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?

Which vulnerable people will not be able to be vaccinated? I haven't heard anything about that .They haven't found that it is ineffective in any age group.

People allergic to ingredients of the vaccine. People who have reacted badly to vaccines in the past. People who are too unwell to take the vaccine

Every vaccine has people who cannot have it. These ones will be no different

@lyralalala

Which vulnerable people will not be able to be vaccinated? I haven't heard anything about that .They haven't found that it is ineffective in any age group.

People allergic to ingredients of the vaccine. People who have reacted badly to vaccines in the past. People who are too unwell to take the vaccine

Every vaccine has people who cannot have it. These ones will be no different

Obviously people who are allergic to the vaccine or unwell can't have it but that applies to everyone and has nothing to do with being vulnerable to Covid.

Obviously people who are allergic to the vaccine or unwell can't have it but that applies to everyone and has nothing to do with being vulnerable to Covid.

Vulnerable people will be among those unable to have the vaccine. Which is what the poster said...

And you asked for examples

To have a vaccine announcement with a projected timeline that contradicts that is a legitimate reason for someone to either feel we were lied to about risk then, or are being now

I don't think you were lied to, I think the issue was they didn't know.

Now much more is known about the virus and the people who fall into the category of CEV will be accordingly different.

I think healthcare workers including carers should be first on the list, as they are most likely to catch it and/or pass it on, then CEV and then teachers/childminders and prison warders, and then as for flu, with tweaks as necessary to deal with differing risks for covid.

@lyralalala

Obviously people who are allergic to the vaccine or unwell can't have it but that applies to everyone and has nothing to do with being vulnerable to Covid.

Vulnerable people will be among those unable to have the vaccine. Which is what the poster said...

The poster didn't say that some people in general wouldn't be able to have the vaccine . They specifically said that some vulnerable people wouldn't be able to have the vaccine which implies that there is a particular problem for vulnerable people compared with the rest of the population. That may be the case of some vaccines but the Covid vaccine isn't live so vulnerable people can have it . Whilst allergy isn't impossible extreme allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. They may not give it if the person was unwell with some other infection but that would just mean they had to wait a few days rather than not have it at all.

Now much more is known about the virus and the people who fall into the category of CEV will be accordingly different

Maybe so. But there isn't the slightest suggestion that those who have had transplants or blood cancers are not exceptionally vulnerable. And those groups can generally receive many classes of vaccine.

@puffinkoala

To have a vaccine announcement with a projected timeline that contradicts that is a legitimate reason for someone to either feel we were lied to about risk then, or are being now

I don't think you were lied to, I think the issue was they didn't know.

Now much more is known about the virus and the people who fall into the category of CEV will be accordingly different.

I think healthcare workers including carers should be first on the list, as they are most likely to catch it and/or pass it on, then CEV and then teachers/childminders and prison warders, and then as for flu, with tweaks as necessary to deal with differing risks for covid.

Well that would make sense, if England hadn't just started another lockdown which advised CEV people - from the March list - to shield again (though it's not technically called "shielding" anymore, as this time you can go for a short walk), and only advised older people that their age makes them vulnerable. Not clinically extremely vulnerable.

From my understanding:
The mRNA Pfizer vaccine would require a natural immune response once your body synthesises the viral fragment. Those with low immunity/immunosuppression/immune-compromised may not have a sufficient response for it to be worthwhile possibly wasting a valuable vaccine on them (and I'm in this group btw). This would also apply to any inactivated vaccines, which is why as far as I can see from the evidence I've read, it is being restricted due to the chances of it working.
Though I honestly don't understand (if this is the case) why they rule out patients with lowered immunity due to medication, but not those with lowered immunity due to age? I assume there is a cut off somewhere for acceptable immune response??

Anywho, this is different to the reason why attenuated/"live" vaccines are unsuitable, which is that they can cause the vaccine-illness to take over the host without a sufficient response from the immune system.

@BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache

From my understanding: The mRNA Pfizer vaccine would require a natural immune response once your body synthesises the viral fragment. Those with low immunity/immunosuppression/immune-compromised may not have a sufficient response for it to be worthwhile possibly wasting a valuable vaccine on them (and I'm in this group btw). This would also apply to any inactivated vaccines, which is why as far as I can see from the evidence I've read, it is being restricted due to the chances of it working. Though I honestly don't understand (if this is the case) why they rule out patients with lowered immunity due to medication, but not those with lowered immunity due to age? I assume there is a cut off somewhere for acceptable immune response??

Anywho, this is different to the reason why attenuated/"live" vaccines are unsuitable, which is that they can cause the vaccine-illness to take over the host without a sufficient response from the immune system.

Immunosuppressed does not mean no immunity at all usually. Some immune response is probably better than no immune response. You might still get Covid but not as badly. Obviously they haven't tested this out, but it would be wrong to not try giving the vaccine at all to people who immunocompromised, given that it probably will have some impact. They have looked at it in older people and they do have a strong response.

'The poster didn't say that some people in general wouldn't be able to have the vaccine . They specifically said that some vulnerable people wouldn't be able to have the vaccine which implies that there is a particular problem for vulnerable people compared with the rest of the population.'

Belladonna that's not what I said. I said that some vulnerable people wouldn't be able to have the vaccine and made no comment as to if this was higher than the general population. It is a fact that some people who may be vulnerable won't be able to be vaccinated.

You're putting words into my mouth to suit your agenda.

The reason i stated it was to point out to you that you cannot assume everyone who is vulnerable will be vaccinated so saying that teachers won't need to b vaccinated to protect the vulnerable as they will all have be vaccinated is untrue and a blanket assumption on your part.

Also I didn't say that immunosuppressed meant no immunity, just that it is listed as a reason why someone possibly couldn't have the Pfizer vaccine - along with my speculation that it is because they may not have a sufficient immune response.

Emphasis also on may there, btw

@sherryperry

'The poster didn't say that some people in general wouldn't be able to have the vaccine . They specifically said that some vulnerable people wouldn't be able to have the vaccine which implies that there is a particular problem for vulnerable people compared with the rest of the population.'

Belladonna that's not what I said. I said that some vulnerable people wouldn't be able to have the vaccine and made no comment as to if this was higher than the general population. It is a fact that some people who may be vulnerable won't be able to be vaccinated.

You're putting words into my mouth to suit your agenda.

The reason i stated it was to point out to you that you cannot assume everyone who is vulnerable will be vaccinated so saying that teachers won't need to b vaccinated to protect the vulnerable as they will all have be vaccinated is untrue and a blanket assumption on your part.

What you define as "some" As I said severe allergy to vaccinations is very rare. I think it's one or two per million people. The chances of a child being both vulnerable and severely allergic are even smaller. There may not even be one child in the UK it would apply to so do you really think that they are going to vaccinate all teachers for that reason?

@BeyondsConstantBangingHeadache

Also I didn't say that immunosuppressed meant no immunity, just that it is listed as a reason why someone possibly couldn't have the Pfizer vaccine - along with my speculation that it is because they may not have a sufficient immune response.

Why would the fact that their immune response may not be good enough to totally stop symptoms be a reason to not give it at all though. Any response is better than nothing so why would they not still give it?

Yes I am. Not before clinically vulnerable people obviously. But before a similar person who is able to solely work from home. I would say the same about any person who is public facing and spends long periods of time in a small room with lots of people such as nursery staff, factory workers and office workers that cannot work from home. It will also slow general spread across the population who isn't vaccinated. Anyone can get ill, so surely it makes sense that once clinically vulnerable and the elderly are vaccinated they then move onto people such as teachers who are exposed to alot of people.

@sherryperry

Yes I am. Not before clinically vulnerable people obviously. But before a similar person who is able to solely work from home. I would say the same about any person who is public facing and spends long periods of time in a small room with lots of people such as nursery staff, factory workers and office workers that cannot work from home. It will also slow general spread across the population who isn't vaccinated. Anyone can get ill, so surely it makes sense that once clinically vulnerable and the elderly are vaccinated they then move onto people such as teachers who are exposed to alot of people.

Maybe they will move on to certain occupations if there is evidence that people in those populations are more likely to need hospital treatment or die from Covid. I doubt they are going to start working out who does and doesn't spend a long time in a small room and then in theory would be at more risk of catching it though.

Maybe...
Or maybe they could figure out really easily that a teacher who sees hundreds of people at close contact every day should be higher priority than a person who hasn't left the house in 6 months as they can work from home. Shouldn't take them long to figure that out.

And it's not only about who might catch it and get really poorly, it's also to do with who can spread it round to lots of other people who might catch it and get really poorly.

It's not rocket science

@sherryperry

Maybe... Or maybe they could figure out really easily that a teacher who sees hundreds of people at close contact every day should be higher priority than a person who hasn't left the house in 6 months as they can work from home. Shouldn't take them long to figure that out.

And it's not only about who might catch it and get really poorly, it's also to do with who can spread it round to lots of other people who might catch it and get really poorly.

It's not rocket science

It may not be rocket science to work out that someone who come into contact with a lot of people would be more likely to get infected than those who have worked at home six months but it could be time consuming to work out exactly who can work at home and who can't. They are not likely to do that if the vulnerable are vaccinated and people in a particular occupation are not more likely to be hospitalised. Teachers may or may not be more at risk of catching it but if that doesn't translate into more hospitalisations and deaths either among themselves or the children they teach why would they prioritise them vaccination?

Right, I'm not sure why you are arguing this point. You seem very adamant that teachers should not get the vaccination above anyone else at all and should be bottom of the pile? Have you not heard what's happening in schools? I have colleagues who aren't CV who have been seriously ill. They are clearly more at risk seeing lots of children each day than my friend who hasn't left the house in 6 months, gets a food delivery and works from home.

I've stated my reasons as to the order of priority for teachers and school staff being below CV people but above certain other people. I see no reason why the government wouldn't continue to list priority after CV have been vaccinated starting with jobs that are public facing in large numbers. Why would they not? It makes sense to keep the majority of the public safe.

Right, I'm not sure why you are arguing this point. You seem very adamant that teachers should not get the vaccination above anyone else at all and should be bottom of the pile?

I don't think they should be at the bottom of the pile . I just don't think they should be at the top . i.e. I think they should be treated the same as everyone else and only prioritised for the vaccination if there is evidence that they are more vulnerable to death or hospitalisation because of Covid or are in direct contact with people who will be.

I I see no reason why the government wouldn't continue to list priority after CV have been vaccinated starting with jobs that are public facing in large numbers. Why would they not? It makes sense to keep the majority of the public safe.

They would not if there was no actual evidence that doing so would increase safety for the public. If everyone who is vulnerable is vaccinated and the people left are likely to only experience mild disease then it wouldn't necessarily increase public safety to vaccinate those in particular occupations. From a public health point of view it might be safer if those who are low risk catch it.

I don't think they should be at the bottom of the pile . I just don't think they should be at the top . i.e. I think they should be treated the same as everyone else and only prioritised for the vaccination if there is evidence that they are more vulnerable to death or hospitalisation because of Covid or are in direct contact with people who will be.

I don't think they should be at the top either. That's what I've been saying. They should be below CV along with others in similar roles. I'm just explaining that even if they are at no more risk of hospitalisation than any one else they clearly are more likely to spread it to others than many other jobs and should be above those jobs. We have no idea who will get poorly.

They would not if there was no actual evidence that doing so would increase safety for the public. If everyone who is vulnerable is vaccinated and the people left are likely to only experience mild disease then it wouldn't necessarily increase public safety to vaccinate those in particular occupations. From a public health point of view it might be safer if those who are low risk catch it.

We have no idea who is likely to become very poorly, even in the general population. That's why I'm saying they should prioritise people in close contact with lots of other people next. Whether they will or not I don't know. But in my opinion they should.

@sherryperry

I don't think they should be at the bottom of the pile . I just don't think they should be at the top . i.e. I think they should be treated the same as everyone else and only prioritised for the vaccination if there is evidence that they are more vulnerable to death or hospitalisation because of Covid or are in direct contact with people who will be.

I don't think they should be at the top either. That's what I've been saying. They should be below CV along with others in similar roles. I'm just explaining that even if they are at no more risk of hospitalisation than any one else they clearly are more likely to spread it to others than many other jobs and should be above those jobs. We have no idea who will get poorly.

They would not if there was no actual evidence that doing so would increase safety for the public. If everyone who is vulnerable is vaccinated and the people left are likely to only experience mild disease then it wouldn't necessarily increase public safety to vaccinate those in particular occupations. From a public health point of view it might be safer if those who are low risk catch it.

We have no idea who is likely to become very poorly, even in the general population. That's why I'm saying they should prioritise people in close contact with lots of other people next. Whether they will or not I don't know. But in my opinion they should.

It doesn't matter that they are in contact with a lot of people per se . What matters is whether they are in close contact with a lot of vulnerable unvaccinated people. NHS workers and care home workers are at the moment and that is why they are being vaccinated first. Teachers are never going to be in close contact with a lot of vulnerable unvaccinated people so highly unlikely they would be a priority.

I don't know what you mean when you say we have no idea who is likely to become very poorly. We have a pretty good idea now and very few of those people are healthy young people.

SEN teachers would be an exception to that though, and I would expect them to be vaccinated before gen pop.