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?

@Ddot

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

That's terrible. All frontline workers should have access to PPE. Cleaners are so very important.

After care homes, healthcare staff (including non medical such as cleaners), and over 65s, the next on the list should be all extremely clinically vulnerable (heart conditions, blood cancer, diabetes, hypertension, etc) over 45.
Then all over 40s, then everybody else.

What about if I really quickly do a PGCE? Can I bump myself up the list then? 😂😂

@caringcarer

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.

I agree with all of this.

If only we had more supplies.

The middle-aged (40-60) will be, in a way, the most vulnerable until we get hold of more supplies. At increased risk, but unprotected.

I read it won't be available privately. Whether that's just the UK, I don't know. I wonder if we'll see any kind of Covid jab tourism?

I think the variety of posts on this thread perfectly illustrate the point that whatever the priority order, the government will never please everyone and there will always be groups that certain people think should be higher or lower in the pecking order!

@BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache

What about if I really quickly do a PGCE? Can I bump myself up the list then? 😂😂

I suppose the quickest way would be to get a job at a care home.

Again I am left unsurprised that teachers have yet again receive another bashing on Mumsnet.
I wonder how many non-teachers currently working at home saying teachers are not at risk would be happy to go into 7 or 8 different classrooms with up to 30 (different) teenagers each time, with very little ventilation, and no ppe (not allowed in the classroom). That's not to mention battling overcrowded corridors, lunch duties, after school duties etc

I definitely don't think teachers should be higher up the list than elderly, those shielding, health workers or other frontline workers (including supermarket staff) but they should be at least considered on the list and higher than your average worker from home.

I'm so fed up with all the teacher bashing, it really goes to show how little people value the profession.

@MrsWhites

I think the variety of posts on this thread perfectly illustrate the point that whatever the priority order, the government will never please everyone and there will always be groups that certain people think should be higher or lower in the pecking order!

A lot of posts talking about the government prioritising or not various groups.

It’s the JCVI which independently advises. I wondered who was on it so googled

Membership
Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Wei Shen Lim, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Judith Breuer (University College Hospital)
Dr Peter Elton (Greater Manchester, Lancashire, South Cumbria Strategic Clinical Network)
Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)
Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)
Alison Lawrence (lay member)
Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)

They seem very well placed to make good decisions about the priority

@MrsWhites

I think the variety of posts on this thread perfectly illustrate the point that whatever the priority order, the government will never please everyone and there will always be groups that certain people think should be higher or lower in the pecking order!

That's where my brand new conspiracy theory kicks in. The government are encouraging the anti vaxxers - because they need to calm down level of demand.

What do I call my conspiracy theory group. Well I say group, but so far it's just me...

They seem pretty well placed to me too :

Though if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might note that "NHS staff"/priority 1 for vaccine seems to include 50% of them... (of course this is for obvious reasons, if you aren't a conspiracy theorist 😄)

What happens about lifting if restrictions if the CEV are not vaccinated?

Do they have to live in isolation, so that everyone else can mingle in the scenario that they're now doing the 3.8m 65-70 yos and everyone else is itching to see restrictions lifted?

Are those who were advised to SI for months (not the elderly by the way, no age categories for shielding), going to have to continue live under precautions again whilst about 3.8m people whose clinical risk is lower than theirs (and who never needed those precautions) get the jab.

It's an identifiable group - not just people concerned about their own well being, but those who the government on the best scientific advice (at start and at autumn changes and updates) stated are at the very highest risk.

Double standards, and the shielded seem to be consistently getting the shitty end of the stick.

@Beachhappy - there’s such a thing as moral obligation, staff who work in the Frintline NHS do so for not other benefit than saving lives, not having a vaccine would directly contradict that. Staff have to hepatitis and measles vaccinations, are strongly encouraged flu vaccinations. There is not evidence to suggest they won’t have it. And to clarify we are talking frontline staff, not admin & clerical

Anyone else think that perhaps it's safer to given a brand new vaccine so the oldest people? Lawsuits less likely if it goes tits up than vaccinating healthy young teachers or nurses!

@BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache

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

Mama, priority 1/2 is everyone over 80 and all nhs staff/carers, and I refer you to my post above

I am 53, a chemotherapy patient. I have no immune system at the moment. Not sure how far down the list I am.

Possibly lower than low, I'm afraid - it doesn't look like the mRNA vaccine will be suitable for anyone who is immunosuppressed. From what I can gather from the small amount of info, it's because your immune system isn't up to making a sufficient response.

@Yespresh

I am 53, a chemotherapy patient. I have no immune system at the moment. Not sure how far down the list I am.

Similar to me - about 13million people ahead of us

And awaiting advice on whether it will be suitable
(Hoping it might be, because I can’t have live vaccines, so the attenuated carrier virus might rule out the Oxford one too)

If they decided that we could go with the 75yos (rather than after the 65yos), then there would be a mere 6m or so ahead of us

Government when there is very little safety data “We will give this to old people first, you lot next, and children never.”

Government when they decide the vaccine(s) are definitely safe: “We will give this to government servants first: teachers soldiers doctors MPs etc and especially lovely Doris in the Westminster canteen”

I'm just surprised that MPs and anyone who works in parliament aren't at the top of the list. Surely everybody knows that they are far more important than anyone else?

@CheeseAndOnionIcecream

I'm just surprised that MPs and anyone who works in parliament aren't at the top of the list. Surely everybody knows that they are far more important than anyone else?

There are a lot of older MPs - half are over 50

@BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache

Possibly lower than low, I'm afraid - it doesn't look like the mRNA vaccine will be suitable for anyone who is immunosuppressed. From what I can gather from the small amount of info, it's because your immune system isn't up to making a sufficient response.

We'll have to wait and see - and I know many still disagree, but there is evidence that immunosuppression might be helpful for Covid patients. It's often an overactive immune system that kills. Obviously much more research is needed at this stage, and it might not be the case afterall - but it's a possibility.

@nether
The elderly are clinically at the highest risk.
Age in itself is the (biggest) risk factor.

But absolutely, we should not relax all restricting, social distancing, and masks, until all the clinically vulnerable are vaccinated (and I mean all of them including diabetes and hypertension, not just those selected by the government for the shielding list).

In fact we'll need some form of (possibly looser) restrictions until a significant proportion of the population has been vaccinated. Even if at lesser risk of death, many healthy young people have needed hospital and will be off sick from work.

The positive news is that, whilst we won't immediately be able to return to normal, we will hopefully be able to slowly start to open up. It will be gradual (or should, if the government takes expert advice). It's all good. Something to work towards.

@CheeseAndOnionIcecream

I'm just surprised that MPs and anyone who works in parliament aren't at the top of the list. Surely everybody knows that they are far more important than anyone else?

I wouldn't put it past them to secretly have it (whilst officially still on the waiting list).

Then again, they're guaranteed hospital beds, and possibly drugs we won't all get (like the very expensive in short supply drugs Trump got). So perhaps they don't feel as urgent a need for a vaccine.

In all seriousness, I expect they'll declare themselves essential workers and jump the queue.

But absolutely, we should not relax all restricting, social distancing, and masks, until all the clinically vulnerable are vaccinated (and I mean all of them including diabetes and hypertension, not just those selected by the government for the shielding list)

Agree, but add that once vaccinated, those shielding could stop shielding and enjoy the greater freedoms of the less vulnerable population under ordinary lockdown rules. Something that is a distant dream right now

Some of the other vaccines are apparently suitable for immune compromised people. Or did I get that wrong? I'm sure that's what was said. It's a slightly longer wait but we should (fingers crossed) have more by spring (and potentially sooner).

This is why we won't be able to immediately go back to complete normal with no restrictions whatsoever by the new year. We can't do that until a significant proportion of the population is vaccinated.

When enough others are vaccinated, those who can't have the vaccine will have protection through genuine here immunity.

The WHO explains that herd immunity us achieved by protecting against a virus (not exposing to it), and once a certain percentage are vaccinated, everybody else will be protected too.

*herd immunity

@nether

But absolutely, we should not relax all restricting, social distancing, and masks, until all the clinically vulnerable are vaccinated (and I mean all of them including diabetes and hypertension, not just those selected by the government for the shielding list)

Agree, but add that once vaccinated, those shielding could stop shielding and enjoy the greater freedoms of the less vulnerable population under ordinary lockdown rules. Something that is a distant dream right now

Yes. That makes sense.

We have some way to go yet but things are looking up. It's positive news about the vaccines. We need to stay cautious for the time being but there's a light at the end of the tunnel.