Under 50's won't receive the vaccination

[starfro]

Although this is entirely reasonable given that for this age group risks are similar to flu (in under 25s flu is actually more deadly, the slight reverse is true over 25), it does raise a number of points:

1. Herd immunity will not be achieved by vaccination alone, and will be achieved by a combination of vaccination and infection.

1. Anyone under 50 who has been negatively impacted by lockdowns (job loss etc) has done this entirely to protect the vulnerable/elderly.

1. Is it therefore reasonable as a compromise to isolate the over 50's and reopen the economy for under 50s? Most under 50's are going to get it anyway in the next few years, and this won't overload the NHS as the bulk of admissions come from the elderly.

1. There seems to be this ridiculous idea that we will re-emerge from restrictions next year all "safe" and vaccinated. This isn't the case. Any healthy under 50 that is worried is going to have to learn to live with the tiny risk the virus presents, in the same way they have to deal with other small risks (younger people aren't screened for certain cancers due to much lower risks for example).

I agree. The under 50s have suffered the most from this in terms of job losses, reduction in income etc (massive generalisation I know) and the young have suffered massively through disruptions their education and isolation at critical points in their development. They are also the ones who will be paying for all of this for decades to come. All to protect the vulnerable and elderly, which is fair in a just society. But to now find out that they won't be offered the vaccine that they will be paying for is a bit of a kick in the teeth. As they'll eventually have to go out in society with no protection anyway, why not let them do it now, with sensible precautions around not socialising with grandparents etc (which they can't do now anyway).

I think it's great.
I didnt want it anyway,.now wont be made to feel guilty for not doing my part for herd immunity

Over 50 here. I have two jobs, both keyworker which benefit many people in the community, both where my employers sometimes struggle to recruit. If I isolate with other colleagues, I wonder how many younger people will come forward to do our jobs.

[quote MrsMigginsMate]The whole premise of your post seems to be based on false information and seems like scaremongering. It just isn't the case that under 50s won't be vaccinated, eventually we WILL all get it. Posts like this are so unhelpful to the metal health of so many people affected by lockdown/isolations.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-uk-matt-hancock-under-50s-b837533.html[/quote]
That article makes it clear the experts are absolutely against whole population vaccination. Matt Hancock will consider it in the future when a vaccine is available. It does not state that all adults will be offered the vaccine at all.

But clinically vulnerable people under 50 will receive the vaccination? That's right, isn't it?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong because I would want to be presenting complete bullshit as fact for effect.

Wouldn't

Great so as someone who is over 50 , as are my sisters and brothers in law allwho works are you going to pay our wages?

Who is going to do all these jobs now?

Stupid comment

Isolate the over 50s?

Well that means our GP practice of 11 doctors would be down to 5 - so that wouldn't work.

My DS's school would be in a similar position with the teachers and admin staff (including me).

DH and I are over 50 and still have a mortgage. I'm very happy for the tax paying under 50s to pay it off and I can take very early retirement - but I doubt that'll happen.

Many managers, CEOs, business owners are over 50. That means they close their businesses? And the under 50s who work for them do what? Go on the dole?

And, as people like Martin Lewis always tell you, the final few years of your working life is when your pension contributions ramp up in your little pot. The government would have to find a way of ensuring pensions were still at an appropriate level for people 17 years down the road - assuming retirement is at the current age of 67. I doubt the under 50s could manage that.

Otherwise, as well as taxes rising to nurse the economy back to its feet, taxes will go up to support a huge number of working age people for a number of years before they retire. Wouldn't work.

Plus, of course, you lose a huge range of experience if you put all the 50 plus people out to pasture.

Fake News.

WutheringTights, you are incorrect. The article states Matt Hancock wants to do a full rollout despite the advisors recommendation.

@Char2015 agree!

YABVVU. There are hundreds of thousands of workers over 50 doing key roles, and they are mostly the hardest workers too. You do realise that people over 50 have also lost jobs and are struggling too, and are less likely to get another job?

I'm 48. You're not locking me away in 18 months' time!

How will schools and hospitals operate without any staff over 50?

But it's all nonsense anyway.

😂😂😂 I’m a fit and healthy 62 year old and your not locking me up!

I'm under 50 and got my flu jab without any issue at my local Lloyd's pharmacy.

Should I not have done this? They're saying if someone gets flu and covid at the same time it can be very bad indeed. So id like to avoid that if that's alright with you?

10.4 million people over the age of 50 are working in the UK - not sure how you plan to keep things going if they all have to stay home OP

You forget this might be an issue for anyone aged 0 - 49 who wants to travel.

I can see that being vaccinated might well be an entry requirement to a number of countries for some time -including to the UK.

And if you can't get on the NHS....

Healthy adults SHOULD be the last to get vaccinated, but if you've been reading the news then the intention isn't that everyone will get it eventually. Only the over 50s and the clinically vulnerable or key staff. They are stating categorically that they don't think that under 50s should recieve it on a clinical basis.

But what decisions are clinically based and what are politically based (eg banning non-vaccinated travel) are two separate things.

Very silly idea OP. I’m over 50 and I teach full time. Loads of my colleagues are also 50+. Probably a majority of medical consultants are too. How on earth would it be possible to isolate us yet keep the country going?

@Rudolphian

I think it's great. I didnt want it anyway,.now wont be made to feel guilty for not doing my part for herd immunity

Same 🤣, I think. Most healthy people do not want the vaccine, I can see why people who are at risk will want it but as a healthy, under 50 person with no underlying conditions, I will not be putting a substance into my body not knowing what damage it may cause.

Personally i'd rather take my chances with the virus than a rushed vaccine.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer. My kids have been vaccinated . I did refuse the swine flu jab when I was pregnant. My doctor wasn't happy about the vaccine either as it was too rushed....and to be honest i'm glad I did refuse it as I know a woman whose life has been ruined by the swine flu jab.

I will take the vaccine (for the good of all) when it has been out for long enough that it can be considered safe.

Added to which many of them, like I was, are carers to their elderly parents. In effect they are keeping the elderly out of care homes in many cases.

And many are also the support network for the younger generation - looking after the grandchildren after school if they're working part time. My cousin used to do both - the true 'sandwich generation'.

No offence OP but your question seems to be...should we do something completely unworkable based on a false premise?

I mean, probably not.

No to locking away middle aged (and most elderly) women, the majority of whom wont be remotely affected by COVID.

Can you link your source for over 50s only?

What about ECV under 50?