I know this is a bit morbid

[fancyginglass]

But do you really think they should have given so much publicity to the first elderly people getting the vaccine? Given their age, what if something happened to them in the next few weeks? This would seriously dent the update of the vaccine and the anti-vaxers would have a field day. Obviously I wish them all well.

I thought the same ....

I had the same thought...

100% agree op

I'm lost as to why we want to immunise a 90 year old rather than an NHS worker.

@HollyBollyBooBoo

I'm lost as to why we want to immunise a 90 year old rather than an NHS worker.

Jesus Christ. Try doing some reading it's not complicated.

& your comment is disgusting

DH did comment “Christ, I hope she doesn’t die in the next few weeks”.

I thought the same tbh

@fancyginglass

The first person to get a vaccine for a virus causing a pandemic was always going to make history, as they should.

If something (bad) happens to her, not related to the vaccine, it'll be very sad.

If something (bad) happens to her because of the vaccine (extremely unlikely when there weren't any issues with the trials) then it SHOULD have an impact on the rolling out of the vaccines.

I thought this last week...if care home residents get it first...well to be quite frank, a lot of them may die from other causes in the not too distant future and how many people will end up saying oh it was the vaccine.

I'm going to mute this thread I think. It's going to make me despair I can already tell.

I think theyre confident enough it will work for now but potentionally not confident in the long run 5/10/15 years.

I dunno but if it was a choice between

A) older people trial it over 5 years
B) your kids trial it over 5 years
C) live like this for another 5 years

I'm gonna assume they chose A.

I love my grandparents they are my absolute backbone. Grandad has cancer, nan has 20+ years left on her.

Grandad wont take it because he wont be a statistic (fair) nan will and can't wait to get here and see people again.

I've seen who say they wont risk dying earlier to save others but thats life isn't it, some go to war some would never. This is times we haven't seen.

I just want it done now tbh, I'm sick of the omg they're tracking us, its a rich people conspiracy, we are gonna grow 2 heads type bollocks.

I just want my 2 year old and 9 month old to properly meet their family, playgroup to open and not have people recoil in horror every time i cough.

I mean, there's no evidence of short term effects of the vaccines. It's more long term effects that are yet to be discovered (if any, of course) so if they do happen to die very shortly, it won't be blamed on the vaccine.

My husband and I had exactly the same thought straight off. Both of these people are living on borrowed time already, quite honestly. If they pass away in the near future antivaxx people are going to go crazy.

I'm lost as to why we want to immunise a 90 year old rather than an NHS worker.

We are going to be vaccinating NHS workers, my friend is an ITU nurse and has her appointment next week.

And we're immunities a 90 year old because they're vulnerable, that's someone's 90 year old and they didn't cease to matter once they reached a certain age limit.

It's to reduce pressure on the NHS. The people being prioritised for the vaccine are the ones most likely to need significant medical intervention if they catch it. Vaccinating them reduces potential pressures on the NHS over the winter meaning that beds for heart attack victims, car crash victims etc are still available. I'd rather my 92 year old Gran got vaccinated than see a 32 year old die from injuries in a car crash because there weren't ITU beds available locally

My first thought exactly

@HollyBollyBooBoo

I'm lost as to why we want to immunise a 90 year old rather than an NHS worker.

Maybe you should spend a bit of time researching and then you will no longer be 'lost'

Given their age, what if something happened to them in the next few weeks?

This would seriously dent the update of the vaccine and the anti-vaxers would have a field day.

If something non related happened it would be irrelevant, except for the anti vac campaigners who would cling on to it like every other bit of irrelevant information they do.

Of something related happened then we stop using said vaccine.

Younger NHS workers all over the U.K. have also been getting vaccinated today. The same applies to them. Of something unrelated happens the anti vax brigade will try to twist it, nobody listens to these prats anyway though.

I mean, there's no evidence of short term effects of the vaccines. It's more long term effects that are yet to be discovered

Long term effects, as in side effects that appear years later, aren't really a thing. The only vaccine with a potential side effect that may appear several years later is the chickenpox vaccine, sometimes the vaccinated person can get shingles years later (but this is also a side effect of catching chickenpox so...)

I know everyone says age doesn't matter in this situation, but in many assessments in health, it really does matter- QALY's which are used to make economic assessments about new cancer drugs for example, calculate quality and quantity of life left.

So, amount of years left does matter in cost evaluating treatments, I am not really sure why it doesn't here. I'm pretty sure if children and young people had even half the risk of a 50 year old, the 50 year old (me) would rather a child went ahead and had the vaccine and not me.

I don't know why talking about age is taboo here and not in any other aspect of cost calculations in the NHS, it's become a 'thing' here that dare not speak it's name but I think quantity and quality of life are both important.

@Poppingnostopping

I don't think drug treatments are comparable with vaccinations.

Cancer treatment - yes age is a factor. The cancer only affects the individual. Covid is very very different and vaccinating older people will help protect others.

Someone must have thought about this.
Potentially surely it could be worse if a young person had the vaccine first and died shortly after. With an older person the public are probably more familiar with a multitude of things that can be fatal in the later years.
If a young person recently vaccinated had eg, a heart attack shortly after the jab, that would be disastrous pr for the vaccine.

@HollyBollyBooBoo

I'm lost as to why we want to immunise a 90 year old rather than an NHS worker.

That’s exactly my thought.

Potentially surely it could be worse if a young person had the vaccine first and died shortly after.

Young people are having the vaccine too. The lady that had it first made the news because she was first. Straight after that many others across the U.K. were also vaccinated.

providentglue I agree it's not the same as testing a drug treatment just saying that it's not unusual or horrible to take into account longevity at all in medicine. Same for DNR discussions, end of life discussions, all kinds of things go on at certain ages which wouldn't be appropriate at a different age.

Personally, I think NHS front line staff and care staff should have been first, I think dying on your job is a risk that should not be presented to them, and I think it's not long before there's a lawsuit coming for those that weren't protected properly first time around. Especially black and ethnic minority staff who are well represented in major cities in the NHS.

I understand why they went with care home residents first- they take up a lot of NHS resources and are very vulnerable if they get covid, and in an ideal world, both would be done at the same time. However, I think there are other motivations in there, not least the feeling that care homes are going to be the biggest scandal (possibly even bigger than the lack of PPE in NHS scandal) and that vaccinating old people has an 'awwww' factor that vaccinating a 48 year old porter does not (unfairly IMO). Perhaps also someone did think that their general health is poor so any issues won't look so obvious if indeed there are going to be any.