The decision to end restrictions is dangerous and premature, unethical and illogical.

I remember many GNs saying they would rather give up their place in the vaccination queue for a medic or a teacher to get the jab. Me too at the time, and I would thereby have happily stayed locked down for longer.
I am now equally happy to go with the decision that that would not have been sensible.
The conversation can evolve along those lines with hindsight.

I’m sure we all have reservations but I think the time has come to ‘loosen up’ a bit whilst maintaining care regarding hygiene etc. We can’t go on like this for ever - how many of us shut ourselves away in case we catch the flu?

I’m very reluctant, and a little scared, but forcing myself to do something more each day without putting myself or others at risk.

this govt's attitude is quite extraordinary. Everyday we listen to scientists telling us that the plan for complete abandonment of precautions is foolhardy, to say the least, and then, the BBC, ever keen on not being accused of "partisanship" says "well, it must be a difficult balancing act for the govt". No it isn't difficult - abandonment of masks on public transport and in enclosed spaces will result in harming many people at risk, and result in another spike in infection rates. When did science become political as opposed to fact? Are we now going to discuss the proposition that all male children under the age of two should be slaughtered - scientists seem to think it's a bad idea, but, for a balanced discussion let's ask Herod. And can we hand out some cojones to the news editors at the BBC.

Me too, just expanding my thoughts to other countries, alternative methods, different generations. Nowhere saying decsions were "wrong".

Yes*maddyone*, judging by comments I've read older, vulnerable, more cautious people would actually have preferred to be locked up for longer anyway.

Greeneyedgirl has already commented on this.

His retired sister is still waiting and more than happy to do so.

She is in a country with a tiny case and death rate compared to ours. I imagine her life is going on pretty much as normal?

I'm expressing my view. Still allowed, I believe?

Crossed posts!

I can't believe we are still having this conversation.
Why do you sound so incensed Alegrias? Greeneyedgirl gave a good comment worthy of consideration. Where in the conversation did anyone say the decision to vaccinate to older people first was actually wrong?. I said the decision was taken and whether we agree or not, we live with it and accept any consequences. Someone else rightly said, we can't have it all ways.

Agreed maddyone

Yes, you’re absolutely right Alegrias,but the point is, we can’t have it both ways. The decision was made to vaccinate older and vulnerable people first, so that’s what we did. Therefore it’s pointless some (only some and not all) Gransnetters now complaining that younger people are becoming ill, and sadly a few dying.

Well said Greeneyedgirl. I can't believe we are still having this conversation.

Targeting older people first and working down the age ranges have saved 27,000 lives and prevented 7.2 million infections.

If we think back 12 months the problem was that people were dying in droves and the best way to stop that was to have the vaccination program we did. Now we have another problem, Long Covid, and whether children are affected. That doesn't mean that the decision to vaccine the older people first was wrong.

Other countries have made different decisions but given the situation we were faced with, the course we took was, IMO, the right one.

www.gov.uk/government/news/covid-19-vaccines-have-prevented-7-2-million-infections-and-27-000-deaths

I don’t believe older, vulnerable, more cautious people would have preferred to be locked up for longer anyway. There are a good deal of unacknowledged mental health problems amongst older people, and the pandemic has exacerbated this. It is often believed that older people may just be anxious and depressed because they are old, and therefore they don’t receive the support that they need.
The elderly were prioritised initially for vaccines because this age group were mainly overwhelming the hospitals.

Yes*maddyone*, judging by comments I've read older, vulnerable, more cautious people would actually have preferred to be locked up for longer anyway. Young, active, fitter people were more desperate to carry on working and resume normal lifestyles. The NZ method sounds pretty sensible to me. My cousin is a medic (locum) in Nelson and he was jabbed early on. His retired sister is still waiting and more than happy to do so.

I agree Ellianne, I said at the time of the initial roll out that key workers should have been vaccinated first, but as you note, many Gransnetters did not agree with this. They said older people should be vaccinated first as they were/are more likely to become ill or die. No one can have it both ways!

Interestingly New Zealand have not chosen to vaccinate older people first. They have vaccinated all border force workers and the people they live with first. Then they started to vaccinate all key workers and their families, and only after that older and vulnerable people. Finally the rest of the population. Their vaccination programme is also held up because of supply issues of the Pfizer vaccine, the only one they are using.

The U.K. government must reconsider its current strategy and take urgent steps to protect people and children.
Should not the UK government have possibly considered alternative ways of rolling out the vaccine from the start? Those urgent steps were decided at the time.
Many people, including lots of GNs, were in favour of the order of the vaccination, but there might have been some wisdom in allowing NHS workers and teachers to receive theirs sooner. People can't complain, there will significant impact on exhausted clinicians. Rising case numbers will inevitably mean more hospital admissions. Millions of people are waiting for procedures and many will die waiting when many of those concerned didn't receive their first vaccines until April/May. It is illogical to want one method at the time and then to be cross that things resulted in the way they have.
There will now be educational disruption, long waiting lists, new variants, more transmission etc. It's the path that was chosen, that's how it will be.

I guess it must vary by area, it’s very rural where I am, and they have to ensure they use full vials - but there is definitely a supply issue nationwide. I copied the Wales Online explanation, but there are plenty of other reports online saying the same thing. I think the next group to be offered the vaccine will be 17 year olds so they can mitigate the predicted surge at Freshers weeks.

Ours will be eight weeks after as opposed to the ten week date booked at their first inoculation.
We are not in a high infection rate area.

Here’s more information about the shortage.
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-discuss-pfizer-covid-vaccine-20795561

Our Health Board put information out about it - apparently they are redistributing the supply to parts of the UK with higher levels. My daughter is due her second next Friday, which will be 11 weeks after her first.

Casdon

Yes, because they are trying to pick up the adults who have for whatever reason missed their original appointments GrannyGravy13. Based on the delivery contracts, there is only enough available each week to do a certain number, which is why the second vaccine for younger people can’t always be done in the now recommended 8 weeks- you can see it in the daily figures for second vaccinations. There’s plenty of AZ, but obviously they can’t use that on younger people.

Two youngest AC and DiL have had their second Pfizer inoculation brought forward by two weeks.

Yes, because they are trying to pick up the adults who have for whatever reason missed their original appointments GrannyGravy13. Based on the delivery contracts, there is only enough available each week to do a certain number, which is why the second vaccine for younger people can’t always be done in the now recommended 8 weeks- you can see it in the daily figures for second vaccinations. There’s plenty of AZ, but obviously they can’t use that on younger people.

Casdon

There is insufficient supply of Pfizer and Moderna to offer it to under 18s at the moment, although 16–17s can receive it in specific circumstances. My guess is JCVI will approve it for 12-17s after the end of July adult vaccine deadline.

That surprises me as in our local area there have been walk-in Pfizer clinics for the last two weekends.

I think I am correct in that all the current Covid vaccines used in the UK are not licensed they have only got emergency use approval as the clinical trials do not officially end until 2023. This approval absolves the drug companies from any/all claims against them in the event of side effects from the vaccines.

I have checked and cannot find any information to the contrary.

There is insufficient supply of Pfizer and Moderna to offer it to under 18s at the moment, although 16–17s can receive it in specific circumstances. My guess is JCVI will approve it for 12-17s after the end of July adult vaccine deadline.

And thank you for that information too GrannyGravy.

The Pfizer vaccine has been approved for 12-15 yr olds in the UK but JCVI are still not advocating for this to go ahead.
I accept that they know more than I do on this.