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.

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

Oh God yes. They can call it world-beating clarity if that makes them happy, just sodding well pick a strategy and tell us about it and then do it to a basic minimum degree of competence, it really shouldn’t be too much to ask.

@Keepdistance

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

They’ve ordered 100m doses of the Oxford one so 🤷‍♀️

When considering order of priority, the government also needs to take into account life circumstances.

It's all very well saying a middle class affluent 40 something is in good health and at lowish risk of death (Long Covid is another matter). However there are plenty of less fortunate 40 somethings, who live in overcrowded housing in deprived urban areas. They are likely to be higher risk than wealthy rural or market town dwelling 50 something.

Perhaps we should look at age and life circumstances for level of priority when it comes to the 40-60 age group?

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

Thats not too surprising, given post viral fatigue tends to affect females more than males (been a while since I had it and got stats from GP but sure it was about 3/1?) and is more common in older people too.

I'm nearly 70, I hope to have the vaccination but I'd happily pay something for it. Would a small charge mean everyone could get it?

I'd be interested to know how other countries are planning to do it?

I wonder if there'll be more availability in some places. Perhaps we'll even see a situation where we have Brits flying abroad to get a private jab?

World beating clarity sounds good if unlikely.

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 Plenty of people in care homes go out so they would need the vaccine.

@Chickenandrice

I am so shocked by this. I have been quite worried about getting it even though I am early 40s. Not for dying but for long Covid and just being really unwell. But I am not even eligible for a vaccine? The article says healthy adults would be put at risk of freak harm ( zwhatever that means) by the vaccine. So risk of harm by the vaccine is higher than risk of harm by Covid??

All vaccines carry a risk of harm, and the cost/benefit of a isn't the same in all populations.

Take for example a 90 year old, in poor health. The risk from Covid is very high, probably higher than the risk of the vaccine, so on balance, it is a good idea to vaccinate that individual.

For you, early 40s, (I'm assuming) no serious underlying health issues, the risk presented to you from Covid is likely to be less than that presented by the vaccine, so it would be highly unethical to vaccinate you.

Vaccine damage is a real thing, one which we generally accept when vaccinating for illnesses that are very likely to cause serious harm (MMR/Meningitis etc). When faced with a disease like Covid that is statistically very unlikely to harm you, the balance of risks look very different.

Perhaps take some comfort in this knowledge? Surely if the cold hard facts tell you that the vaccine is more of a threat to you than Covid itself, does that not reassure you that Covid really isn't such a threat to you as the media would have you believe?

@ancientgran

I'm nearly 70, I hope to have the vaccination but I'd happily pay something for it. Would a small charge mean everyone could get it?

The point is, the vaccine itself is a risk.

It should only be given where the risk of a severe case of Covid > the risk from the vaccine.

Even if we had enough vaccine doses to vaccinate the entire population, it would be unethical to do so where it isn't indicated by a cost/benefit analysis.

I don't understand the 'risk' side. Yes there are some side effects to many vaccines, but what is so risky about the vaccine she is talking about? Why is it so risky to vaccinate the entire population?

and visitors were banned until they had received it which would free up millions of doses

There are about 500,000 residents in care homes. How many doses are you expecting each to need?

Amnesty International are already involved in countering the cruelty of cutting residents off from all visitors. It's unconscionable to think of prolonging that once a vaccine is available

I'm nearly 70, I hope to have the vaccination but I'd happily pay something for it. Would a small charge mean everyone could get it?

I doubt money is the issue.

It's speed of production and logistics of administering it that are the likeliest problems

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

I don't understand how it would 'free up millions of doses' if instead of carehome residents getting the vaccine, everyone who worked with them/visited them did instead? Possibly missing something here..

Plenty of people in care homes go out so they would need the vaccine.

Yes, my mother has worked in carehomes her whole life, and half her job seemed to be taking them out, or many could go out on their own. My gran was 90 and in a carehome, and still went out twice weekly to do 'shopping' (though rarely bought anything, think it was more to be around people and buy a cuppa and a biscuit in fenwicks cafe tbh) and twice a month to get her hair done too.

So from a risk perspective, am I in my early 30s better off going out to deliberately get the virus now while we still have an NHS and I'm as young as I'm ever going to be again, rather than waiting to catch it first time when I'm late 30s? That seems a less risky option if I'm definitely not going to get a vaccine in the next little while

@Char2015

I don't understand the 'risk' side. Yes there are some side effects to many vaccines, but what is so risky about the vaccine she is talking about? Why is it so risky to vaccinate the entire population?

Covid is no threat at all to the vast majority of the population.

Even if there were a very small risk from the vaccine, it still wouldn't tip the scales.

The vaccine is brand new, and we now nothing at all about the actual risks it presents.

For people seriously at risk from Covid, then on balance, yes prob better to vaccinate than not. For young, healthy adults, the (unknown) risk is just not worth taking.

A good compare/contrast is the new(ish) meningitis vaccine now offered to infants. We know very little about the long term effects of this vaccine, but given the devastating nature of meningitis itself, its a no brainer that this risk is worth taking.

The same just cannot be said for Covid, which for the vast majority of the population is no threat at all.

Surely the logistics of care homes means that it’s particularly easy to send someone out to vaccinate all the residents and a decent proportion of the staff in a single visit. It’s not an enormous number and they’re at huge risk, so you get them done ASAP, probably in parallel with HCPs.

The government actually have a program to compensate individuals who are damaged by vaccines, in case people really don't believe me.

Government's Vaccine Damage Payment scheme

I understand what you are saying with regards to balancing the risk. But there are younger people, with no underlying health conditions, that have unfortunately died from Covid. In addition, there are more younger people with no underlying conditions being admitted to hospital which will in turn overwhelm the NHS. Surely these younger people should be given the option to have the vaccine should they wish to. If you can protect against a potentially deadly virus, this has got to be a personal choice.

Are MPs going to be age prioritised too?
So only those over 50?

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

The government actually have a program to compensate individuals who are damaged by vaccines, in case people really don't believe me.

Government's Vaccine Damage Payment scheme

Oh I believe you although many posters are just utterly blinded and trust everything the government says.

If you had a million smarties in a bowl and one was laced with arsenic would you really offer the bowl to one of your children ...

@Char2015

I understand what you are saying with regards to balancing the risk. But there are younger people, with no underlying health conditions, that have unfortunately died from Covid. In addition, there are more younger people with no underlying conditions being admitted to hospital which will in turn overwhelm the NHS. Surely these younger people should be given the option to have the vaccine should they wish to. If you can protect against a potentially deadly virus, this has got to be a personal choice.

This isn't the case though, only around 360 healthy under 65s have died from Covid.

This is a tiny, tiny proportion of the overall cases. Perhaps ask yourself why they are so newsworthy? Precisely because they are so rare.

All of those deaths are tragedies of course, but we cannot take the risks associated with mass vaccination of millions and millions of young, heathy individuals in order to prevent a handful of deaths.

@Everywherethatmarywent

If smarties prevented infectious diseases, then with odds of 1 in a million to prevent them getting seriously ill...yes I’d offer them one.

Unless you actually believe that vaccines are simply enjoyable (and utterly nonbeneficial) little treats, like smarties.

If you can protect against a potentially deadly virus, this has got to be a personal choice

Sorry, just read this in more detail...

In ethical terms, no, if the threat presented by the vaccine is greater than the risk of the disease, that individual should not be vaccinated. The medical profession has a duty to 'do no harm'.

If necessary, counselling and support should be offered to the individual to help them to understand why it would be such a poor choice.

The problem in London will be that financial and legal services will not be able to go back to the office if there staff have not been vaccinated. It doesn't make sense from a liability perspective. You persuade an entire population a virus is "dangerous", you cannot commute, work close to each other etc - and then suddenly they are expected back because some other people have been vaccinated. It is just not going to work. So we need to have enough vaccine available and perhaps encourage those who can pay for it, to pay for it. I am sure many businesses will stomp up the cash, if enough vaccine can be made, just as they have previously offered their workers the flu jab. 40 somethings run the economy and still have young kids - many are scared of the virus and they will not spend or work in an office type environment without protection.