Vaccine fairness

[MozzchopsThirty]

AIBU to think we should be vaccinating all those of working age, BAME communities, younger vulnerable and healthcare workers first? Not in order of age

The circumstances for those shielded is vastly different to those who are CV, in terms of how we lived and the guidance we were asked to follow, these things should not be confused, which was my point, being told not even take your bins out for 3 months VS be extra careful in the supermarket for example.

I am not confused at all. I am a healthcare professional and as I said I was officially in the shielding group . In my case, that just meant I could get help with deliveries etc if I needed to whereas now I can't. There isn't a sudden cut-off point where you do or don't need to be careful. The list was limited for economic reasons - they couldn't afford to help everybody but some of the people not on the list still have a much higher risk than the rest of the population (as evidenced by the number of people who have died) and will have been advised by the doctor to avoid supermarkets. People are individuals and the risk varies within the groups and is not defined precisely on they are on the shielding list.

Dear lord, I said the experiences between the groups should not be confused not the risk levels of the two. Im not sure how many times to say the same thing so I’ll not bother, you’d argue the moon is made of cheese to hear your own opinion, I recall thinking the same thing on one of these threads earlier in the year, I should've paid more attention.

@Redcherries

Dear lord, I said the experiences between the groups should not be confused not the risk levels of the two. Im not sure how many times to say the same thing so I’ll not bother, you’d argue the moon is made of cheese to hear your own opinion, I recall thinking the same thing on one of these threads earlier in the year, I should've paid more attention.

Good grief. You just don't seem to get it. You seem to think that everybody who is in the "clinically vulnerable group" is off down the supermarket and just has to be a bit careful but the reality is that because the risk is not uniform within the group the experiences of people within the group is not the same. To say that the experience of those on the shielding list is vastly different from those in the vulnerable group is not true in all cases at all. Some people in the clinically vulnerable group have on the advice of their doctor not been out of the house much since March either.

[quote iVampire]none of the vaccines are currently suitable for them according to OH's oncologist as the vaccines havn't been tested on people with such conditions, so it could be many months before those ECV people will get a vaccine

My haem team told me at the start of the week that it is OK for me (I have leukaemia controlled by TKIs) and Blood Cancer UK published an article in which it says the government has stated it is safe for those with blood cancers

bloodcancer.org.uk/news/coronavirus-vaccine-approved-for-use-next-week-our-response/[/quote]
I am CEV and my consultant confirmed yesterday it is fine for me.

“other people who have also been classed as clinically extremely vulnerable, based on clinical judgement and an assessment of their needs. GPs and hospital clinicians have been provided with guidance to support these decisions“

Anyone considered that high risk should have been added to the list by their dr or consultant, therefore receiving the support and guidance set up for CEV. If people have been failed by their teams that is one of the huge issues with the whole situation, the facility for anyone who a consultant considered as being so high risk to be added to the list was there. Or, it may be that they’ve been advised to limit activities, in-line with the advice that was issued for cv at that time. So yes, I do get it and the procedure was there for those people to be shielded despite not being a listed condition. Or do you mean people whose drs didn’t consider them such high risk so didn’t add them but advised them to use as much caution as possible?

@Redcherries

“other people who have also been classed as clinically extremely vulnerable, based on clinical judgement and an assessment of their needs. GPs and hospital clinicians have been provided with guidance to support these decisions“

Anyone considered that high risk should have been added to the list by their dr or consultant, therefore receiving the support and guidance set up for CEV. If people have been failed by their teams that is one of the huge issues with the whole situation, the facility for anyone who a consultant considered as being so high risk to be added to the list was there. Or, it may be that they’ve been advised to limit activities, in-line with the advice that was issued for cv at that time. So yes, I do get it and the procedure was there for those people to be shielded despite not being a listed condition. Or do you mean people whose drs didn’t consider them such high risk so didn’t add them but advised them to use as much caution as possible?

What I mean is that the risk is not all or nothing. Some people would be just below the cut-off based on their immunosuppressive therapy for example but almost as at much risk as those in the shielding group. Studies have found that those people often shielded anyway and infection rates weren't any different to those on the official shielding list . Also, not everyone wanted or needed to be added to the official shielding list. A friend of mine probably should have been added but she worked a home and could get food delivered anyway so didn't bother. Perhaps she will now there is a vaccine but up until now there hasn't been much point.