We should be aiming to vaccinate everybody, not just the over 50s

[ForBlueSkies]

I feel like this government is sleepwalking into yet another disaster.

Why is it that leaders of Australia, the USA and Germany have all gone on record the past few weeks stating that population wide vaccination is the goal, and yet our authorities claim only over 50s and the vulnerable will ever receive it?

25% of ICU beds are currently filled with under 50s. Many people who have underlying conditions this virus preys on don’t even know it, such as diabetes and hypertension. For example, a case mentioned in the NYT:

“Mr. Alvarado said his wife and three children under the age of 12 first showed symptoms, then he got it, too. By mid-October, Mr. Sierra Macias also fell sick and was admitted to a hospital, where he learned he had diabetes, in addition to high blood pressure. Things seemed to be improving, but Mr. Sierra Macias took a turn for the worse. He was 49.”

www.nytimes.com/2020/11/14/us/coronavirus-deaths.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

This is NOT an atypical case. I have a close friend in the US who is 30 and currently hospitalised with covid.

We must vaccinate our at risk groups first, of course, and it’s possible the vaccine is inappropriate/unnecessary for children, but in the long term the government’s goal should be to protect everybody.

Has anyone said otherwise?

I think we are aiming to vaccinate everyone. But we can't do everyone all at once.

@PurpleDaisies

Has anyone said otherwise?

Yes:

Less than half the UK population can expect to be vaccinated against coronavirus, the head of the government’s vaccine task force has said in an attempt to clear up the public’s “misguided” perception of the programme’s aim.

Kate Bingham told the Financial Times that vaccinating everyone in the country was “not going to happen”, adding: “We just need to vaccinate everyone at risk.”

www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889-4d5d-84a3-43e51355a751

The problem being that not everybody at risk knows it, that the government’s classification of at-risk is unreliable, and this position entirely ignores long covid, which affects all ages.

I thought the proposed order of vaccinating was just to try to figure a way of getting those most in need vaccinated first before the wider population. I haven’t seen anything to suggest the aim isn’t for it to be widely available

I thought it was just initially but the aim is to vaccinate all eventually. You can't expect it all to happen at once

There has been no final confirmation of who will get the vaccine and in what order. It is right that people should be prioritised in order of need. I don’t think anyone has said that under 50’s will never be vaccinated but it is not the priority. If the Oxford vaccine comes through, which is a. Easier to distribute and b. We have a lot more doses ordered, I imagine that will change things quite a lot. But it will still have to be given in order of need.

The UK has built the biggest and most diverse vaccine portfolio in the world per capita.The government has pre-ordered more than five doses pp across six potential vaccines. Of all the things they can fairly be accused of, this is not one.

Vaccine portfolios from the FT

www.ft.com/content/e5012891-58da-4a4f-8a05-182adf3ba0e2

Kate Bingham was pretty darned explicit in the above article. 🤷‍♀️ And it’s been stated by her in the press several times since.

It could be they prefer to sit on excess vaccines to redeploy if the protection for the vulnerable is short-lived?

www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889-4d5d-84a3-43e51355a751

David Nabarro, special envoy to the World Health Organization on Covid-19, also told the FT that addressing the coronavirus crisis was “not going to be a case of everyone getting vaccinated”.

He added: “There will be a definite analysis of who is the priority for the vaccine, based on where they live, their occupation and their age bracket.

“We’re not fundamentally using the vaccine to create population immunity, we’re just changing the likelihood people will get harmed or hurt. It will be strategic.”

We don't routinely vaccinate against chicken pox whereas other countries do. I would imagine that the UK are looking at cost and benefit. If like cp most cases in children cause few problems and the maximum benefit is derived by vaccinating a % of the population then that's what we'll do.

The interim advice priority list here gives the top 10 and then number 11 says:

Rest of the population (priority to be determined)
(Footnote: A risk-benefit assessment would likely be undertaken in advising on vaccination in group 11.)
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

Ms Bingham said vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk” and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis.

OP stop spreading fake news. Everyone will be getting the vaccine. There is a priority list for a reason, and unfortunately the under 50s will have to wait a little bit longer than those who need it more urgently. If you bothered to read the published Government papers, you will see this. Perhaps stop relying on newspaper articles that are full of false information.

[quote CoffeeandCroissant]The interim advice priority list here gives the top 10 and then number 11 says:

Rest of the population (priority to be determined)
(Footnote: A risk-benefit assessment would likely be undertaken in advising on vaccination in group 11.)
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[/quote]
I imagine cost and overall doses available will decide that. I hope they are more open to it then Kate Bingham is insisting.

“Ms Bingham said the government was aiming to vaccinate about 30m people, compared with a UK population of about 67m,if a successful vaccine against Covid-19 was found.

“People keep talking about ‘time to vaccinate the whole population’, but that is misguided,” she said. “There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”

Younger people should not and will not be prioritised.
Of course the older, more vulnerable and key workers should be vaccinated first.
Sure, there's going to be some people who have conditions they didn't know about, but the vast, vast majority of people who need the vaccine will get the vaccine.
There's little point in vaccinating millions of people at substantial cost when it's just not needed.

@Char2015

OP stop spreading fake news. Everyone will be getting the vaccine. There is a priority list for a reason, and unfortunately the under 50s will have to wait a little bit longer than those who need it more urgently. If you bothered to read the published Government papers, you will see this. Perhaps stop relying on newspaper articles that are full of false information.

Statements from the head of the U.K. vaccine task force are fake news? Righto. 😂

@LindaEllen

Younger people should not and will not be prioritised. Of course the older, more vulnerable and key workers should be vaccinated first. Sure, there's going to be some people who have conditions they didn't know about, but the vast, vast majority of people who need the vaccine will get the vaccine. There's little point in vaccinating millions of people at substantial cost when it's just not needed.

I don’t say anything different. I’m not contesting prioritisation just making people aware the government is at best undecided on a population wide rollout, and if the head of the U.K. vaccine task force is correct, they have no intention of doing so.

No, not necessarily. Depends what the vaccine does. If it stops transmission then great, let’s give it to everyone. If it merely prevents severe disease why would you give it to people incredibly unlikely to get severe disease? That’s money you could potentially spend on better ways of improving public health.

I would imagine that as there will be huge world shortages of vaccine for many months if not years, it makes sense for all countries to prioritise their vulnerable, so that developing countries also have access to vaccine.
Western countries have spent billions procuring vaccine but what about the RoW ?
We will have no security from CV if it can be re introduced to the West from Peru etc......

I'm in my 50s relatively healthy, i certainly won't be queueing up to be vaccinated and neither will my DD in her 20s.

@Numberblock7

No, not necessarily. Depends what the vaccine does. If it stops transmission then great, let’s give it to everyone. If it merely prevents severe disease why would you give it to people incredibly unlikely to get severe disease? That’s money you could potentially spend on better ways of improving public health.

That’s a fair argument. But it’s contingent on covid truly being a benign disease for under 50s. I personally know four people who’ve had it in that age bracket. One is suffering badly with long covid, one is perfectly fine, one is somewhere in the middle, and the other is currently in hospital.

There’s a big gap between young enough that you’re unlikely to die and coming out completing unscathed. The drain on the NHS from long covid needs to be factored in.

We are so far talking about one vaccine. When others pop up, they’ll be able to distribute vaccines out to more people. That article is in discussion of there being one vaccine found. It’s likely there’ll be several. The govmt has bought enough doses of the Oxford one for the whole population to get 2x each. & that’s without the Pfizer one in co consideration as well.

Rightly, for now, we should aim to vaccinate as many elderly & vulnerable people around the world. Not just the first world. So if young, health people have to go without for now, then fine.

It’s not at all contingent on it being completely benign for under 50’s. It’s all about bringing things to an acceptable manageable level. I say that as a healthy 41 year old who unlikely to get a vaccine anytime soon. I could catch cv, I could get it badly, I could end up in hospital, I could end up with long COVID. But the risks of all these things are pretty small. There are many things that could also floor an otherwise healthy under 50 year old. We can’t eradicate it, we need it at levels that can be coped with. It is not possible to protect all people from all harms that could come to them.

I don’t think this thread is about prioritisation though. Most won’t argue with the vulnerable groups being first. However, it’s also quite an ask to expect an obese 48 year old with well controlled diabetes, to flip from a slightly increased risk of icu, to normal, without being vaccinated.

Economy might guide this. If a lot of those in their 40’s are unvaccinated and still too nervous to get out there and spend, go back to offices with no sd, I expect the government will rethink. Given they’ve been frightening us all into our homes for a year, it is quite an ask!

There is also the ethical issue of the UK taking enough vaccines to cover their whole population when less wealthy countries are unable to vaccinate their most vulnerable.