Will under 50s get the vaccine?

[FairyAtTheBottomOfTheGarden]

This is the order of who will get the Covid-19 vaccine (according to BBC)

1. Residents in care homes for older adults and their carers
2. 80-year-olds and over and frontline health and social care workers
3. 75-year-olds and over
4. 70-year-olds and over and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals
5. 65-year-olds and over
6. 16 to 64-year-olds with serious underlying health conditions
7. 60-year-olds and over
8. 55-year-olds and over
9. 50-year-olds and over

But it doesn't say anything about under 50s with no underlying health conditions. I assume everyone WILL get it in time, won't we?

@VikingVolva

tell me, why shouldn't they (we) get it?

We should.

But we should also honour COVAX - a global mechanism to inhibit how much of the world supply that the rich can buy up before every country has immunised its most vulnerable 20%

I absolutely agree with that. I want the vaccine. I am 45. I'll wait my turn, though, and agree it should be done fairly.

Is it Boris & his gang who've promised that the under 50's will he vaccinated?
In which case this promise is worth nothing and will almost certainly be broken .... or is it coming from Whitty, Valance or Van Tam ?
By the time all of the first wave are vaccinated I wonder whether the New Long Covid Clinics would have identified certain risk factors in individuals susceptible to Long Covid. Because those at risk should be vaccinated to prevent long term ill health. Secondly certain blood types seem to be more susceptible to a bad dose of Covid ie. Rhesus + and AB type.
I'm not sure the payback ( and cost because the Oxford vaccine will increase in price after a few months) will be worth it for the mass vaccination of the Under 50's. After all this sector don't have flu injections routinely and even Tb jabs are not given these days as they are not deemed to be necessary.

@Userzzz

Why should under-50s get a vaccine without any long term trials when they have over a 99% chance of survival?

Because if we can eliminate the chances of everyone getting it, it will eliminate the possibility of younger people having their lungs damaged, and other potential side effects of having and recovering from COVID-19.

I am 27, and had the virus in March when I was 26 and otherwise healthy. Now I'm breathless all the time and have scarring on my lungs.

I am sure the Ministers that be have said everyone will be offered a vaccine in time.

They’ve also said in Scotland that everyone over the age of 16 (or maybe 18, I can’t remember) should be vaccinated by the end of the summer.

I think this is ambitious but it’s good that they’ve stated their intent.

I’m sure Matt Hancock initially said all adults who wanted a vaccine should be able to have one by Easter but he seems to have backtracked on that somewhat.

What if we need it to travel?
I am happy to pay for it if I can get it

@ForBlueSkies

They clearly haven’t decided. It will depend on overall supply and whether the various vaccines have any impact on transmission.

My gut instinct is not any time in 2021. We are already seeing manufacturing processes being badly delayed. Oxford will only have 4 million doses available in the U.K. before year end as opposed to the 30 million originally promised:

www.ft.com/content/651be7e7-2a4e-410f-8089-b4b7e887f6e8

I think the vaccine makers are going to struggle to manufacture enough to cover the vulnerable next year and then there is the thorny issue of the vaccines potentially wearing off and the vulnerable needing to be vaccinated again.

You seem to be very negative overall with regard to the vaccines. Just to pick up on one of your points, you'd think manufacturing processes would be something that could fairly easily be increased and improved upon for such an important endeavour. Not to mention the financial incentive to do so for the profit-making manufacturers.

Userzzz 99% chance of survival for all age groups. Under 50 with no significant comorbidity is so tiny it is not it. Far better to export any spare jabs to countries that have not secured doses.

Why should under-50s get a vaccine without any long term trials when they have over a 99% chance of survival?

Why do people say that, as if a 1 in a hundred chance of death is nothing? Example, we've a thousand teens in the local high school, so lets say 2,000 parents, for arguments sake. One in hundred dead is 20 parents. That seems like 20 too many to me, don't know about you.

@Userzzz

Why should under-50s get a vaccine without any long term trials when they have over a 99% chance of survival?

Because I don't want my family and friends to be the 1 in 100 who wouldn't survive?

@teateatea the death rate for under 50's is 1% of the total deaths in the UK. 30% of deaths have been in care homes, 30% in individuals over 80 & another ~39% in individuals between 50-80. Only 1% in under 50's.

The overall death rate is thought to be ~1% or lower for all age groups . So it won't be the equivalent of 20 individuals in that school.

Burpeesshmurpees fair point but i'll be out waiving the banners myself in protest if they don't remove all restrictions, maybe save the +ve test isolation, the moment the at risk groups are done.

Why do people say that, as if a 1 in a hundred chance of death is nothing? Example, we've a thousand teens in the local high school, so lets say 2,000 parents, for arguments sake. One in hundred dead is 20 parents. That seems like 20 too many to me, don't know about you.

If the parents are young/youngish and healthy, their percentage change of dying is vastly less than 1%. Even 1% is an over-estimation of overall fatality, but within that are really large variences depending on age.

@Everanewbie

Burpeesshmurpees fair point but i'll be out waiving the banners myself in protest if they don't remove all restrictions, maybe save the +ve test isolation, the moment the at risk groups are done.

I don’t think they can do this because if they do, infections in the unvaccinated population will be rife. And even if only a small percentage die, what about lost work days, lost education, the effects of long covid and all the rest of that? Chris Witty has already said he expects us to be wearing masks for at least another year.

They’ll relax things slightly I’m sure, but they cannot just do away with all the restrictions as soon as the priority people have been vaccinated.

@Userzzz

Why should under-50s get a vaccine without any long term trials when they have over a 99% chance of survival?

Because it will protect them from long term illness, heart & lung damage etc.

Not dying isn't the only measure of 'Heath benefits'

That's without considering the protection it'll offer people who cannot have a vaccine.

Then there's things like travel. I imagine it'll be restricted for people who haven't been vaccinated, as it is for other vaccines around the world.

Also no one is MAKING anyone have
it, it's being OFFERED.

@teateateateateamoretea

Why should under-50s get a vaccine without any long term trials when they have over a 99% chance of survival?

Why do people say that, as if a 1 in a hundred chance of death is nothing? Example, we've a thousand teens in the local high school, so lets say 2,000 parents, for arguments sake. One in hundred dead is 20 parents. That seems like 20 too many to me, don't know about you.

Exactly this. Why should 1 in a hundred die or potentially have life changing effects of covid when there is a vaccine now?

Problem is, by the time they get to the bottom of the list, the immunity of those at the top will need boosting again. I don't know why anyone thinks that everyone will get this - it's more than likely going to be an annual jab if not even more regularly, you can't vaccinate the whole population every year.

Kate Bingham said a while ago that they wouldn't necessarily be offered to the under 50s. That said I think the government has ordered 200 million doses in total (that vaccinates 100 million people and we are 67m)- it will be a while before they all turn up but can't see them going to waste or selling them off to other countries personally. There was a suggestion the other day that once the 50+ are all sorted there will be a new priority list for everyone else, suggesting that key workers such as teachers could be top priority. They definitely don't get priority at the moment unless they are CEV or over 50.

However as far as I know no vaccines have been tested in children so I don't think children will be getting them for a long time, if at all. I'd absolutely get the vaccine myself but would be very wary to give it to my kids, and suspect many would feel the same.

@LindaEllen

Problem is, by the time they get to the bottom of the list, the immunity of those at the top will need boosting again. I don't know why anyone thinks that everyone will get this - it's more than likely going to be an annual jab if not even more regularly, you can't vaccinate the whole population every year.

WE don't know this, do we?

@Frazzled2207

I'd absolutely get the vaccine myself but would be very wary to give it to my kids, and suspect many would feel the same.

I agree. I do know that Pfizer plan to test on under 16s, though.

It’s not 1 in 100 die though it’s 1 in 100 who get it . And if the rates are low, not as many will. So it’s not x number of parents in the school will die. We’ve had one case in our secondary since Sept and that’s with fairly high local rates.
Although I think they should vaccine everyone .

I think they will have to vaccinate all adults at least this year and next , to get the rates right down. In future years, if the incidence is low, it might just be vulnerable that get it and the rest can pay for it .

No, sadly I doubt under 50s without any health conditions/or working in health and social care will get offered a vaccine.

Once all the vulnerable have been vaccinated restrictions will be eased - the govt can't afford to keep them in place any longer. It will decide on an 'acceptable' level of Covid deaths and the disease will rip through the unvaccinated leaving thousands with long term health problems caused by long covid (although who knows if the vaccines would help against that anyway- sounds like the Oxford one wouldn't).

I assume the reason they ordered so many vaccines was in case only one or two of them worked- happily it's looking like more than this will. I guess the excess would be used in subsequent years to vaccinate the vulnerable again. Most were ordered in quantities of 60 million- so enough for the vulnerable mainly.