Vaccine

On the same news bulletin - more than 90% of those who have died so far are over 65, and Phase 1 of the vaccine is going to people aged 60 and over, so had it been available now that poor teacher would have received it, as would the other man who was highlighted, who was in his late 70s. A life is a life.

It's not the job of health authorities to sort out the economy. Those most at risk have been prioritised because they are more likely to die.

As I mentioned before, there are about 12 million people 65 and over. They will be prioritised, so there will then be 8 million doses left. Care workers in homes are top priority followed by those under 65 with one of a defined list of conditions.

It's unlikely that anybody in their 50s without a health condition will be vaccinated for some time yet.

I'm afraid I don't want to take the hit for anyone else.
Hopefully, it won't come down to such stark choices. (Although I've lost faith in anything being compassionately done by the government)

I do understand what Oopsminty's son is saying about it being essential for all the over 50s to be vaccinated in which case every working person age 50+ should be a number one consideration. This would also need to include all the grandparents in their 50s, 60+s who are providing childcare so the 30s and 40s can go to work so the children can go to school. There is a big knock on effect here, whereas elderly people who are able to stay home aren't really supporting the younger generations to the same extent.
The BBC news opened tonight with the story of a 60 year old teacher who tragically died of covid in the 2nd wave. Maybe we should reflect and not overlook those people who need the vaccine the most.

But you’re only 56 petra and if I remember correctly, you’re still working. You shouldn’t have to take the hit. Unfortunately people in their fifties can be very ill with this virus and die, much the same as older people. But because you work, you can’t isolate.

56 is young, petra. :-) It's older than I am, but still young.

If it's a choice between me and a younger person: I'll take the hit. Ive had 56 glorious years ( the first 18 were rubbish) but from then on I couldn't have wished for more. So if it's my turn to go, so be it.

BlueBelle

I m not anti vaccine and I m not at all bothered about any side effects I am however cautious with these rushed vaccines and possible long term effects especially if it tampers with the immune system
I think there is much much more to it than good/ bad, accept/ refuse there’s a whole big dialogue that needs to be had before getting over enthusiastic
There are a lot of conflicting stories am I right that we have bought into 6 different vaccines some are saying jabs will start before Christmas some by Easter As I believe it the American vaccine still has some stages to go before it’s even ready I read where it will be too expensive for poorer countries, that it will take massive organisation that we can’t manage etc etc I just think in our euphoria at the news we are running away with ourselves

I have to agree with Bluebell. On the proposed priority list someone posted, I would probably be at #11, possibly #7 but not sure. It depends what comes into that category. I'm quite happy to be in that place. That allows enough time to see what can happen with this new vaccine before I consider receiving it.

I think there is something to be said for giving it to the working people who can't continue to work from home for longer. Wouldn't it protect the older, more vulnerable non-working people if those who were moving around the community, keeping the spread going, were not able to get infected an spread it around? In my area, I believe many aged care homes were heavily impacted only because workers in the homes, who might have visited multiple sites, introduced it. If those workers had been vaccinated, it could save potentially saved all those elderly lives.

Ah Callistemon, never assume, because, as in this case, you could be very wrong. So wrong as to almost be insulting. You don't know my background, and my association with the services and with ex-servicemen's charities.

I expect you are thinking that they would gladly give up their place for younger people. However, I wouldn't ask them to, as that would be wrong.

I am of the thinking that NHS and care home staff should be number 1. Old and vulnerable next

Just been discussing this with my son who is a doctor and he was explaining that if they can get all the over 50s done asap then life will revert to normal. Ish.

Younger people just don't suffer the same. As a rule. They are less likely to die. Less likely to need hospital care. Less likely to need a GP. So prioritising the old would mean less pressure on the NHS.

That seems to me to be logical

over this former soldier, because he's old now.

I wonder just how many old servicemen you know, Alegrias
From your post, not very many at all!

"So, we've got this vaccine that would save your granny but we're going to give it to this 45-year old who is at much lower risk of dying, even if he gets the virus. Sorry Granny, you've got to stay indoors on your own for another few months. And we're also prioritising this 20-year-old delivery driver who has a 0.002% risk of dying if he gets it, over this former soldier, because he's old now."

I'm happy with that.
If the next lot of vaccines arrive a couple or three months later, that's ok.

I'm known for my patience.

I'd love to just be able to get on with my job without worrying.

That is why people who are working, supporting families, should be in the first swathe to receive the vaccination.

And of course care home workers should be in the first line too.

growstuff

GagaJo

Two doses for 20 million.

In that case, you're unlikely to be high priority.

Yes, but Gagajo should be.

She is working. Teaching.

I’m 73 and, fortunately, in good health. I would certainly select to have the vaccine, if offered to me, but not before all key workers, who have worked their socks off these last 9 months, or before my children, who have worked continuously, and definitely not before my grandchildren who have their whole lives in front of them. I would choose to isolate rather than put these people at risk. ♥️

I hadn't realised that what was being advocated was a "preferential lockdown" for the elderly while those of working age get vaccinated. In my view, that's even more horrific, and would be a very difficult sell. Vaccines are for saving lives, not for economic use.

"So, we've got this vaccine that would save your granny but we're going to give it to this 45-year old who is at much lower risk of dying, even if he gets the virus. Sorry Granny, you've got to stay indoors on your own for another few months. And we're also prioritising this 20-year-old delivery driver who has a 0.002% risk of dying if he gets it, over this former soldier, because he's old now."

If Granny chooses to stay indoors then that's her choice, but prioritising people at lower risk of dying is unethical, in my view. I don't mean to upset anyone who has explained their circumstances above, but every life is valuable. I'm with Casdon on this one.

p.s. I'm working age, so I'd climb up the list if this was implemented. But I'd rather my 80-something parents had a few more months/years of fulfilling life.

Yes i will have it as soon as i can. I know a care home worker who is going to refuse it, i really hope she will not be allowed to work with the elderly. I cannot understand why anyone would be hesitant, the whole world has been working on this vaccine which is why it's been so quick to be developed.

I would prioritise-

NHS and care workers

Care home residents and hospital inpatients

Front line workers and other essential workers - eg supermarket workers, food producers, delivery drivers, utilities providers, bus drivers, school teachers and ancillary staff , police and emergency services workers.

Very old people and younger vulnerable people.

People aged 50- 85 , oldest first.

Everybody else, including journalists and politicians.

No, it IS sacrificing lives if others are vaccinated first, because however careful older people and those around them are being, they are the ones who are dying, by the thousand. Pensioners who are not in need of any support from others, don’t go anywhere at all, and who buy three months worth of groceries so don’t have any deliveries etc. and are completely isolated may not need it, but there are not many in that category, and it’s naive to think we can stop the deaths unless the most vulnerable are vaccinated. It’s a simple equation.

There are nearly 12 million people in the UK 65 and over, so they'll be the first five priorities plus goodness how many care home workers.

GagaJo

Two doses for 20 million.

In that case, you're unlikely to be high priority.

maddyone

growstuff nothing makes us completely safe, we could be knocked down by a bus tomorrow.

Highly unlikely! I did look up the number of people who are knocked down by buses every year, but I've forgotten how many. There are only about 1,500 road fatalities a year. Over 1,000 have been killed by Covid over the last two two days.

growstuff nothing makes us completely safe, we could be knocked down by a bus tomorrow.

Two doses for 20 million.