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.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh
I'm not sure it's that low. Do you have a link to the data?

Even if you're right, more would die without hospital treatment. Which remains a risk in the UK because, unlike some countries, Covid is uncontained here.

Regardless of the death risk, as the Telegraph article explains, experts are increasingly concerned about Long Covid - more so than deaths. We already have a lot more than 300-400 Long Covid sufferers.

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 ...

If one of my adult children was daft enough to think that was an analogy remotely resembling the risks v benefits of vaccination, I'd be tempted to go for the arsenic laced smartie myself.

My understanding is that one reason we might on,y be able to vaccinate 50% of our population is because we are signed up to a ‘fairness’ contract. This means all countries signed up agreed not to take enough vaccines to vaccinate more than half their population until the other counties (some less wealthy than ours) had been able to vaccinate their most vulnerable half.
To produce enough vaccine for half of the world’s population is no mean feat.

It will be interesting to see what Russia does in terms of priority vaccination of their population. The Tories have always been focussed on the "grey" vote which is also to do with short term politics. You cannot really separate the economy vs the vulnerable in this whole debate. It is a fallacy. The strength of the economy protects the vulnerable the most, albeit indirectly and therefore more longterm and thus it is not about short term politics. To be fair on everyone, teachers and opera singers/any performers should for example be on a priority list too. Anyone whose job involves mixing with lots of people needs to be a priority.

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?

I think it is either a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the CDC guidance, see below.

“People who have tested positive for COVID-19 do not need to quarantine or get tested again for up to three months as long as they do not develop symptoms again. People who develop symptoms again within three months of their first bout of COVID-19 may need to be tested again if there is no other cause identified for their symptoms,” the CDC website reads.

Confusion over what this new guidance means in terms of COVID-19 immunity is rampant. Some online commenters and media outlets mistakenly took the CDC’s update as a confirmation that people with COVID-19 are immune from reinfection for up to three months.

Then a backlash formed, particularly among the epidemiological community on Twitter. Many experts said various news outlets were misinterpreting the update. Instead, the general scientific consensus is that coronavirus immunity lasts at least three months, not a minimum of three months, experts such as Carl Bergstrom, Ph.D., a professor of biology at the University of Washington and coauthor of the forthcoming book Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World, said on Twitter. In fact, the New York Times reports that the latest research hints that people retain “strong, lasting immunity” even after mild illness with COVID-19. That research is still in its early days and doesn’t specify how long, exactly, this immunity seems to last, but many experts do find it encouraging, according to the Times.
From: www.self.com/story/coronavirus-immunity

@CrappleUmble

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 ...

If one of my adult children was daft enough to think that was an analogy remotely resembling the risks v benefits of vaccination, I'd be tempted to go for the arsenic laced smartie myself.

Well I’m sure the parents of the children who developed narcolepsy due to the swine flu vaccine and will never be able to lead a normal life feel differently about that.

The gov are still paying them out after a battle at the high courts.

[quote CoffeeandCroissant]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?

I think it is either a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the CDC guidance, see below.

“People who have tested positive for COVID-19 do not need to quarantine or get tested again for up to three months as long as they do not develop symptoms again. People who develop symptoms again within three months of their first bout of COVID-19 may need to be tested again if there is no other cause identified for their symptoms,” the CDC website reads.

Confusion over what this new guidance means in terms of COVID-19 immunity is rampant. Some online commenters and media outlets mistakenly took the CDC’s update as a confirmation that people with COVID-19 are immune from reinfection for up to three months.

Then a backlash formed, particularly among the epidemiological community on Twitter. Many experts said various news outlets were misinterpreting the update. Instead, the general scientific consensus is that coronavirus immunity lasts at least three months, not a minimum of three months, experts such as Carl Bergstrom, Ph.D., a professor of biology at the University of Washington and coauthor of the forthcoming book Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World, said on Twitter. In fact, the New York Times reports that the latest research hints that people retain “strong, lasting immunity” even after mild illness with COVID-19. That research is still in its early days and doesn’t specify how long, exactly, this immunity seems to last, but many experts do find it encouraging, according to the Times.
From: www.self.com/story/coronavirus-immunity[/quote]
Ah thats interesting. A world of difference between 'only 3 months' and 'at least 3 months.

However, it doesn't sound too much like its a consensus on any immunity(even short term), as otherwise even with symptoms, people wouldn't need another test IF they had had a previous one within 3 months, if that makes sense?

Though as admitted, my science-y knowledge is basically 0!

[quote Redolent]@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.[/quote]
But Covid doesn’t kill children and as we know 80% of people that have it have zero symptoms or mild cold symptoms. So why would you give them the vaccine?

People should be able to get ill. It builds our immune system up. If you have no underlying health problems and not in the danger bracket - you dont need to take it.

The ratio of swine flu vaccine to developing narcolepsy is 52,000 - 1 by the way.

Expert reaction to reports of Kate Bingham, head of government’s vaccine taskforce, saying that not everyone will be vaccinated.
www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-reports-of-kate-bingham-head-of-governments-vaccine-taskforce-saying-that-not-everyone-will-be-vaccinated/

Well I’m sure the parents of the children who developed narcolepsy due to the swine flu vaccine and will never be able to lead a normal life feel differently about that.

The gov are still paying them out after a battle at the high courts.

Why are you so sure, have you checked with them? If not, you're doing them rather a disservice to assume they're that dense. It's perfectly possible to understand that vaccine damage exists and that there are risks as well as benefits to vaccines whilst also seeing what a risible attempt at an analogy that was.

Why are you so sure, have you checked with them? If not, you're doing them rather a disservice to assume they're that dense. It's perfectly possible to understand that vaccine damage exists and that there are risks as well as benefits to vaccines whilst also seeing what a risible attempt at an analogy that was

Are you joking? They have been fighting for years for justice. Three times the government appealed to not pay them out but the parents dragged them back three times to have it over ruled.

The vaccine ruined their kids lives. One of the children only had the vaccine to help protect his elderly grandfather - the mother bitterly regrets it.

Thalidomide is well recognised but the swine flu vaccination effected more than a 1000 people more. There has been no public recognition for it despite its life long damaging effect. This was only nine years ago.

You should be wary about chomping at the bit for a vaccine that no one knows the long term health risks and if your happy to give it your kids then it’s you that’s dense.

My sister says she and her child will not take any vaccine, and uses thalidomide as a reason for this. However she is a nurse, so I assume she will be basically mandated to get one for her job? Other vaccinations she has had, but she is nervous about something 'rushed', even though all safety measures will be followed surely?! Her child will not be made to get it, but I fear it will be a 'get it or work elsewhere' situation for her? Not sure how vaccinations in healthcare settings works though..

@Everywherethatmarywent

Why are you so sure, have you checked with them? If not, you're doing them rather a disservice to assume they're that dense. It's perfectly possible to understand that vaccine damage exists and that there are risks as well as benefits to vaccines whilst also seeing what a risible attempt at an analogy that was

Are you joking? They have been fighting for years for justice. Three times the government appealed to not pay them out but the parents dragged them back three times to have it over ruled.

The vaccine ruined their kids lives. One of the children only had the vaccine to help protect his elderly grandfather - the mother bitterly regrets it.

Nope. You're conflating an awareness of the existence of vaccine damage with an inability to see how stupid your analogy was. That's your problem.

I’m not understanding why it’s a stupid analogy either, tbh?

I won't be rushing to get the vaccine but I'm happy it's being developed and that there are numbers of others willing to take the risk of being the first ones to have it.

Delighted to expand.

If we're using arsenic to make our point, in order for it to bear any resemblance to reality, as well as the one in a million smarties being laced with arsenic, the others would have to provide protection against some other poisons. Those poisons would have to be contagious and something you might catch whilst going about your daily life. Most of those poisons would, if nobody took the smarties, kill and maim many more people than the arsenic did, otherwise the government wouldn't be willing to pay for us to have smarties. Although a lot of us would have forgotten that, because it had been a while since many of the other poisons affected many of our children. There would still be people for whom the arsenic was the greater risk of course, not all of whom would know in advance. But that would not negate all the other poisons wafting around that the smarties mitigated.

TLDR: talking about only the risks of vaccines and nothing else is idiotic.

Nope. You're conflating an awareness of the existence of vaccine damage with an inability to see how stupid your analogy was. That's your problem

Ah back tracking. And the analogy is spot on. If the government cane out and said -

Your child wi t actually need the vaccine but they can have it if you want but please be aware there is a one in 52,000 chance your child may develop a life long disability’

How many do you think will be queuing up??

Yes but the point is that the child doesn’t need the corona vaccine, so for the purposes of the analogy, the other smarties are just smarties.

@Everywherethatmarywent

Nope. You're conflating an awareness of the existence of vaccine damage with an inability to see how stupid your analogy was. That's your problem

Ah back tracking. And the analogy is spot on. If the government cane out and said -

Your child wi t actually need the vaccine but they can have it if you want but please be aware there is a one in 52,000 chance your child may develop a life long disability’

How many do you think will be queuing up??

It isn't anything remotely resembling backtracking. You could only think that if you have misunderstood. You may well disagree with what I've written, but the point has remained 100% consistent throughout.

As for the child not actually needing the vaccine, presumably you and limona claim this on the basis that children are, as a cohort, at lowest risk from covid. This is, of course, not the same as them not being vulnerable at all and nicely erases all those children whose risk actually is higher. As if either of you are remotely qualified to decide that the child in question doesn't need the vaccine.

CrappleUmble purposely missing my point.

How many parents would be lining up to vaccinate their kids if the government said there was 1 in 52,000 chance it could cause life long disabilities in their children?

Of course there’s no way of knowing that, but the stats do back it up there. Which is why I’m fully in favour of vaccinations but IMO they need to be given to the people who need them. Partly due to supply issues and partly because yes there is a tiny risk. It’s therefore wrong to take that risk on behalf of another.

One does have to wonder why this is only coming out now. You'd think if the plan was only to vaccinate the over 50s this might have been made clear all along. Rather than getting every one's hopes up, then announcing 'Oh by the way, half of you won't be getting it'.

Well if they don't change it, that's the 45-50 age group buggered. Higher risk but no protection.

I think it's pretty disgusting tbh the implications have been there were enough doses for the population.
I would care less if you could buy it.
It will slow it down a lot but i would think the youngest have the most contacts and it's not like parents can even choose to hide away without deregistering possibly for years.