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'm under 50 and reasonably healthy. If I am going to get it and am unfortunate enough to become properly ill with it (I am not so concerned about dying as the risks are low for me), I would rather catch it at a time when the hospitals aren't clogged with other people, particularly the over 50s/vulnerable who are also seriously ill and also in need of a limited number of ventilators. In other words, even if the young and healthy are due to catch it eventually, it makes sense for them to catch it once more vulnerable groups have been vacinated and are relatively safe. Or, if this isn't possible, to at least spread out the rate at which we get infected.

@MissConductUS

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?

Because the vaccination of tens of millions of people and delaying the re-opening of the economy months/years for little benefit is a stupid idea.

For the under 50's Covid is a tiny tiny risk and for the under 25's flu is more likely to kill you.

In theory the clinically best thing is likely to be not to get vaccinated unless you are in an elevated risk group - not because vaccines are bad - but because the testing on this is still in its infancy and will be for several years to come.

But on a more practical level insurance and travel policies and regulations might not be so nuanced and thats likely to conflict with the medical wisdom.

You then get into a weird situation where private vaccinations may be imported and the testing process may be less robust than the nhs one.

I was reading up on the polio epidemic of 1957 the other week and how they prioritised and had shortages. In the US there was a faulty batch which was given to children due to poor standards which literally injected live virus rather than the deactivated virus into children with devastating consequences. So when the government had shortages they refused offers from abroad to provide vaccinations because they were worried about a similar thing happening which would have a worse outcome.

Fast forward today and I think we are a lot more vulnerable to problems like that from the private sector sourcing their own supplies from an unknown source if we do ration/limit vaccinations. Especially if certain industries demand them anyway.

The FT article was written making the point that politicians were not managing the public's expectations and fears over a vaccine.

We have a lot of people under 50 who are healthy but are under the perhaps misguided idea that they will be 'safer' if they do have the vaccine so will seek it out.

We also have a lot of older people who will be very worried about why younger people aren't getting it - is it really safe if thats the case?

I think as it is expectations of how long it will take to roll out are wildly off and its already being reported that the government is not planning this phase well already and their are shortages of availability of things like vaccine vials.

I did think that summer next year was a realistic expectation of 'normality' returning but in all honesty that is slipping away already.

If anyone is interested in the history and politics of the 1957 polio outbreak the article is here
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13619462.2016.1247701
'A matter of commonsense’: the Coventry poliomyelitis epidemic 1957 and the British public

It does raise some really very relative and pertinent questions about how we should be handling things now and whether we arr doomed to forget some of the lessons that should have been learnt from the past experience.

Its really good background reading and whilst i fully appreciate the situation is very different today its also not completely different either.

I think although I may be wrong the issue is many need two doses and there are issue in supply chain with glass vials etc and other bits and bobs vaccines require. So 100 million may be on order but not sure if this includes the boosters and if the logistics are there to deliver 100m fast.

Good post RedToothBrush.

Vaccinations are great human inventions, but people have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved in short timeframes.

Many vaccinations lower risks, rather than completely eliminating them.

No no no and no. It’s not factually correct.
For example:
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.

We cannot isolate the over 50s unless we put the whole lot in prison and even then the guards would be in contact. A huge proportion of those ICU doctors, nurses, healthcare workers are over 50. People who drive your trains are over 50. Mothers and Fathers are over 50!

@Oaktree55

I think although I may be wrong the issue is many need two doses and there are issue in supply chain with glass vials etc and other bits and bobs vaccines require. So 100 million may be on order but not sure if this includes the boosters and if the logistics are there to deliver 100m fast.

Logistics are the problem. Not the vaccine itself.

We are going to be having a number of additional and logistical and tariff related issues in two months time too.

Those developing and working in vaccines are fully aware that they will only offer protection to a certain amount of people - the flu vaccine protects about 50% I think? It is still massively effective because of those 50% they also will not transmit so they are worth more than their direct result.

@RedToothBrush with respect I don’t think you are qualified to make such assertions. I have been following immunologists carefully and many think vaccination is preferable to catching this even for no risk demographics. In particular relating to a hypothesis about effect of catching this on T Cell production. There is also long Covid.

I think you’re dangerously erring into incorrect medical advice on a public forum!

@starfro

Good post RedToothBrush.

Vaccinations are great human inventions, but people have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved in short timeframes.

Many vaccinations lower risks, rather than completely eliminating them.

My understanding is there particular fears over the safety of Chinese and Russian vaccines potentially being imported here because of the way they have been tested to standards significantly lower than we expect here - but it is likely to happen because people are so fearful and think "vaccine = good" rather than a more considered analysis.

Russian and Chinese products are likely to become available before a uk product is approved too which won't help matters.

If you look on the .gov website under 50's who are not healthcare professionals not with preexisting health conditions are simply lowest priority. A decision on whether to vaccinate has not been taken because it's irrelevant, it will take months to vaccinate the priority groups. I'm in that last group (but close to 50) so yes I could be concerned but actually I don't plan on having the vaccine, never bother with flu either. I've had covid, it was mild in me.

@IceCreamSummer20

Those developing and working in vaccines are fully aware that they will only offer protection to a certain amount of people - the flu vaccine protects about 50% I think? It is still massively effective because of those 50% they also will not transmit so they are worth more than their direct result.

The problem is the general public think that you can hide away for a few months, get vaccinated early next year and you're then magically "safe".

The reality is completely different and will involve a slow rollout, with a slow decrease in transmission probabilities.

Locking away people between 50-65 plus is simply lunacy. What a silly idea!

Most healthy middle aged adults will not be at high risk. It’s clear that the elderly and vulnerable need to protect themselves or be protected but most middle aged people have children and are working and have no need to shield unless they suffer from say cancer.

Coronavirus is a respiratory and vascular disease ( virus). It causes those with weakened immunity such as cancer patients or those with underlying conditions to have a more severe response than you get in younger folks. So, you’re more likely to develop acute pneumonia, stroke, heart attack etc with Covid 19. It also acts as a catalyst in the blood; it attacks your blood vessels, slowing down your cardiovascular and respiratory systems triggering things like a cytokine storm. This is why high risk groups are mostly older or medically vulnerable. It’s is one of the reasons that Covid is written down on the death certificate of elderly patients who’ve tested Covid positive but died of a heart attack.

I used to nurse elderly and dying patients in my early 20’s as my parents owned a nursing home for many years. I think about 80 percent died of pneumonia- just a cold could be enough to kill they were so fragile. Moving them to wash them caused bruising! I have witnessed many care homes deaths and pneumonia was by far the most common along with strokes. So yes, we need to protect the vulnerable and frail.

But the middle aged? Unless they have a shielding reason then no! Absolutely not. There is no evidence that healthy people between 50-65 are at very significant risk to my knowledge. Boris had it badly for sure but he was overweight and no doubt his high stress levels contributed to his immune system having a poor response. I know only person in their 60’s who has had it and they were poorly but made a full recovery after a few weeks.

There have obviously been some deaths in this age group but the average age of death is around 80 so your suggestion OP is plain nonsense and not based on medical evidence.

The only argument you have OP is that everyone responds differently to the virus

• there is an ‘unknown’ element. In general, older people have a poorer outcome than younger with flu, pneumonia and now Covid 19. But it’s not enough to say - let’s lock up the over 50’s!

We do need to take sensible precautions, protect the vulnerable and get on with life. But the situation economically is bad enough as it is without forcing a hugely significant part of our workforce to hide away from a virus that is going no where even with lockdowns to suppress it.

So no! Most people in this age group will tell you to errr....... go swivel.

Because the vaccination of tens of millions of people and delaying the re-opening of the economy months/years for little benefit is a stupid idea.

For the under 50's Covid is a tiny tiny risk and for the under 25's flu is more likely to kill you.

For people in their 40's the case fatality rate seems to be between 0.3 and 0.4 percent, which is not inconsequential when you consider that most people will eventually get it. It's also not only about fatalities. Some pts have much longer term sequela, aka "long covid cases" and even for people who fully recover there's an economic cost to being off sick for two weeks or more. We also routinely vaccinate for lots of infectious diseases that are very unlikely to kill you.

If disease transmissions rates are low you can reopen the economy while you are vaccinating. The two are not mutually exlusive.

ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age

@user1481840227

My attitude too! Unless I need to travel and it's mandated I will avoid (and if it's purely for travel I expect to be charged to be honest)

One thing about the sectors that were closed was that furlough was for typically not high earnings - shop staff / hospitality

Doing the same for over 50 wouldn’t be the same.

Pfft. Good luck trying to lock me away.

'Elderly' at 50.

Lol

3. 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.

At my primary school only 2 of the teaching staff are under 50, none of the senior leadership team are under 50, none of the admin staff are under 50, 1 of the midday supervisors is under fifty, 1 of the cleaners is under 50, the caretaker will be 50 in a few weeks, all the kitchen staff are over 50, 5 of the TAs are under 50.

Who will run the school and teach the children if us “ancient” over 50s are locked away? Who will get my shopping? Who will get the shopping for my elderly neighbour as I do it currently? Who will take my son to his medical appointments?

I started a thread on this yesterday OP.. Penny has dropped for me!

[quote MissConductUS]Because the vaccination of tens of millions of people and delaying the re-opening of the economy months/years for little benefit is a stupid idea.

For the under 50's Covid is a tiny tiny risk and for the under 25's flu is more likely to kill you.

For people in their 40's the case fatality rate seems to be between 0.3 and 0.4 percent, which is not inconsequential when you consider that most people will eventually get it. It's also not only about fatalities. Some pts have much longer term sequela, aka "long covid cases" and even for people who fully recover there's an economic cost to being off sick for two weeks or more. We also routinely vaccinate for lots of infectious diseases that are very unlikely to kill you.

If disease transmissions rates are low you can reopen the economy while you are vaccinating. The two are not mutually exlusive.

ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age[/quote]
Case fatality rate is a pointless stat.

The chance of dying if infected for Covid (IFR) if you're in your forties and healthy is 0.0035% for men, and 0.002% for women.

[quote Oaktree55]@RedToothBrush with respect I don’t think you are qualified to make such assertions. I have been following immunologists carefully and many think vaccination is preferable to catching this even for no risk demographics. In particular relating to a hypothesis about effect of catching this on T Cell production. There is also long Covid.

I think you’re dangerously erring into incorrect medical advice on a public forum![/quote]
Im repeating what has been reported in the fucking newspaper.

Im asking people to look into this and not make the assumption of vaccine = good or vaccine = bad.

Because its not as simple as that. And thats the case for just about every drug out there!!!!

Vaccines are not always the most suitable option for everyone. We know this. Thats why we dont give certain vaccines to people with egg allergies for example.

My entire point is the problematic lack of proper political management of expectations over the vaccine programme - from who will recieve it, when they will recieve it and who it benefits (and who it might not benefit).

Part of the issue here is an unfinished drug which isnt fully tested and has not and will not be able to be tested for long term side effects before its released.

So yes we bloody well should be thinking about whether low risk groups should be given it in the inital wave. And yes there is a range of opinions on this from experts in the field (hence whats been said in the bleeding FT not just me spouting off an opinion).

[quote Oaktree55]@RedToothBrush with respect I don’t think you are qualified to make such assertions. I have been following immunologists carefully and many think vaccination is preferable to catching this even for no risk demographics. In particular relating to a hypothesis about effect of catching this on T Cell production. There is also long Covid.

I think you’re dangerously erring into incorrect medical advice on a public forum![/quote]
Also dont get me fucking started on how massive public health campaigns dont always work on an individual level and often are overbearing, authoritarian and dont consider individual issues which might conflict with general bloody wisdom.

@starfro I think evidence based changes in behaviour are one of the most powerful and effective ways through these Covid19 months. I agree that it is a long haul, I disagree with the over and over recycling of a lack of evidence based or even sensible ‘arguments’ that ‘oldies’ (I am 50!!! With young kids!!!) need to be locked away for 2 years. It won’t work, is not possible, and isn’t the kind of society I want to live in - where anyone vulnerable is considered ‘lesser’ to younger people.

My ‘younger people’ e.g. my kids need a living Mum and Dad without long term Covid, a spell in ICU or repeated infections from Covid (we still do not know how long any immunity lasts, possible 4-6 months)

My main issue with this plan is this: are we going to continue managing/ controlling transmission of the virus once the vulnerable are vaccinated? Are we going to have to quarantine for two weeks if we have the virus, continue tracing our contacts, or even paying for 15 minute “moonshot” tests to go to places like the theatre or concerts? If so then that creates a two-tier society where the young continue to pay a disproportionate cost for being potential carriers of the virus, while the elderly/vulnerable are considered immune.

If we’re going to abandon all attempts at virus containment altogether then of course this is less of an issue...but I can’t see that happening.

My aunt is 59 and a marathon runner. I doubt she'll want to be locked away.