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.

The people most at risk of complications from the virus are probably also the people most at risk of complications from the vaccination.
I would like a test that tells me if I am susceptible to the virus.

Because there is no long-term immunity
Is this true and if so do you have a source for that?

@hopsalong

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.

I'm just not sure why people think that a vaccine may have a "very small risk of potentially catastrophic effects" but the actual virus won't ????

This is a common misunderstanding people have based on not really understanding vaccines. There's no reason why a vaccine would have a higher risk of side effects than a viral infection.

Current thinking is that 10% of people infected with covid suffer symptoms/side effects for > 1 month and 1-2% for greater than 3 months. I doubt very much a vaccine would be licensed with that level of side effects!

Given that most elderly people I know don't usually bother with the flu jab and pneumonia jab then I suspect we need to vaccinate everyone who is willing to be vaccinated.

@JS87

Given that most elderly people I know don't usually bother with the flu jab and pneumonia jab then I suspect we need to vaccinate everyone who is willing to be vaccinated.

Yes, but we have to start somewhere so "offering" it to the oldies, vulnerable and healthcare workers first is sensible, then when there is spare capacity, expand the eligible to lower age groups. If people don't want to be vaccinated (whether old or vulnerable) that's their look out. But we have the prioritise those at most risk first who want it.

They are talking as though they have one ready to go.
To be honest, my niece who is 35 and has UC and arthritis, has said she will not have the vaccine if it is out this year or very early next, as she does not trust it. I can't say I blame her and I think many feel the same.
Yes, a vaccine would be brilliant for life to resume as it was but it won't be a miracle cure and it will take a lot longer for life to return to normal imo.

Rather premature to talk about a CV vaccine? It is not on the horizon, 9 out of 10 phase 3 trials fail to meet regulatory standards.

A rushed vaccine that is unproven, has limited effectiveness and god forbid, serious side effects, will be gold for the anti vaxxers.

I should not have to be forced to take an injection to leave the country.

It's not really any different from having to have a yellow fever certificate to enter some countries, is it? They probably wouldn't syltop you leaving the country, but airlines might refuse to let you board.

If a new vaccine is created, it's unlikely there would immediately be enough doses manufactured to inoculate the whole population at once. It makes sense to prioritise the most at risk people first. Over time, as more vaccine becomes available, you can extend the target groups. I'm not quite sure how else it could work, though you could argue about the details of which groups are targeted, but it's not like there's no precedent for managing mass inoculation programmes.

For syltop, read stop. I have no idea what autocorrect is thinking.

It shows a lack of thought. Residents in care homes wouldn't need vaccinating if all of the staff received the vaccine and visitors were banned until they had received it which would free up millions of doses and more importantly due to the logistics of treating those in care homes would also free up time to vaccinate more people. A lot of elderly people will reject the vaccine so it makes more sense for the people they come into contact with to be at the top of the list than the elderly people themselves, so home carers, hospitality workers, health care professionals and bus and taxi drivers should be at the top of the list. It also makes little sense to vaccinate anybody in a rural area in which there hasn't been a recent outbreak as these doses would be better used in an area where people are much more likely to get the virus.

Because they already have 6 reinfections some with different versions of covid so they know it's reinfection. And they vary in how the person was infected second time from both and asymptomatic to better the second time to i think 2 worse.
It may not reinfect everyone but clearly possible and with kids at school i would say very likely for me

if it was covid I was 40 and ill for at least 3m Mainly breathing. But also have insomnia and pins and needles and muscle twitches. Also my spo2 has dropped a bit from 100% to 98-99%.
The kids both had coughs for 8w.(under 10yo). Dp actually was ok but seems to keep clearing his throat so reflux maybe.

Yes, but we have to start somewhere so "offering" it to the oldies, vulnerable and healthcare workers first is sensible, then when there is spare capacity, expand the eligible to lower age groups. If people don't want to be vaccinated (whether old or vulnerable) that's their look out. But we have the prioritise those at most risk first who want it.

Will probably be flamed for this but I don't agree with the prioritisation- I absolutely believe in healthcare workers getting it first but I have a 91 year old grandparent and I think it would be wrong for their age group to also be first priority for it. My dad is in his mid 60s, no health conditions, but much higher risk than me in my early 30s due to his age and being male. He is also the only carer for my grandparent (actually I wonder about him getting the vaccine as a higher priority due to this but not sure). My mum is also higher risk than me in her 60s. I don't give a toss about having the vaccine myself as a priority- I absolutely agree I should be lower down the list- but I would prefer to see my parents age group and people in their 70s being prioritised- people who are at higher risk and who should reasonably expect to have 20+ years to live. As well as younger people in all age groups who are higher risk due to health conditions or ethnicity.

I'm sure my poor grandparent would agree, they are in very poor health, and have already lived a good and long life. They have already suffered the loss of one child and would be heartbroken if something happened to my dad. Sometimes I feel we have lost all sight of what is a long life, and don't think about prioritising dignity and quality of life towards the end, instead choosing to prolong life to the point of suffering.

@Keepdistance I'm probably being thick but if it's a different version of COVID then how is it a reinfection?

@Char2015

Incorrect story. Everyone will be offered the vaccination. The start of the vaccination programme will begin with those over a certain ages as well as high/moderate risk individuals. Even those in certain professions may get it first. It may take longer for others to get it, but they will get it. In addition, children will not be exempt, they are trialling the Oxford vaccine in children as we speak. The type of vaccine being developed by Oxford also makes it safer to use in children. I'm hopeful for the Oxford vaccine being the one that comes through.

Well, yes this is what I have been led to believe, by paediatrician, GP and consultant.

@Keepdistance

Because they already have 6 reinfections some with different versions of covid so they know it's reinfection. And they vary in how the person was infected second time from both and asymptomatic to better the second time to i think 2 worse. It may not reinfect everyone but clearly possible and with kids at school i would say very likely for me

if it was covid I was 40 and ill for at least 3m Mainly breathing. But also have insomnia and pins and needles and muscle twitches. Also my spo2 has dropped a bit from 100% to 98-99%.
The kids both had coughs for 8w.(under 10yo). Dp actually was ok but seems to keep clearing his throat so reflux maybe.

Are you sure about the 6 reinfections? I can't find any information 🤔

bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-tracker/

@Heffalooomia

Apparently it’s 22 (confirmed) reinfections so far:

bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-tracker/

@GoldenOmber

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.

I suppose when you put it like that, the group who are told no vaccine but also no social life wouldn't comply for very long.

IMO it makes sense to only vaccinate those most at risk, and those who work with those people.

The vaccination thing though, over the past few days I have seen a few people (on here and FB) gleefully stating that immunity has apparently been 'proven' to only last 3 months? They say this usually in reply to anyone who mentions herd immunity. BUT if it has actually bee confirmed to be 3 months, would that not actually be quite bad news for a vaccine? As it would need redone every 3 months? Would love some sciencey person to answer this, as my knowledge of vaccinations is quite poor but thats kind of how I always thought they worked, as such the glee in saying immunity is short term, seems massively mispalced, even if it does help these people 'win' an argument?!

@NRatched they're maybe getting mixed up with the fact that anti bodies from having the virus have only been proven to last 3-4 months? (I think)

@Purpledaisychain

It makes sense that vulnerable people and people over a certain age would take priority.

Yes it does. Hence the confusion over the UK proposals.

We all know that the age risk increases from 40 or 45. So why is the government planning to start vaccinating from 50?

IMO it makes sense to only vaccinate those most at risk, and those who work with those people.

The government made a big show of ordering enough vaccine shots for the whole population.

Everything is such a performance, and then a let down. I'd just be happy with some boring clarity.

The government made a big show of ordering enough vaccine shots for the whole population.

They can order it. That doesn't mean it will all be available on day one.

@zafferana

I'm pissed off with this, if it's true. I'm 46 and many people in my age group, particularly women, have been struck with 'Long Covid', meaning months (so far) of ill health and possible long-term health implications. I'd like to get vaccinated, when possible. I realise I won't be in anybody's priority group, which is fair enough, but to block those in middle who want to get the vaccine is really shit IMO. The govt's response has been a rolling case of throwing one group after another under the bus. First it was people in care homes and those on the front line (inc. transport workers), then it was teachers, and next it will those in middle age who are under 50. I sincerely hope it will be available privately, because I'm prepared to pay to protect my health.

Very good point @zafferana There was an article in the telegraph today. Some experts are beginning to see Long Covid as a greater issue than the deaths.

I noticed that, according to the article, Long Covid seems to be particularly affecting women in their 40s.

There is clear evidence that the risks of serious illness or death starts in the over 40s (not 50). Now also data showing the risk of long-term disability including potential heart damage.

It would be criminally negligent to ignore the evidence and leave the 40-50 group unprotected despite their increased risks.

Is it to do with needing 2 doses? So it looked like enough.