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.

Sorry posted early, FT tend to focus on right wing views and money. A program that vaccinated less, costs less and with covid and brexit affecting the economy that will be a factor in this. She says no children, but many scientists don’t. It’s too early to say; yes, children won’t get it first but there’s no way to be sure who will and won’t be offered it. Remember a few months ago, lots of high up people claimed children didn’t spread the virus and so on, many studies have now shown that’s not true. Personally, it needs time to wait and see what happens and often vaccines are available when paid for those outside age groups, so that’s possible. I’d wait rather than take it as as given. Vaccines are always made available in stages, things often change as time goes on. We don’t know what the winter will bring, until the vaccine is here and we know which one will be used, we don’t really know much at all outside first tentative plans. It partly depends on how cost effective the vaccine is seen to be, however ugh that is. It is less so for kids as they don’t present in hospital as much.

Also, if they promise vaccination to all groups and then find it’s not needed/can’t be afforded/other issue, people would be clamouring fir it and asking why. A sensible press release that fewer people and no children will get it makes sense to prevent that in a tactical way.

I suspect this will get rapidly walked back and we’ll be told she was misquoted, because otherwise it seems like such a stupid approach. You don’t end the epidemic, you piss off a lot of the younger population at a time when you really need them to be going along with really painful suppression measures, you get the whole country to start talking about how the Tories are throwing us under the bus for herd immunity again, for what?

Where is everyone getting the info that under 50s won't be vaccinated? The JCVI info clearly shows group 11 would be rolled out based on risk/benefit. So I'd expect 45-50 to be higher benefit than 30-35 amongst otherwise healthy adults.

Anyone with underlying health conditions, obesity, BAME who is high or medium risk is already covered off in groups 6 and 7. I'd expect by the time you get to group 11, you've covered a decent proportion of the population anyway.

Where is everyone getting the info that under 50s won't be vaccinated?

From Kate Bingham, head of the U.K. vaccine task force, as quoted in the FT.

Prioritising who gets what first is fine. Rest of it is our govt not wanting to spend money on the poor again. Those with enough money will pay. Fuck the rest of us.

It will probably be another of their false economies considering how many will get long covid.

You can imagine a situation mid next year where you want to go the theatre: those who are vaccinated can buy a ticket, show proof of vaccination and go in as normal, while those who aren’t vaccinated have a higher ticket cost, to cover the price of their 15 minute ‘moonshot’ coronavirus test. A situation like that would be felt to be deeply unfair by younger people..

It's a pandemic. The whole world needs vaccines. UK has signed a confirmation of intent to participate in COVAX.

www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator/covax

@Char2015
I admire your optimism but how do you know this?
I agree with the prioritisation but am in my 40s and am fairly alarmed that the article states that I won’t be eligible.
I can’t see how this would be politically viable if other countries are vaccinating everyone.

@WotsitWiggle

Where is everyone getting the info that under 50s won't be vaccinated? The JCVI info clearly shows group 11 would be rolled out based on risk/benefit. So I'd expect 45-50 to be higher benefit than 30-35 amongst otherwise healthy adults.

Anyone with underlying health conditions, obesity, BAME who is high or medium risk is already covered off in groups 6 and 7. I'd expect by the time you get to group 11, you've covered a decent proportion of the population anyway.

@WotsitWiggle The head is the JVCI has said so!

[quote Frazzled2207]@Char2015
I admire your optimism but how do you know this?
I agree with the prioritisation but am in my 40s and am fairly alarmed that the article states that I won’t be eligible.
I can’t see how this would be politically viable if other countries are vaccinating everyone.[/quote]
Yes, she (head of the Taskforce) said that a vaccine would only be rolled out to the under 50s if it was 95% effective, which is presumably a lot time away. I mean, we have no idea yet how this crop of vaccines will fair - Nov- Jan will be a very interesting time as all the phase 3 trial results are assessed. But it does look like the rest of us will simply have to stump up for moonshoot tests whenever we want to attend anything ‘risky’, travel quarantines and the risks of being waylaid by the virus.

[quote Frazzled2207]@Char2015
I admire your optimism but how do you know this?
I agree with the prioritisation but am in my 40s and am fairly alarmed that the article states that I won’t be eligible.
I can’t see how this would be politically viable if other countries are vaccinating everyone.[/quote]
I guess no one really knows how this is all going to plan out. But if you look at the Government documents, there is intention to vaccinate everyone and mentions everyone of every age, of every level of risk. This appears to be someone mis-speaking or mis-quoted or just not understanding their own plans for vaccinations. It's right to prioritise those more at risk and it's sensible to have an order of priority.

It does not make sense to only vaccinate half the population. So I wouldn't worry about your eligibility. When one comes along, everyone will get it.

@notevenat20

Has anyone mentioned that there is no vaccine and there may never be?

No I don’t think they have, probably because all the evidence points to it not being true. Do you know something different?

In a strange way I find this quite reassuring. If you're under 50, in good health, the vaccine seems riskier than the illness. I've had covid. It wasn't pleasant, but it was fine. No long term effects. (The main problem was that I was very anxious and constantly symptom spotting, rather than the severity of the illness itself.)

I would much rather have it again than a vaccine with a presumably very small (but poor degree of certainty) risk of potentially catastrophic effects. I wouldn't have fought this corner and would have got the vaccine if my GP wanted me to, but I'd prefer not to until I'm older!

All the other vaccines I've had have been for illnesses much more likely to kill me or cause serious harm. I'm sure that's true for most of us. The side effects of getting vaccinated for measles or meningitis or even TB (where there are quite a lot of side effects) are worth it, because you really don't want to get the illness.

No where does she say that under 50s will not be vaccinated if they are low risk.
It clearly says there is a order of priority that’s all.
People in cat 11 would be the under 50s and no or low risk adults.

@Sb2012

No where does she say that under 50s will not be vaccinated if they are low risk. It clearly says there is a order of priority that’s all. People in cat 11 would be the under 50s and no or low risk adults.

article says Ms Bingham said the government was aiming to vaccinate about 30m people, compared with a UK population of about 67m, if a successful vaccine against Covid-19 was found.

I agree with not vaccinating under 18s at least not initially but specifically saying that 37m out of 67m will not be vaccinated?

@Redolent

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

Yes, I agree. Plus the pp who said that if they don't vaccinate under 18's because they are deemed low risk will mean that the 2-week isolation for just 1 or 2 cases out of 250 pupils will also need to stop. The government can't have it both ways. If the pupils are at risk or pose a risk then keep the 2 week isolation and vaccinate them. If they don't, remove the 2-week isolation and don't vaccinate them. Can't say one thing and do another.

If the vaccine is only, for example 50% effective (the threshold they have set for authorisation in the US), then we still can't interact closely with our elderly relatives if we haven't had the vaccine, can we? Even if the vaccine was 75% effective.
We all have to get the vaccination for everyone to be protected.

It seems the government sees the vaccination solely as a way to keep pressure off the NHS, not to protect the population as a whole.

Keep an eye on what other countries are doing. We don't have a unique virus or a unique set of circumstances here in the UK - we are the fifth largest economy in the world and very rich as a country.

There is a risk we will keep on locking up children and young people for weeks at a time while the elderly and vulnerable get vaccinated and return to normal.

I do agree with protecting the elderly and vulnerable and giving them priority (perhaps after the NHS staff who will be administering the vaccine though - no point catching Covid-19 off the nurse who is administering the vaccine! - there is no screening program in place for NHS staff, despite government promises that there would be).

But children and young people either pose a risk or they don't. No vaccine = no risk, no need to sit inside for 2 weeks if a classmate gets a positive result.

I read that as aiming to vaccinate 30million when the vaccine is rolled out to begin with. It doesn’t really say that 30 million will be the limit and then that’s it, no more. I think it’s more of a statement that implies they aim to get 30 million vaccinated as soon as. And that they will prioritise by age/ underlying health to get 30 million vaccinated. This should provide reasonable immunity or lower risks enough to lower the R rate to a point where some normality is restored to our everyday lives.
I then think they will turn their attention to group 11, the rest of the adults (18+)
In the same article it says “ The rest of the population is listed as a group at number 11, after other older groups over the age of 50.”

Sounds to me like she's (Kate) tried to clarify that this isn't a mass population vaccine but in doing so focused on the first few groups that will get the vaccine.

Certainly before that, the government made it sound like it would be rolled out to everyone, she's stating that it's based on risk.

I'm female in the 45-50 age bracket, white, not overweight, living rurally with no underlying health conditions. I don't expect to be offered the vaccine, much like I'm not offered a flu vaccine.

I don't see why that is a problem, as long as once the most vulnerable are covered, restrictions are lifted for all.

You can't give it to everyone at once, so you start with those who need it most until they've inoculated everyone who needs it. They don't innoculate everyone for flu, so why would they innoculate everyone for COVID?

I also expect they'll do it the same as many surgeries are doing for flu. I had mine done in a drive-through surgery. Very efficient.

They don't innoculate everyone for flu, so why would they innoculate everyone for COVID?

Because they want the epidemic to end.

No we don’t vaccinate everyone for flu. We do however vaccinate everyone, as babies, for measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, polio, and more - we don’t go “which babies are most at risk of mumps?”, we vaccinate the lot so mumps can’t spread through the population as it otherwise would be doing.

If I as a healthy under-50 can’t get a vaccine, that doesn’t mean much probably for my health, but I’ll still be capable of catching it and passing it on to others. And some of those others will be high-risk people who couldn’t get the vaccine, or who got it but it didn’t work for.

I agree with pp and think it is an issue
Because there is no long term immunity younger people or workers are more likely to have already had it by the time a vax comes
But no guarantee it will be mild any time
If you had a bad dose and already have effects
Even kids with no symptoms can have heart and lung problems

My main concern is also being unable to buy it.

But this plan does fit with what we know about schools
Fines
Bullying to attend
Not closing schools with cases
Not efficient t&t
Only removing odd child not whole bubbles
NO MASKS

They may as well have said your kids will catch it

I dont agree with giving vax to any other country first. It is wrong as it risks the health of younger people here. (And older if the vax doesnt take).
Havent been watching world of meters but poorer countries actually hadnt done as badly probably as closer to equater younger population etc.