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).

Otherwise well and under 50 years don’t need a vaccine. The vast majority of this age will survive this virus with no issues and without overwhelming the health service.

Yes I agree that now we know who this virus is most likely to harm we need to put measures in place to support them (if they want to shield) while the rest get back to all the things that generate our economy.

The hospital I work in (central London) was filled up with patients >70, so this should be the target age for shielding in my opinion.

I thought I was supposed to be getting a flu vaccine through our GP this year (over 50), so foolishly didn't bother booking one at a chemist.

NHS advice has now switched to "....other 50- to 64-year-olds will be contacted about a flu vaccine later" and Boots and Lloyds have run out of stock round here.

They have had months to sort out flu jabs, so I don't hold out much hope of getting a covid vaccine before 2022.

Companies could be encouraged to offer wfh for over 50s etc.
Tbh i suspect lots will reject a vax because
They are antivax
They think theyve had it
They will wait and see how it goes.
If we have limited vax worldwide it probably makes sense to vax
-those who dont have current antibodies regardless of age (no point vaxxing a 70yo if their immunity is high and say they are giving plasma
-i would prioritise those with long covid no matter the age if they can have it ok qs none should have to risk further damage.
Everyone should be allowed to pay for it. Some people are higher risk for their family ie single parent or very young dc etc. Others wont want to risk long covid or a stint in hospital as they also wont be earnimg etc.
I was ull for several months apr to jul at least and dont think i would have been able to work. Couldnt really home school just sit

If I remember rightly, ecv under 50 are in tier six of vaccination rounds - should there be a vaccine.

I am 50, have two kids at school and work! So how does that work??!!!!

Velveteen

I'm 54 and not taking mine, glad it went to a good home

I agree with you @RedToothBrush. I can imagine things like health or travel insurance being higher for the unvaccinated too (or clauses not covering Covid related problems - try proving your heart problem was NOT caused by Covid if you contract it whilst unvaccinated...)

Plus where does that leave the critical health or life policies protecting mortgages? Not able to get wide coverage if you're not vaccinated? Which is ridiculous if the vaccine doesn't become widely available.

@MarshaBradyo

Can you link your source for over 50s only?

What about ECV under 50?

Ft reported over 50s, key workers and clinically vulnerable 3 or 4 days ago.

Ok thanks Red makes more sense with those groups included.

I know no one knows the answer for certain but if DH is over 50 (he's 66) and I'm 45 am I likely to get the vaccine as I live with an over 50?

Also my oxygen saturation seems permanently down so i would not want to repeatedly get this.
After the 1918 pandemic there were an increase in i think parkinsons. So just because young people are ok mostly now really doesn't mean a lot long term.

But as we know vit d makes a difference maybe focus for younger people could be on raising levels maybe via fortification as low vit d can worsen
Asthma
Ms
Thyroid
Flu

Oh my sweet lord.....I turned 50 at the end of Sept.

I have an 11yo, work full time and am in very good health. If you want to consider reducing the burden on the NHS then I'm not your target demographic.

If anyone’s interested this is quite possibly the most comprehensive coverage if where we are globally with vaccine candidates:

mobile.twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1310372301314101250

The title of your post just isn’t true though. I don’t think anyone would argue that under-50s without health conditions shouldn’t be further down the queue but everyone will be offered it. Stop scaremongering.

I'm over 50 and look quite a bit younger. Should I just become homeless and beg for food then if I'm supposed to give up my job and stay away from everyone?

Fuck off.

Possibly @PinkSparklyPussyCat. Assuming it's the same as the flu vaccination.

DH and I are in our 50s. Our DS is 13 but has a heart condition. So he's medically vulnerable and has to have a flu vaccination every year. Every year since his birth we've also had one, given by the GP, to 'umbrella' protect him - i.e. we (hopefully) don't bring influenza into the home.

And the mental health of the over 50s that you are conveniently locking away for ever? Oh never mind, at 50 you're nearly dead anyway, aren't you?

Also, in terms of "young people will be the ones paying for this", may I remind you that the UK made its final payment to the USA for WW2 on Dec 31st 2006. Think a different generation paid for that too.

No thanks I'm 58 and still have a sizeable mortgage and a full time job on the NHS front line.
I'll be looking after all the people who get covid-19. But I'll stay at home if you want

Op how will you pay for all the over 50s isolating? Hope you have deep pockets.

These are just proposals, and follow what happens with flu vaccination (and other vaccinations where only those in high risk groups are targetted). Healthcare workers are planned to be some of the first to get vaccinated I believe.

The point that many have missed is that we may end up in near-lockdown soon anyway, so everyone will be locked away, over or under 50. Many over 50's can work from home, and for those that can't, covering their furlough is an awful lot cheaper than the economic costs of a population-wide second lockdown.

This isn't scare-mongering. The risks of Covid are so heavily weighted in certain sections of the population that vaccination based on risk factors is entirely sensible. If risks were similar across the entire population then a population-wide approach would be justified.

As an example, 1% of breast cancer cases occur in men. Men aren't screened in the same way as women are, because of this much smaller risk, yet some will still die from it. Screening everyone would save a few lives, but the extra cost isn't considered worth it for the marginal benefit.

I read the article in the Independent linked above and am not clear why, if a safe and effective vaccine is available, the government would not want to vaccinate people under 50. Some under 50's who catch it will have severe disease and all will be capable of spreading it. Is it just an issue of cost?

Lol, brilliant idea op. How many senior doctors, head teachers, heads of police, CEOs, senior managers etc etc are over 50? Clue; most of them. Let's isolate them all.

It’s to do with availability l think.

Yeah, another voice saying that most people are still working through their fifties. (And 50 isn't exactly "elderly". )

But they've signed up to buy 100 million vaccines?