and severe pulmonary issues

Is that looking at crude numbers of deaths, or the rate per 100,000 (or other number)?

Because when comparing between countries there are quite a lot of potential confounders, not least the relative size of the population with a particular co-morbidity.

@SheepandCow

We are the only country to have a shielding list. Worldwide, the most deaths have been amongst people with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney conditions, and severe pulmonary issues.

We might be the only country to call it shielding, but we’re not the only country to have a list at all.

Ireland, for example, have a list of people cocooning.

@SheepandCow

We are the only country to have a shielding list. Worldwide, the most deaths have been amongst people with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney conditions, and severe pulmonary issues.

Many people on the shielding list do have those diseases, particularly severe pulmonary issues.

I do feel those people who are clinically very vulnerable (I.e shielding letter) people should be at the top of the list. My 60 year old mother is very high risk but she works and as soon as shielding was stopped, she had to go back into the office. I find it mad that they seem to be so far down the list!

Belladonna, the vulnerability list is like bingo for me!

Age and sex are still on my side though

@BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache

Be nice to do that because ECV are apparently at highest risk, and it be counterproductive as the government then uses it as evidence that "see, you're not that high risk after all - only a few of you died" 🙄

I get what you're saying. I'd be cynical if I'd been on the original ECV list. The amount of cockups we've had wrt handling this pandemic! Luckily we have access to worldwide data, which gives us a clearer picture.

I'd say that everyone on the list should still be cautious. It's possible (although obviously not definitely known yet) that some are lower risk than people with cardiovascular conditions or diabetes - but that's not the same as no risk.

I think they have said that they do not know the order of vaccination for people under 50 yet who are not in a high risk category higher in the vaccination list. They mentioned they may consider who is at risk of long covid, who is more likely to spread its etc.

who require hospital admission
Perhaps that's it?
If they need hospital they're at higher risk - but are they less likely than say diabetics, hypertensives, or heart patients, to get ill enough with Covid to need hospitalisation in the first place? There's increasing evidence to suggest that immunosuppression can protect against serious illness from Covid

No that’s not it, because every single person with a haematological cancer was shielding and not catching it in the first place. Even in countries without a full in shielding programme, medical advice kept those living with it (any kind) indoors. Having a cancerous immune system isn’t remotely like other immune suppression.

@SexTrainGlue
It's been very widely reported. There's been adjustments made for comorbidities, age, sex, ethnicity, etc - and still the highest mortality rates are those conditions (plus some cancers, and dementia).

@Belladonna12
Yes severe pulmonary issues, are I believe, included on the shielding list. Diabetes, hypertension, and many cardiovascular conditions are not. Nor was age (over 65 or 70).

With 1 in 3 of all the deaths being in people diabetes, you'd have thought it would've been added. At least for those over 40.

That's interesting @lyralalala
Cocooning sounds nicer than shielding. More cosy. Wonder if they're protecting all the most extremely vulnerable including by age (over 65/70) and diabetes?

Cocooning sounds too much like it's from a horror film for my liking!

Sheep, I'd suggest that the only reason bp/diabetes/obesity haven't been added is the large % of the population with one, if not all three! I'd assume it would be too large a number to keep everything running normal-ish, which would mean fewer restrictions for ECV (including them) and more for the gen pop - to allow for it to be safe for them to continue working?

@SheepandCow

We are the only country to have a shielding list. Worldwide, the most deaths have been amongst people with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, kidney conditions, and severe pulmonary issues.

What about Europe?

I know in Germany CEV is around 3% and this effects working practises. But this must be across the board?

plus some cancers

So that tends to support the idea that those on the shielding list should be higher priority - as it does not list all cancers, just those with the greatest risk (as iVampire says all blood cancers as they really do present an extremely high risk)

There have been some mutterings in official briefings mentioning some cancers and transplant recipients rather than the whole shielding list

I think it would be better if the CEV were included at the same level as 70 year olds.

I think it is quite wrong that the government is telling worker A aged say 64, that they must not attend their workplace because it is too risky (even if it's open, even if it means ESA/UC) but they cannot have jab yet; whereas their colleague age 65 who is working normally can have it

@iVampire

who require hospital admission Perhaps that's it? If they need hospital they're at higher risk - but are they less likely than say diabetics, hypertensives, or heart patients, to get ill enough with Covid to need hospitalisation in the first place? There's increasing evidence to suggest that immunosuppression can protect against serious illness from Covid

No that’s not it, because every single person with a haematological cancer was shielding and not catching it in the first place. Even in countries without a full in shielding programme, medical advice kept those living with it (any kind) indoors. Having a cancerous immune system isn’t remotely like other immune suppression.

Interesting that other countries had some form of shielding. I know many didn't (and the data from their deaths will be most useful).

Those countries with medical advice to stay indoors? Was that for all the most vulnerable, i.e. diabetes, heart patients, etc? Interesting to see who might've got things right.

I expect many shielding/staying in couldn't completely avoid it because so many people don't live alone (and also need to attend medical appointments, etc). Presumably that's how people caught it, and why we can have an idea of death risk.

I understand that certain cancers (but not others), like the type you refer to, are one of the higher risk conditions for Covid. Together with other extremely high risk conditions such as cardiovascular, hypertension, and diabetes.

We're still learning a lot. The role of any kind of immunosuppression - is interesting. There's certainly some evidence to suggest it might help. Possibly not when there's cancer, but definitely there's a lot to look into more generally.

@BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache

Cocooning sounds too much like it's from a horror film for my liking!

Sheep, I'd suggest that the only reason bp/diabetes/obesity haven't been added is the large % of the population with one, if not all three! I'd assume it would be too large a number to keep everything running normal-ish, which would mean fewer restrictions for ECV (including them) and more for the gen pop - to allow for it to be safe for them to continue working?

Yes I think you're right. So basically the government's message: You can be protected if you're clinically extremely vulnerable - but actually, no, only a small selected group of you can be. The rest of you are still at extremely high risk but we can't fit you in, so sod off!

That doesn't explain why the elderly weren't on the shielding list. Over 70s aren't generally part of the workforce.

Age is still the biggest risk factor.

@nether

plus some cancers

So that tends to support the idea that those on the shielding list should be higher priority - as it does not list all cancers, just those with the greatest risk (as iVampire says all blood cancers as they really do present an extremely high risk)

There have been some mutterings in official briefings mentioning some cancers and transplant recipients rather than the whole shielding list

I think it would be better if the CEV were included at the same level as 70 year olds.

I think it is quite wrong that the government is telling worker A aged say 64, that they must not attend their workplace because it is too risky (even if it's open, even if it means ESA/UC) but they cannot have jab yet; whereas their colleague age 65 who is working normally can have it

Age is still the biggest risk.

@Changechangychange

Oh Mumsnet, you are batshit. Never change.

Surely it should be:

1. Teachers
2. Teachers
3. Teachers
4. Teachers’ families and friends
5. School children (to protect teachers)

And if there is any left over, vaccine the teachers again just to be sure. CEV can have what’s left.

What is all this teachers, teachers thing about? They haven't asked for it. Calm down people. Give it to the healthcare workers, then the people who normally are sent for the flu jab..ie the elderly and CEV..

My friend is a key worker, over 50 with health issues she works for a company that deal with covid patients but is only a cleaner so probably wont get any higher up the list. Didnt get any ppe had to scrounge it off the workers when covid was at its worst

Any vaccine that comes out now has not had extensive testing, so in an extremely harsh reality they probably don’t want to offer it to the whole population first...

As I said upthread though, while testing on elderly people is obviously ethically dubious, testing on the entire UK cohort of medical staff is just fucking stupid.

I'm as sure as I can be that the fact it hasn't had any long-term testing isn't the reason for the ordering of the priority list

I am 67 and was listed as very vulnerable due to health issues . I live with my daughter and her family . 15 year old granddaughter - risk to me
Daughter frontline NHS nurse - risk to me . SIL postman - very low risk to me . I do not think that any of these reasons should push me up the list .
Daughter was ill last night and came home from work was tested this morning and had a positive result ten minutes ago .
I’ll just have to hide in my room for 2 weeks

@AuroraSophia

Any vaccine that comes out now has not had extensive testing, so in an extremely harsh reality they probably don’t want to offer it to the whole population first...

The vaccines will have passed vigorous safety testing before being licenced.

Every year we have a new flu jab.

i tend to agree , care workers who work with elderly in nursing homes should get vaccine and and visitors but not sure about residents, vulnerable groups should get it, my husband would be classed as vulnerable and although we are both over 70 are able to live independent lives , i feel we would benefit from the vaccine, everyone would have their own ideas on who should have vaccines first, unlike the idiots outside that school urging children and parents not to have the vaccine at all

I think the list is fine. As there is only so many does of vaccine we have brought it ought to go to thoseost in need living in care homes and care workers, over 80's, then ages downwards in 5 years. I think there will only be enough vaccine for those down to over 60. I think others will have to wait for second batch of vaccine or else wait for Oxford vaccine. Teachers will just take their turn according to their age as will all other key workers except health workers in a patient facing roll. I wondered how long it would be before people started saying various groups should go first.