I’m just angry now

[BathFullOfEels]

They knew a vaccine would be the only way of getting us out of this mess. The country has already been locked down twice. Why, why, why didn’t they use this time to set up the logistics of distributing and administering these vaccines?

Why, why, why are the government allowed to decide who to prioritise to receive these vaccines when they were always going to distribute in a way that benefits them. Surely any government with an ounce of realism would be self aware enough to realise that they would make this vaccine distribution a political decision and instead allow the decision to be made by an independent third party who can distribute it in a way that would allow the country to get back to work. Instead it’s likely that months and months down the line we’ll all be forced to go back to work despite still be unprotected.

I have visions of pensioners being able to swan off on holiday over the summer while the workers of the country will still be unable to.

It’s an absolute fucking farce. Watching that press conference last night just finally made it snap for me - they genuinely don’t know what they’re doing at all

Funny how people cant be honest about the - do me and my family first and fuck the rest.

The sensible way to get the economy working again is to reduce the pressure on the NHS. That means vaccinating those who take up beds longest first. After that you want those who who are currently not out spending but will be if vaccinated - and that is not the young, who have frequently ignored restrictions and been out spending anyway. For every granny someone claims to have seen in a garden centre there will be a dozen not there to see the 50 families.

The 5 year old child is not being denied their development. They are being exposed to a virus with unknown long term effects. Blood vessel damage has been observed in children who have had covid. I hope children will recover, they are usually resilient, but the government and parents are gambling with childrens' future health.

@CountessFrog @GreenlandTheMovie Your posts above are excellent and I agree strongly.

[quote Rachel1874]@Belladonna12 actually it is the JCVI who came up with the priority list. Comprised of professors and doctors who advise health departments in the uk.[/quote]
I know the JCV1 came up with the priority list and I know who the group is comprised of thanks. However, that doesn't mean that their main aim was reducing the pressure on the NHS. They may have been told just focus on the number of deaths in the short term i.e. deaths within 28 days of Covid test .It doesn't seem that the priority was reducing the impact on the NHS overall as NHS workers weren't the first priority.

I do wonder what it's going to be like in the summer when the elderly have been vaccinated and the stories of coronavirus deaths that we are hearing about are of people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.

I'm really very glad that it hopefully won't be too long until people in their 60s and 70s will be vaccinated. I'm actually really concerned about when people in their 60s will get the vaccine as luckily by today's standards 60s is too young to die and I would like to see them get a chance to live to the same age as their parents have done.

But for younger people, it's a very long wait for the vaccine. All over these boards we are being told that ICUs have many younger patients in them. Chris Whitty talked about the risks of long Covid to younger people. Which potentially is going to be a huge expensive issue for the nhs in the years to come. So we know that whilst the risk is far far lower, there are and will be younger people who die of this. And I wonder how it's going to feel in the summer, when we've vaccinated 90 year olds and we are seeing young people dying from it.

It's so so complicated. I know it's about reducing pressure on the NHS too, I get that. But I don't like the accusations of 'hatred of the elderly' for daring to wonder about the prioritisation of the vaccine. Taking into consideration all impacts... the young children who will lose parents, the young people themselves denied the chance to even live to the age of life expectancy.

It's not hating elderly people to suggest that it is much worse for a 35 year old to die than a 90 year old. I'm sorry but it just isn't. Every life matters, everyone deserves care and respect. But it just doesn't seem fair that far younger people will die. We've lost all perspective of life and death and what is a very healthy lifespan. Developing countries are not having the same numbers of coronavirus deaths because they do not have life expectancies anywhere near as high as we do here. And that is a sad thing in itself.

And they'll continue to live without the vaccine, so never mind of we raise a generation with stunted reading and writing skills or social difficulties

But this argument makes no sense at all, because if you are asking for younger people to be vaccinated first then you are dragging this thing out further for the five year old who is struggling without socialisation.

Whereas the order that's been decided by the JCVI will mean that the five year old can be released out of lockdown much sooner, because as soon as hospitalisations and deaths are down, there will be no reason to keep measures so harsh and things will ease.

I really struggle to understand how people can't understand the basic simple facts here: vaccinating the most vulnerable groups first will ease pressure on the NHS and so ease measures quicker.

Yet people are still squabbling about who deserves to get them first. Selfishness in action.

I never thought I'd live in a society where people like me (ECV) are resented for taking a vaccine off a fitter and younger person, but that seems to be the case.

Sickening.

Not RTFT but wow, a bit shocked at the one sided view selfish views of some people. My dad is 86, just got his 1st vaccine booked. I don't really want to loose any more time away from him. Isolation is incredibly damaging. Suggesting it's ok for an old person to self isolate for even longer and more strictly than a 5 yo is quite unkind. Also agree with those saying that the elderly and vulnerable are more likely to need hospital care, and not pull through.

I really struggle to understand how people can't understand the basic simple facts here: vaccinating the most vulnerable groups first will ease pressure on the NHS and so ease measures quicker.

Whilst I agree that vulnerable groups should be vaccinated first, I'm not sure that vaccinating the most vulnerable (i.e. the 90 year olds who will only survive a couple of months even without Covid) is actually going to ease pressure on the NHS the quickest.

@Madhairday

And they'll continue to live without the vaccine, so never mind of we raise a generation with stunted reading and writing skills or social difficulties

But this argument makes no sense at all, because if you are asking for younger people to be vaccinated first then you are dragging this thing out further for the five year old who is struggling without socialisation.

Whereas the order that's been decided by the JCVI will mean that the five year old can be released out of lockdown much sooner, because as soon as hospitalisations and deaths are down, there will be no reason to keep measures so harsh and things will ease.

I really struggle to understand how people can't understand the basic simple facts here: vaccinating the most vulnerable groups first will ease pressure on the NHS and so ease measures quicker.

Yet people are still squabbling about who deserves to get them first. Selfishness in action.

I never thought I'd live in a society where people like me (ECV) are resented for taking a vaccine off a fitter and younger person, but that seems to be the case.

Sickening.

But I'm not "asking for young people to be vaccinated first" am I? You've just made that up, accused me of it and then said I'm disgusting for suggesting it.

Why would you do that?

I'm not a medic, but even I know that theres no advice to vaccinate children at all at the moment. And certainly not 5 year olds.

Entirely imaginary on your part.

@JBo2

Not RTFT but wow, a bit shocked at the one sided view selfish views of some people. My dad is 86, just got his 1st vaccine booked. I don't really want to loose any more time away from him. Isolation is incredibly damaging. Suggesting it's ok for an old person to self isolate for even longer and more strictly than a 5 yo is quite unkind. Also agree with those saying that the elderly and vulnerable are more likely to need hospital care, and not pull through.

Not meaning to sound harsh but don't you see the hypocrisy here? One sided selfishness? Your concerns are understandably about your dad but all of your post is about your own situation, and without being able to see the bigger picture for others.

@Madhairday

And they'll continue to live without the vaccine, so never mind of we raise a generation with stunted reading and writing skills or social difficulties

But this argument makes no sense at all, because if you are asking for younger people to be vaccinated first then you are dragging this thing out further for the five year old who is struggling without socialisation.

Whereas the order that's been decided by the JCVI will mean that the five year old can be released out of lockdown much sooner, because as soon as hospitalisations and deaths are down, there will be no reason to keep measures so harsh and things will ease.

I really struggle to understand how people can't understand the basic simple facts here: vaccinating the most vulnerable groups first will ease pressure on the NHS and so ease measures quicker.

Yet people are still squabbling about who deserves to get them first. Selfishness in action.

I never thought I'd live in a society where people like me (ECV) are resented for taking a vaccine off a fitter and younger person, but that seems to be the case.

Sickening.

I agree.

Belladonna12 I know the JCV1 came up with the priority list and I know who the group is comprised of thanks. However, that doesn't mean that their main aim was reducing the pressure on the NHS. They may have been told just focus on the number of deaths in the short term i.e. deaths within 28 days of Covid test .It doesn't seem that the priority was reducing the impact on the NHS overall as NHS workers weren't the first priority.*

That was my interpretation too, uninformed though it is.

Reducing deaths within a 28 days positive test reduces the deaths from covid statistics and makes politicians look good.

But does it reduce pressure on the NHS? Why would it?

Just because someone is in their 80s, doesn't means they will die soon. They may have many years ahead of them still, so that's why they need vaccinating before the younger generation.

I thought this would come . It's an illustration of another point of view.

@JBo2

I thought this would come . It's an illustration of another point of view.

But you can't accuse others of being selfish when your entire post is selfish in itself and all about your own and your family's personal situation?

I have elderly family members myself who I love dearly. It doesn't mean I don't see that they have also been lucky to have very long lives, the opportunity to have careers, get married, travel, have children. We risk denying opportunity to so many younger people for the sake of people who have had all of those things.

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind tried to tag you in my reply above but failed . The logic of vaccinating the most vulnerable first makes more sense to me. The NHS would be less overwhelmed, other life saving hospital treatments can return to fuller focus, lockdown restrictions ease as most vulnerable are protected, and imo the elderly are as important as the young. I get that all front line workers need protecting first too. I work for a supermarket (but fortunately for me I can wfh).

@trulydelicious

Do you know what meliorism means? It is a theory of history. It means, in the words of Tony Blair's campaign song, the belief that things generally improve, so that society becomes fairer, wealthier and healthier over time.

My point is that it can be hard to accept that we might now be starting to see reduced living standards, which includes lowered life expectancy at a population level.

There's a really important debate to be had. This is not personal, it's structural.

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind, like I said, it was an illustration of another point of view. Even if I didn't have elderly parents, I would feel the same. I prioritise the vulnerable over the less vulnerable. A 5yo, or 'younger people' are not going to miss out on a career and a family because of covid. Yes it's tough on them, I have family at various stages of education, and I feel for them missing out on normal education, but they're still being educated, and have a whole life in front of them which won't necessarily defined by lockdown. I realise it must be incredibly hard for kids and parents home schooling, so I am not taking away from that. I happen to believe the vulnerable are priority.

So many good and thoughtful points on this thread. Whatever is conventional wisdom is not necessarily the only right and sanctified way to do things.

For example the theory that a social life can and must be age segregated, and can and must be within a school. Not least, that assumes all proceed at the same level of development in every way. It assumes there is no such thing as bullies, no such thing as personal interests.

There have been entire t.v. series based on mixing tots and old folk. There is an internationally known scheme for online learning, which makes a point of not including online exercise.

Their reasoning is that a child could want, for instance, to learn judo, to join a litter picking group, to go walking with his dad and a couple of neighbours who are monitoring wildlife, to learn to row a canoe. Being screamed at and humiliated by a bullying p.e. teacher at school won't be as good. Trying frantically to hide under the changing room benches from the playground bullies won't be as good. To say it is 'developing social skills' is not truly the way to describe those experiences.

I think those saying it should be the working people first are misunderstanding the strategy.

The strategy behind both the lockdowns and the vaccination programme is to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. It's not to stop people getting covid per se.

The people who are likely to be hospitalised with covid - the very elderly and vulnerable - are therefore those being vaccinated first.

If they are all vaccinated there won't be the same need to lockdown people of working age, who will be able to live and work more normally even without yet having had the vaccine. If they get covid they are unlikely to be hospitalised with it.

[quote JBo2]@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind tried to tag you in my reply above but failed . The logic of vaccinating the most vulnerable first makes more sense to me. The NHS would be less overwhelmed, other life saving hospital treatments can return to fuller focus, lockdown restrictions ease as most vulnerable are protected, and imo the elderly are as important as the young. I get that all front line workers need protecting first too. I work for a supermarket (but fortunately for me I can wfh).[/quote]
Can I just ask then, do you genuinely think it's as tragic for a 90 year old to die than a 5 year old, a 20 year old, a 35 year old or a 60 year old? I'm talking about this in all contexts not just coronavirus although tbh same thing applies there too.

I don't feel guilty for saying that I don't think it is. It's not saying that the elderly aren't important, it's saying that by nature and biology, people get old and die. And the more years a person gets, well all the better. And when people don't get a long lifespan, that really is sad.

I was sad when my elderly grandparents died. I love them and miss them. But those deaths were relatively easy to accept. They had long, full lives. I lost two aunts to cancer in their 30s. A cousin at 23, again cancer. My friend, in her 30s has recently had treatment for cancer and thank god that her prognosis is good. My blood ran cold when she told me of her diagnosis. My reaction was not the same when my very elderly grandmother had cancer. I wanted her to be comfortable and not in pain, but I didn't feel the sheer terror I felt for my friend.

@Flyonawalk

It would be odd to decide someone has meliorated enough

Exactly. But that's what some are arguing on this thread.

'You've had it good enough for long enough' - based on their own arbitrary assessment.

'Move over and make space for us/the young, as we think we are more deserving. It's our turn now'

5 year olds aren't dying though

They are much more likely to die walking to school or from an asthma attack caused by traffic

The risk to children is longer term and comes from things like

Dead parents
Survivor Guilt
Impoverished society ( caused by pandemic not lockdown )

i work in a hospital as im sure hundreds of others on here do too.

Key workers and elderly are right to be vaccinated first, because they are the ones most likely to die if they catch it!

Am shocked at some peoples response of this!

Can I just ask then, do you genuinely think it's as tragic for a 90 year old to die than a 5 year old, a 20 year old, a 35 year old or a 60 year old? I'm talking about this in all contexts not just coronavirus although tbh same thing applies there too

Strawman question. The best way of preventing premature deaths in all age groups is to get the NHS off Alert 5 impending crisis, and the way to do that is to vaccinate those most likely to need hospitalisation.

If you want to prevent your 5 yo dying (accident? leukaemia?) you need hospitals with capacity to treat. It’s about to run out.

You can restore it fastest by reducing the Covid admissions, that means vaccinating the most vulnerable

Or you can divert to vaccinating others, but not seeing any let up in restrictions (because NHS full) and the concomitant rise in non-Covid deaths

My Dad has had his and my Mum and Aunt will do very soon, they live together, don't go out and will continue not to for the foreseeable as they understand the risk of transmitting the virus even if they've been vaccinated. Mum says they would willingly give up their place in the queue to others, for instance health care workers in care homes.