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).

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

Presumably with the understanding that it has protected the vulnerable/elderly members of their own family also.

I take issue with your assertion that everyone over 50 is totally unnecessary to the economy, and that they don't have any kind of role to play. You couldn't be more wrong.

A large number of people over 50 have also been negatively impacted by lockdown and job losses. Most people in their 50's and 60's have to work full time in order to make ends meet. It seems to me you don't give a shit about that though.

What's the average age of a hospital admission? What's the average age of someone with long covid?

She was told that in March? Was it ridiculous then?

No! Over 50s were NOT told to isolate in March! Over 50s were under the same rules as the rest of the population. I for instance carried on going to school to keep it open for vulnerable & keyworker children.

I am kind of with op, if we are 'healthy and young enough' to not need a vaccine, then why on earth are we all being locked down???

Maybe it will be a priority first distribution, but that STILL means most of us will have been living with virus for nearly two years by the time the vaccine comes to us, and it could be even longer!

So lets lockdown the very old, the very vulnerable - and those that need to shield, and carefully crack on!

@BuggerOffAndGoodDayToYou

She was told that in March? Was it ridiculous then?

No! Over 50s were NOT told to isolate in March! Over 50s were under the same rules as the rest of the population. I for instance carried on going to school to keep it open for vulnerable & keyworker children.

Everyone was told "this is a simple instruction, you must stay at home".

It's a bit of a joke that you think the economy can be "reopened" with only those under 50 as if those over 50 don't contribute much. On the one hand you clearly think you are superior but your ignorance suggests you aren't that intelligent.

Anyway , when they say that under 50s will not receive the vaccination, they mean on the NHS. They will still be able to get privately and many will just as they do for the flu vaccination. Under 50s with health conditions will still be vaccinated on the NHS too and very probably NHS workers.

[quote MrsMigginsMate]@WutheringTights

You appear to be selectively ignoring this from the article, clearly stating the government intends to vaccinate everyone.

Matt Hancock described the warning – by the head of the government’s vaccine task force – as “an interim guide” only, insisting he still wanted a “full roll-out”.[/quote]
No, I think you're selectively ignoring the experts saying that there won't be vaccination across the whole population and Matt Hancock refusing to give assurances that their advice will be ignored. He specifically stated that no decision had been made. He may personally prefer everyone to get it, but it doesn't mean it will happen. Boris wanted all primary schools fully open back in June and that didn't happen either.

@HappyDays10101

Isolate the over 50s?

Fuck off.

Quite!

I'm 50. I have an 8yo and an 11yo. I'm fit, healthy and working ... and probably for maaaaany more years yet to come (unfortunately). The notion of isolating long-term is impractical and, quite frankly, fills me with dread.

so according to this over 65's don't do caring?
if you have ab adult with disability you don't do caring presumably because "someone" else (social care - ironic laugh!) will do this & of course no one over 65 looks after their dgc...
Some people live on another planet.
Obviously we will take care but unless you pay & are classed as vulnerable you won't get medicines & frankly staying in for the rest of your life ..
AS pp says it appears that there is an aim for full role out of the vaccination but they want to do the most vulnerable first & the essential workers. Once the number of people reaches the "herd" vaccination level hopefully it may gradually disappear if we can do it world wide - like smallpox
If we don't have the anti vaxers undermining it

Apart from the fact that the economy couldn't function if everyone over 50 was isolating, what about schoolchildren whose parents are over 50. Are they not supposed to go to school?

[quote Teateaandmoretea]@TableFlowerss the vaccine isn’t going to be sterilising. We have been told that repeatedly 🤦🏻‍♀️[/quote]
What do you mean, sterilising?

Is it therefore reasonable as a compromise to isolate the over 50's and reopen the economy for under 50s?

Er no!! The majority of people aged 50 to 65 are in work. To me, 50 doesn't even seem that old now!

Absolutely agree OP (though as an over 50, I also don't want to be 'protected' as if I were at any realistic risk! I've had it already with the only symptom being change in sense of smell so I'm happy to help with herd immunity!)

YABVU. Lots of over 50s are healthier than those in their 30s or even 20s (I’m in my 20s and healthy, but some aren’t). Those of ANY age that are very vulnerable might feel more comfortable about staying inside, but the majority of the working age population is healthy and shouldn’t be locked away any longer.

Another lockdown will mean more people will lose their lives due to suicide or cancelled/reduced medical appointments. More people will lose their jobs. More people will suffer from domestic abuse. More people will lose out from seeing loved ones. More people will lose out on education.

Humans are social creatures and we shouldn’t be locked away. It’s really sad people have died, but most of these people had underlying health issues.

Everyone was told "this is a simple instruction, you must stay at home".

No @starfro, we were told to work from home IF we could and no non essential going out, no mixing etc. I and most of my over 50 year old colleagues carried on working as essential workers......

@PandaCub7

YABVU. Lots of over 50s are healthier than those in their 30s or even 20s (I’m in my 20s and healthy, but some aren’t). Those of ANY age that are very vulnerable might feel more comfortable about staying inside, but the majority of the working age population is healthy and shouldn’t be locked away any longer.

Another lockdown will mean more people will lose their lives due to suicide or cancelled/reduced medical appointments. More people will lose their jobs. More people will suffer from domestic abuse. More people will lose out from seeing loved ones. More people will lose out on education.

Humans are social creatures and we shouldn’t be locked away. It’s really sad people have died, but most of these people had underlying health issues.

It's not me that is suggesting the low-risk cut-off age is 50, it's the medical experts.

I would rather see half the population freely spending money and keeping the economy going, rather than everyone being locked down, which is where I fear things are going. 50% income for a business is much better than zero.

My preference would be to open most things up, and try and protect the really vulnerable (rather just those over 50), but the Government are determined to kick the can down the road until we get a vaccine, which they won't give to the majority of people.

My preference would be to open most things up, and try and protect the really vulnerable (rather just those over 50)

What do you mean by "protect"? Pay a salary? Shut the shops for a couple of hours a day for all except this group? Close parks or beaches to all except this group? Provide specific and frequent mental health support? Provide exclusive access to health services? What do you mean?

Usually when people say this they really mean "isolate at home" which is a dreadful thing to do to anyone. It amounts to house arrest and is extremely detrimental to mental health and general well being. And the more people who are out and about, the more difficult it is for clinically vulnerable people to take any exercise, for example, thus adding to their problems.

As always needs to be pointed out, the "extremely vulnerable" (aka Shielding) group are not a homogenous mass of sickly people on oxygen or in wheelchairs or over 90...we walk among you and under normal circumstances you'd have no idea who falls into those very strict and specific criteria.

Excellent question, considering that most of the prescription medications in use in the UK were not developed or manufactured there.

??

I am over 50 and have seen a doctor for 7 minutes in the last 15 years and have paid hundreds of thousands of tax and work full time. If people over 50 were told not to leave the house the state may well find it could not afford to pay nurses. Even in March everyone was allowed to work unless they could work from home.

You're also ignoring the fact that people over a certain age still have rights to choose. I'd be hard pressed telling me nana she has to isolate. It would kill her, she's already made it clear she'd rather risk the virus and get really poorly than spend what could be her last years indoors. My husbands elder grandparents (87,91) also don't want to spend the next however long not seeing their children, grandchildren and great grandchild. They want to make the most of whatever time they have left.
The fact that anybody in the uk thinks they have the right to control what somebody else does with their time, or who they see is just shocking to me.

@WutheringTights
I'm leaving this thread now as I'm just banging my head against a brick wall. Your argument doesn't rest on facts, just 'what ifs'.

I'm basing my view on actual words that have come out of someone's mouth, an actual quote from someone in power who can influence what happens. You are basing your view on your clairvoyance of what you think Boris will do... This is just not a legitimate discussion at this point.

I will be happily waiting for my vaccine as I am confident it will come eventually (in line before all those of greater need of course).

To everyone else in the thread this topic feels like an attempt to whip everyone up into a frenzy based some suggested guidance that hasn't even come to be policy yet. If you feel anxious about this is I suggest waiting for the policy to be clearly defined before worrying too much. Posters on mumsnet cannot define or predict government policy before its been written!

Adios

[quote MrsMigginsMate]@WutheringTights
I'm leaving this thread now as I'm just banging my head against a brick wall. Your argument doesn't rest on facts, just 'what ifs'.

I'm basing my view on actual words that have come out of someone's mouth, an actual quote from someone in power who can influence what happens. You are basing your view on your clairvoyance of what you think Boris will do... This is just not a legitimate discussion at this point.

I will be happily waiting for my vaccine as I am confident it will come eventually (in line before all those of greater need of course).

To everyone else in the thread this topic feels like an attempt to whip everyone up into a frenzy based some suggested guidance that hasn't even come to be policy yet. If you feel anxious about this is I suggest waiting for the policy to be clearly defined before worrying too much. Posters on mumsnet cannot define or predict government policy before its been written!

Adios[/quote]
Actual words than came out of the mouth of the person setting policy on vaccinations were that under 50s wouldn't be vaccinated. Actual words that came out of the mouth of Matt Hancock in Parliament were non committal. I've only quoted directly from the article that you posted and you haven't addressed my actual point at all. But do flounce off anyway.

Interestingly, there are a number of experts globally that support low risk individuals being released from lockdown. I'm in a local lockdown area where we're all locked away anyway so I support letting people who are happy to risk assess and choose to take the risk resume their normal lives.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

@FuzzyPuffling exactly. I've been home since March now. Coped ok but ended up crying the other day as I just wanted a hug. It's been 6 months now and I would love a face to face conversation with someone. I can't support bubble with my parents as it's too risky due to their lifestyle

What would you like me to say to the 30 children who won't have a teacher ?