A potential vaccine? What does that mean initially for those who aren't eligible for it?

[3littlewords]

Encouraging news today that a vaccine has been found that's 90% effective. However as initially it will be rolled out to those front line workers, the over 80s and those CEV , what does that mean for everyone else?

Will the virus just left to run through the rest of society as they will most likely not need any NHS support? Will 14 day isolating for close contacts still take place? Will school bubbles still close for 14 days ?

Given children will probably be the last people to be vaccinated (if at all), how will this affect education? Will they still be required to test and isolate every time they show any symptoms? Will there continue to be a disruption to teaching?

When will it be acceptable to reduce the need for SD and masks? When everyone has been vaccinated? When the NHS is no longer overwhelmed? When the number of deaths reduce? When?
What does the news of a vaccine mean for the majority that won't be eligible (initially anyway)?

@Forgetmenot157 awesome! I can't wait ....

@TunMahla

That may be so but I simply do not believe that the rich and powerful will patiently wait in line for their turn at the vaccine. There is defo gonna be a back door VIP route for the vaccine.

What makes you think everyone will want it!?

The Pfizer vaccine is based on mRNA technology, as is the Moderna vaccine. Since they are so similar it's reasonable to expect that the Moderna vaccine will be highly effective as well. This will greatly add to the supply.

@AgeLikeWine

I have just listened to an astonishing interview with Prof John Bell, head of the Oxford vaccine trial on R4 World at One. He actually said life could be “back to normal by spring”.

I could cry with happiness! I ❤️ science!

OMG! You have given me hope. I pray and pray we find this.

The U.K. has bought 30 million doses, each person requires 2. Meanwhile other front runners are yet to report, they could be as good/work better in different groups. My friend is a nurse and was told 1st December all leave cancelled 2 weeks back but she told us it's hcp, care homes and those with at home care packages being prioritised followed by over 65's. I suspect once they have completed that programme more vaccines will be coming on stream with key workers next in line and possibly they will allow herd immunity for the younger ones. I'm happy to forgo

whilst this is very exciting in the first batch there will be 10 million jabs available which basically means 5 million people as two doses are needed. My guess is it will go to care homes ands staff first. But that's most of the rest of us who will be waiting.
However I understand (am involved in another vaccine trial) that we could expect for 'several' vaccines to be approved and start being given out by the spring.

Great news, I mean I won’t be having it but great for those that want it and hopefully we can start getting back to normal soon

I can just imagine some company (that various MPs/advisors have shares in) being set up to waste time and money deciding who should and shouldn't receive the vaccine first, while vaccines stay in storage waiting to be used.

Well it very much depends on how quickly vaccine in sufficient amounts can be delivered.

So if we were on track to have most of the adult population vaccinated in two months for example, then I agree this kind of targeting isn’t helpful.

However, if it will take 9 months to get sufficient stocks, then being careful about who gets it could make a huge difference to how quickly we get back to normality. Which is why I’d suggest (after the key rollout among the most important groups) prioritising people in environments that we already know have huge potential for spread, regardless of their individual vulnerability.

Well quite simply the measures won't be relaxed until the NHS demand has decreased. Realistically, I don't think we can expect this before Spring regardless, as it will, still be worse than flu season presumably until everyone over 60 is vaccinated.

But yes once the pressure has decreased and the death/hospitalisation rates become more normal, all of the other nonsense can be dropped. It has no impact on kids so there won't be any need for the isolation etc eventually regardless of whether all groups have the vaccine or not.

@3littlewords

Actually if we had 120 million doses (everyone needs 2) they could vaccinate quite quickly in a mass programme eg using sports arenas, stadiums etc with huge capacities for the masses. The cev need to be vaccinated separately so they don't catch it in the queue.

At school 300 of us had the bcg in an hour or so, smaller scale but the principle of rolling up your sleeve and standing in line stands

@yawnsvillex

People will want it if it means they’re free to do things like travel internationally. If it means they won’t have to quarantine upon arrival to certain countries, or pay extra for constant covid tests.

Don’t forget that countries like Germany are planning to vaccinate their entire population. The UK strategy of only vaccinating the vulnerable and over 50s is one option that other countries are adopting, but not the only one.

[quote Redolent]@yawnsvillex

People will want it if it means they’re free to do things like travel internationally. If it means they won’t have to quarantine upon arrival to certain countries, or pay extra for constant covid tests.

Don’t forget that countries like Germany are planning to vaccinate their entire population. The UK strategy of only vaccinating the vulnerable and over 50s is one option that other countries are adopting, but not the only one.[/quote]

Wow! I want all of those things and can pay for it. But I don't want the vaccine.

Can they force individuals to have a vaccine and pay for it?

The JCVI document does not say that the healthy u50s will bit be vaccinated. It says they are the lowest priority, and that decisions on priorities in the healthy u50s will be decided later.

I think the JCVI list (quoted a few times above) is about right, though I think I'd put the CEV up at no4 rather than no6

@HelloMissus

puzzled I’d say the NHS staff. I think we have 1.5 million so that first batch of Pfizer vaccine would cover it. Thus reducing staff shortages which is currently a major driver. Plus limiting in-hospital infections.

To be fair, I personally know 3 people who work for the NHS (close friends and family) and they've all wfh since March at least 90% of the time.

Front line will be a lot less than 1.5 mill.

Can they force individuals to have a vaccine and pay for it?

Maybe, for international travel. There are certain countries you cannot enter without proof of immunisation against yellow fever, and I expect that model may well be adopted (though anyine's guess his widely)

@TheKeatingFive

I can just imagine some company (that various MPs/advisors have shares in) being set up to waste time and money deciding who should and shouldn't receive the vaccine first, while vaccines stay in storage waiting to be used.

Well it very much depends on how quickly vaccine in sufficient amounts can be delivered.

So if we were on track to have most of the adult population vaccinated in two months for example, then I agree this kind of targeting isn’t helpful.

However, if it will take 9 months to get sufficient stocks, then being careful about who gets it could make a huge difference to how quickly we get back to normality. Which is why I’d suggest (after the key rollout among the most important groups) prioritising people in environments that we already know have huge potential for spread, regardless of their individual vulnerability.

I don't disagree that it should be targeted . However, if the vulnerable population are vaccinated then it doesn't really matter if someone works in the environment with a huge potential spread.

@SexTrainGlue

The JCVI document does not say that the healthy u50s will bit be vaccinated. It says they are the lowest priority, and that decisions on priorities in the healthy u50s will be decided later.

I think the JCVI list (quoted a few times above) is about right, though I think I'd put the CEV up at no4 rather than no6

I think that’s the fair. But there is definitely a difference in the language being used. All countries will of course prioritise certain groups, but eg the Head of Germany’s National Vaccination Strategy has clearly said they want to reach herd immunity through (voluntary) vaccination. We haven’t had any mention of that in the UK. It might backfire if other countries are more ambitious in their vaccination goals.

I can just imagine some company (that various MPs/advisors have shares in) being set up to waste time and money deciding who should and shouldn't receive the vaccine first, while vaccines stay in storage waiting to be used

Nope. The body is the Joint Commission on Vaccines and Immunusations, which has been around for ages and which published the latest iteration of the priority list in September (there were threads at the time)

Full document is here:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-25-september-2020/jcvi-updated-interim-advice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination

Also explains why it might be subject to,change (efficacy in the elderly, safety in the some categories of the CEV)

I don't think we should underestimate the disruption to workplaces, consumer behaviour, individual health etc from sickness among people who would not be initially eligible though

Long Covid to factor in as well, health complications and people will still need to quarantine and self isolate.

The nation have been scared shitless by this virus (whether justly or by media fear) so if and when the vaccine does get rolled out to the elderly, it won't be a case of everyone else just gets back to normal.

A lot of people might not give a shit, but many people of all ages not eligible for the vaccine will still want to avoid catching Covid, even if the 'don't kill Granny' slogan becomes superfluous.

However, if the vulnerable population are vaccinated then it doesn't really matter if someone works in the environment with a huge potential spread.

Well there have always been outliers/people badly affected with no prior indicators. Plus the risks of long Covid, so I think there is a point.

Those situations were it just rips through a setting (unis/good factories) have been very problematic. Not just for those in the setting, but their contacts and beyond. We know enough to try to avoid them I think.

@Belladonna12

What if they work on a mink farm?

There are clear advantages to vaccinating as many people as possible because this is still a novel virus and we have no idea about the ramifications of its continued spread and (possible) mutation.

We don't innoculate everyone against Flu, so I imagine this vaccine will have a similar implementation.

What about the people who are vulnerable and don’t know it? Like the many undiagnosed diabetics. While I totally understand prioritising the rollout I don’t like the strategy of choosing to only vaccinating a small proportion of the population, especially as these early vaccines are said to not break the transmission cycle, just suppress symptoms.

A lot of supposedly “healthy” 40+ year olds could be about to get royally screwed over if they have undiagnosed health conditions. And then there’s long covid, which I’ve personally known to afflict several twenty somethings.

@Jaxhog

We don't innoculate everyone against Flu, so I imagine this vaccine will have a similar implementation.

This virus is at least 5 times more lethal than the flu.

This year's Flu vaccination has been done differently too. I got my jab in a temp drive-through arrangement with our local cricket club. I imagine the Covid vaccine will be delivered in a similar way.