Covid vaccine - only half the population and not for under 18s (FT article)

[snowballer]

Don't know if this has already been mentioned elsewhere but thought it was worth posting. I've read quite a few posts where people have been musing about whether or not they would vaccinate their children. The article says adults only, and of those adults only those over 50 plus healthcare workers and those who are vulnerable.

It's not clear whether it would be available privately to those outside these groups or whether the vaccine is not formulated for children (I'm no scientist so don't know if this is even a thing!)

Pic of article below - fingers crossed it posts.

Char you sound like you are in the know! I must admit I did think why are we doing all this? There is no light at the end of the tunnel for under 50s only for the over 50s

@Limona

Apart from anything else I honestly cannot see the point of vaccinating a child for an illness that most probably will be symptomless.

This.

@CrappleUmble

Everyone in my house is under 40 and low risk so I had expected we would be near the back of the queue tbh.

Same here but the way I see it is the more people around us that are vaccinated the better the protection for us too until it is our turn to receive the vaccination.

Hmmm am over 50. Come back with the vaccine when it's been safely tested in a few years time !

@Flibbitygibbit

Hmmm am over 50. Come back with the vaccine when it's been safely tested in a few years time !

I'll have yours please

It seems straightforward enough to me: vaccinate those who are most at risk.

I suppose it depends what the end goal of the vaccination programme is: to protect (most of) those at risk, or to vaccinate enough people to end the epidemic.

If you vaccinate less than half the population then you accept that it’ll just spread at will among the rest which you personally might be fine with but a lot of people in that group won’t be. Plus then you’re still putting the higher-risk people who’ve been vaccinated at risk, because some of them won’t be able to get the vaccine, and some of the ones who do won’t get protection from it (vaccines tend to work less well in older people).

Or you say “no we don’t want it spreading among the population, but we won’t vaccinate you, so you need to stay at home and not socialise indefinitely and homeschool your kids for two weeks every time there’s a case in school.”

Of course they should vaccinate the highest risk first seems an absolute no-brainer that the ultimate goal of the programme should be to end the epidemic.

This is news? Surely we knew that there won’t be enough vaccine to go around at first, so those most at risk will get it?

Aren’t we going to have to have it every year, anyway?

It's so early to speculate. We don't even know if there will be a vaccine and if so how effective it will prove to be in different demographics. They will prioritise those most at risk health wise. The end. Because that's the most moral fucking thing to do. We truly are fucked as a society if we start protecting the most able to work first because the economy is king. That's outside even the most right wing remit....so far anyway. You'd have a hell of a hard time convincing the medical community to follow through with it.

People who think we are going to have masses of this vaccine any time soon have no clue of the huge logistical challenges of manufacturing of vaccines.

@tootyfruitypickle

I think this is rubbish. Yes those groups will be done first. But then they will roll out to all adults. What about BAME men in their 40s for eg? Theyll want all adults to have it especially as it’s unlikely to give elderly 100pc vaccine. I reckon groups outlined done by early summer, younger groups by the early autumn. Don't think children will ever get it.

I was thinking this too. Generally speaking, vaccines are less effective in the elderly - if you want the vulnerable protected, I can't see how you can achieve it by vaccinating that group alone.

This doesn’t surprise me. It has been known for ages that the virus has minimal risk to those under 40. If the virus had the same effect on the entire population as it does on the under 40s, we’d all be living totally normal lives.

Every vaccine has side-effects. The question is do the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the side-effects? For the over 70s, almost certainly yes. For children and young adults almost certainly no.

There is a grey area about when vaccination should start. It may make more sense to be over 40s is male or BAME and over 50 for women.

@BlueBlancmange

"There is going to be no vaccination of people under 18.

"It's an adult-only vaccine for people over 50 focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable."

I don't think her communication is very clear. The first sentence implies only people under 18 are excluded, but the second one states that only those over 50 will get it. So will those aged 18 to 50 be eligible or not?

My take away of this is that no under 18s will get it. All over 50s will get it. Adults between 18-49 will receive it if they fall into the vulnerable category or are HCPs etc.

@Lemons1571

I can’t imagine leaving the 40’s unvaccinated is going to work for the public or for the economy.

Which parents want their unvaccinated child taught by a 48yo unfit coughing breathless teacher who is no longer allowed to isolate?

How would immunity passports work? People in their 30’s and 40’s are pretty economically active but a lot won’t want to “get back to normal” with such large swathes of the population unvaccinated. Office blocks will still be pretty empty. Large arena events aimed at those in their 30’s and 40’s are still going to be empty. I’m not even sure that the vaccinated over 50’s would relish sitting on a plane with coughing covid infected 40 year olds? Plus you’ve got the whole argument that you’re vaccinating the 80+’s who have a shorter lifespan to go, but allowing the under 50’s to risk long covid and all the complications that are becoming clearer.

I can understand the priority ranking and agree with it. But I think the government need a greater degree of normal than filling up the garden centre cafes.

Hospitals won't be overwhelmed though. That's the whole point. Most 40 year olds even it they get a bad case of the virus won't need hospital treatment at all.

My best guess is that this will work like the flu vaccine which is available at no cost to certain defined groups, and to others on a paid for basis. I don't see this as an initial priority list which will later be expanded.

I understand why people say that under 18s don't need it because they get such mild symptoms, but what about the risk of transmission to their households? And what about the disruption to their education and impact on their health caused by endless 2 weeks' isolation at home without exercise?

Hospitals won't be overwhelmed though. That's the whole point. Most 40 year olds even it they get a bad case of the virus won't need hospital treatment at all - but the threshold isn't 40 for this vaccine, it's 50 - that leaves 10 years' of the population at slightly higher risk (or much higher risk after 45) and no vaccine.

This is news? Surely we knew that there won’t be enough vaccine to go around at first, so those most at risk will get it?

Prioritising the order of who gets it when is not news. The part where the head of the vaccine task force is saying that the public has got the wrong end of the stick and those not high-risk won’t get vaccinated at all, that part’s news.

@Disconnect

I understand why people say that under 18s don't need it because they get such mild symptoms, but what about the risk of transmission to their households? And what about the disruption to their education and impact on their health caused by endless 2 weeks' isolation at home without exercise?

I assume that once you've implemented a vaccination programme and have protected the most vulnerable, the two weeks' isolation will no longer be required. It would be absolutely barking mad to vaccinate the elderly and then require working age people and schools children to isolate on a never ending rolling basis.

@Disconnect

Hospitals won't be overwhelmed though. That's the whole point. Most 40 year olds even it they get a bad case of the virus won't need hospital treatment at all - but the threshold isn't 40 for this vaccine, it's 50 - that leaves 10 years' of the population at slightly higher risk (or much higher risk after 45) and no vaccine.

But still that won't be a threat to the NHS, the majority of people in their 40s will be healthy with no threat from the virus.

Plus for those of you saying the logistics are not possible etc - let's wait and see what other high-income countries deem is possible.
I wouldn't be surprised if the UK will be bottom of the performance tables on vaccines also, based on PPE and testing performance by way of prediction. Underbuying and incompetence at every stage.

I imagine once the higher risk groups are vaccinated it will roll out to the 40 - 49 age group. No doubt private vaccinations will also become available. Hopefully at a modest cost like the flu jab.

Everyone over 50, plus health care workers, plus the more vulnerable is a pretty massive initial task and must surely help with the herd immunity so help reduce the risk to those not vaccinated. It can't all be done at once.

It’s too early to say, also FT

It can't all be done at once.

Yes, but there’s quite a difference between ‘we can’t vaccine the under-50s immediately’ and ‘we won’t vaccinate the under-50s at all’.

At a point when even the Americans are talking about how to get a free Covid vaccine out to their whole country, it seems unlikely our government is going to get very far with pointing half the adult population off in the direction of Boots with a shrug.

Well 47% of the population don't want it anyway.

The only way this will work is if all restrictions are lifted immediately for the whole population - of if the restrictions that do remain in place, still apply to everyone, vaccinated or not. You can’t vaccinate one part of the population and pursue ideas like immunity passports, vaccines needed for travel, etc

@GoldenOmber

It can't all be done at once.

Yes, but there’s quite a difference between ‘we can’t vaccine the under-50s immediately’ and ‘we won’t vaccinate the under-50s at all’.

At a point when even the Americans are talking about how to get a free Covid vaccine out to their whole country, it seems unlikely our government is going to get very far with pointing half the adult population off in the direction of Boots with a shrug.

Exactly. Nowhere does she say that the plan is simply to prioritise the over 50s. She says we are misguided to think everyone will end up being vaccinated. That surely means at any point.