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)?

As of 2018 only 9% of the population are over 70. So even befor Christmas they expect 10 millions doses. Then would expect another 5-7million doses by spring (based on the fact they want another 20 million by the end of next year).

This would be more than enough to vaccinate all health professionals and everyone over 70 by next spring. This is where the idea or normality by spring comes in... By having those 2 demographics vaccinated would take a huge amount of pressure off the NHS and would be extremely unlikely they would be overwhelmed.... The virus is then left to go round the rest of us and we get a hybrid herd immunity of both infections and vaccination.

This of course is only based on this one vaccine being successful which I would say is unlikely... My guess would be using various vaccines that everyone over 50 and all front line works will be vaccinated by Easter next year. Leaving the rest of us to be able to get back to normal!

@UnmentionedElephantDildo

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)

This is what worries me, DH might be going on holiday without me! DH is 66 and I'm 45 so I'm way behind him on the list to have the vaccine!

@MissMarplesGlove

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?

1. We'll all get the vaccine eventually
2. Can't you just celebrate?
3. Do you begrudge it to those categories you list?

Athough my evil self rather hopes that all the fuckwits on MN and elsewhere who refuse to vaccinate their children, are denied the C-19 vaccines

I meant in terms of continuing with SD, masks, restrictions and 14 day isolation periods will this need to continue if the most vulnerable are vaccinated or will we just let it run through the community knowing the most vulnerable are protected. Try reading the full post and thread before assuming anyone is begrudging anybody anything!

@Tyzz

Retired people who don't live with working age people or schoolchildren can shield more easily

Elbows are being sharpened at the ready lest the old should beat them to the vaccine.

Many of these have barely left the house since March and not seen loved ones.

My elbows are not sharp . My parents are over 80 and so it will be a relief when they are activated. However, I can't get my head around the idea that they should have priority over a child or young adult who is vulnerable and also hasn't been out of the house much since March to the detriment of their finances and education. My parents strongly agree.

activated vaccinated!

@MissMarplesGlove

The difficult thing will be keeping people's expectations in check of 'everything back to normal' as soon as the vaccine starts being rolled out. There'll need to be patience in line with the very good news that a vaccine will see things back to normal eventually. This winter especially.

A vaccine on the way should be an incentive to follow the rules, knowing there's light at the end of the tunnel.

However, I can't get my head around the idea that they should have priority over a child or young adult who is vulnerable and also hasn't been out of the house much since March

Yes, I think the CEV/shield group should be one or two notches higher on the priority list.

After all, age wasn't a shielding criterion

This would be more than enough to vaccinate all health professionals and everyone over 70 by next spring. This is where the idea or normality by spring comes in..

Not if the CEV aren't included in a higher priority. Or will they have to continue to shield (even though healthy and vulnerable over 70s were never asked to isolate like that)

@UnmentionedElephantDildo

This would be more than enough to vaccinate all health professionals and everyone over 70 by next spring. This is where the idea or normality by spring comes in..

Not if the CEV aren't included in a higher priority. Or will they have to continue to shield (even though healthy and vulnerable over 70s were never asked to isolate like that)

They will make the decisions purely on who is more likely to need NHS treatment, its possible that someone over 70 is still more likely to need treatment than someone younger who has a EV condition

Along with the pressure taken off the NHS by vaccinating those most vulnerable you will get a slowing of the spread by having less people to transmit covid (presuming the vaccination stops people being contagious).

If we can reduce the impact of covid to something similar to chicken pox (so small
localised outbreaks which we can protect our most vulnerable from) ‘normal’ life should be able to pretty much resume. There’s no national programme to vaccinate from chicken pox and we cope with that perfectly well.

Ultimately, actually having the vaccine for everybody isn’t strictly necessary since we should see benefits for the wider population just by targeting vaccines at those most likely to become really ill.

That being said if I get offered it through work (non-clinical NHS) or the opportunity arose to have it privately I would personally get it although I wouldn’t get it for my dd(4) for a while yet.

Teachers should be ahead of the over 80’s in ‘the queue’.

They will make the decisions purely on who is more likely to need NHS treatment, its possible that someone over 70 is still more likely to need treatment than someone younger who has a EV condition

It is possible if they were also on the shielding this but most weren't so I don't understand why they would be vaccinated first. I think even 65 year olds were before those who are vulnerable if they are under 65..

Try reading the full post and thread before assuming anyone is begrudging anybody anything!

I did. I think you're right about the necessity to keep up with social distancing, masks, testing and tracing (except our government is criminally incompetent about setting this up).

But I was struck with this list again, and the potential for - once more - beating up the elderly.

The way I see the current lockdown is that all the rest of us are locking down in order that schools - and universities but mostly schools - can stay open. The idea is that although the kids are mixing at school, at least in their homes, they & their families are not mixing outside their household, it's possible to keep a bit more of a lid on transmission.

The problem is, people don't seem to understand this ...

They will make the decisions purely on who is more likely to need NHS treatment, its possible that someone over 70 is still more likely to need treatment than someone younger who has a EV condition

That flies in the face of everything that has been said about the purpose of shielding - it was to protect the 2m or so most vulnerable people, who are the people most likely to need treatment

Keepdistance - I hope it is available to buy. Everyone who has a vax is decreasing the chance of an outbreak. Fine if the gov decides that xyz other country needs healthcare staff vqxxed first, but they shouldnt be imposing that on our population.

The reason we are so close to rolling out a safe, effective vaccine in such a short timescale is because of the astonishing global collaboration that is COVAX. We have signed a commitment to this process along with many (most?) other countries:

COVAX is co-led by Gavi, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and WHO. Its aim is to accelerate the development and manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines, and to guarantee fair and equitable access for every country in the world.

How will vaccine doses be allocated?

Once any of the COVAX portfolio vaccines have successfully undergone clinical trials and proved themselves to be both safe and effective, and have received regulatory approval, available doses will be allocated to all participating countries at the same rate, proportional to their total population size. A small buffer of about 5% of the total number of available doses will be kept aside to build a stockpile to help with acute outbreaks and to support humanitarian organisations, for example to vaccinate refugees who may not otherwise have access.

Even though self-financing participants can request for enough doses to vaccinate between 10-50% of their population, no country will receive enough doses to vaccinate more than 20% of its population until all countries in the financing group have been offered this amount. The only exception is those countries who have opted to receive fewer than 20%.

www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/covax-explained

There's nothing to stop us also purchasing additional vaccines direct from manufacturers, and I believe we are doing this, but it would be pretty shitty if these were being rolled out before the COVAX 20% guarantee was met.

Does anyone know what split of the volunteer testers were women?
Often drugs and treatments are tested and designed for men and not women.

The way I see the current lockdown is that all the rest of us are locking down in order that schools - and universities but mostly schools - can stay open.

That might be how you see it but it isn't what the evidence says, at all. It may well be true that lockdown would be more effective if schools were shut but that doesn't mean that the converse, that just closing schools would be a good or effective measure is at all true. It's hard to tell as - for obvious reasons - no country has tried shutting its schools but letting everything else run as normal but there's no reason to think that you wouldn't have to lockdown if only they did.

@Trumpyouredone

Does anyone know what split of the volunteer testers were women? Often drugs and treatments are tested and designed for men and not women.

I don't know what the exact split is that women have been included in drug trials for decades.

I imagine there will be gradual easing of restrictions running in tandem with vaccines being administered. So, once a decent chunk have received the second dose (three weeks after the first) and 7 days passes, I imagine hand washing, SD, ‘Covid secure’ measures in place in places of work as well as other premises, as well as the isolation period will continue for a little while as they track the data. I guess if they see a marked decrease in hospital admissions they can gradually lessen the restrictions.

@Belladonna12 at 50% to represent the population?

[quote Trumpyouredone]@Belladonna12 at 50% to represent the population?[/quote]
Yes, if as many women volunteer as men there is no reason why it wouldn't be 50%.

Am I the only one that is viewing this vaccine with a bit of caution. Yes it's good news, but we have no idea how long it protects you, could be a month, could be six. Also has it been tested on only healthy people? There is a hell of a lot of people with conditions, me included, what way would we react. I'm under 50 with a long list of chronic conditions. Reading the lists of priority, I'll be in the last group.

And yes 90% is good, that just leaves over six million people who it won't work for. Six million. Quite a number.

@Belladonna12 , im not sure that the vaccine will have been tested on those under 18. If it hasn't then they can't get it.
The older person needs it before a university student as they are more likely to get seriously ill from Covid.

[quote Torvean32]@Belladonna12 , im not sure that the vaccine will have been tested on those under 18. If it hasn't then they can't get it.
The older person needs it before a university student as they are more likely to get seriously ill from Covid.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I haven't said anything about university students needing it before older people. As university students are almost always over 18 so I'm not sure how your point about it not being tested in those under 18 is relevant either.

Also a bit shocked reading the list that ECV people under 65 are so far down the list. So people in their 50s or 40s with conditions making them most vulnerable and who might have children in school bringing the virus home AND who are not able to be economically active but don't draw a state pension, will get it AFTER healthy people aged 65? That can't be right.

Dh is 55 and was told by his consultant he was more vulnerable to Covid than an average 75-80 year old.