Probably not the popular idea but....

banjofred said:
I'm kind of wondering if they shouldn't be giving the vaccine to the older people first.....might have been better to give it to the younger people (under 50) (jeez...it's bad when I consider under 50 to be young...poop) first since they are the biggest spreaders. I understand the thinking.....the most vulnerable etc etc. But the numbers might have some down faster with the young getting the shots first.
Click to expand...
Know it's just your theory, but interested in where your facts came from for the bit in bold ????
Or is that a theory also? ?
 
IainP said:
Know it's just your theory, but interested in where your facts came from for the bit in bold ????
Or is that a theory also? ?
Click to expand...
Oh....don't go there.....at 63 I still think I'm not.....63.

Median UK age.....40.3......so I exaggerated......so Star Trek everybody younger than 40.3......although I did specify that I thought everybody under 50 was young.

Almost everything is a theory......
 
banjofred said:
So Covid doesn't act like the flu? Not being snarky.....serious question. This is from the NHS website..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Having the flu vaccine will also stop you spreading flu to other people who may be more at risk of serious problems from flu.

.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that flu vaccines have been around ever since I was a young lad so it is known what will happen

Covid vaccine has only been around for a couple of weeks so too early to tell

From the in depth programmes I have watched the Covid Vaccine works in a different way to flu vaccine.
 
probably not a good idea.... instead of going door to door with a vaccine.. why dont they just mix it in the water supply.. Bingo, everyone covered for the year.. drink from the fountain of eternal youth.
 
drive4show said:
Good luck trying to force young people to have the vaccine. According to a lot of them, this virus doesn't exist. It's all a conspiracy by the Government and there is nothing to worry about. All those that have died from it would have died from the flu anyway :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

if they set up vaccine centres in Wetherspoons we could inoculate all the young ins on a Saturday night.
 
I always though vaccinations protect from spreading as well because we take vaccinations also ‘to protect the people that can’t have it’. And if immunity doesn’t help on that, then where did the heard immunity theory came from?

Then IF it stops spreading I would put checkout personal, shop keeper, bus drivers ... up front because they can be in contact with hundreds of people. If a checkout person catches it on a Monday morning, how many people could they infect by Friday? By stopping thousand people of not catching it you also save life.
 
larmen said:
I always though vaccinations protect from spreading as well because we take vaccinations also ‘to protect the people that can’t have it’. And if immunity doesn’t help on that, then where did the heard immunity theory came from?

Then IF it stops spreading I would put checkout personal, shop keeper, bus drivers ... up front because they can be in contact with hundreds of people. If a checkout person catches it on a Monday morning, how many people could they infect by Friday? By stopping thousand people of not catching it you also save life.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what my wife and I think.....Asda checkout people aren't big for the news.....but these people are in contact with everybody.
 
banjofred said:
Critically reading this.....Ethan confirmed that someone with immunity could still be a carrier. In the science world.....those are two very different words. Although in my opinion..... I agree. I think at least temporarily, immunity would still allow for some sort of virus transmission. I would think it would be reduced....but definitely still there.
Click to expand...

The vaccine or immunity from catching Covid doesn't stop you from catching it again, although I think the general medical view has now come round to think that it probably does reduce propagation of the virus in you, thus making you a lower grade transmitter. For some people, that may be a non-transmitter, for others, still a risk to others.
 
I understand the theory of what the OP is saying. Shield the old while you vaccinate those of working age so they can keep (get) the economy going. That way fewer people die or become seriously ill, the economy recovers quicker and the old can come out of shielding when they get the vaccine or it’s safe to do so.
It’s a good theory. However in reality, after a year we can’t shield the old for longer than necessary and once they see the younger people getting back to normal they will give up shielding. The sense of injustice would be unpalatable. Politically it would be a dire move. Imagine the furore when the first older person dies when it’s perceived they could have been saved, whilst we are actively protecting the stronger in the community. We would be putting money before lives. Survival of the fittest.
It’s a natural instinct to protect the most vulnerable. It would be very hard to go against that. In the end we are all going to have to wait our turn - which is fortunately something the British at least are very good at.
 
Sweep said:
I understand the theory of what the OP is saying. Shield the old while you vaccinate those of working age so they can keep (get) the economy going. That way fewer people die or become seriously ill, the economy recovers quicker and the old can come out of shielding when they get the vaccine or it’s safe to do so.
It’s a good theory. However in reality, after a year we can’t shield the old for longer than necessary and once they see the younger people getting back to normal they will give up shielding. The sense of injustice would be unpalatable. Politically it would be a dire move. Imagine the furore when the first older person dies when it’s perceived they could have been saved, whilst we are actively protecting the stronger in the community. We would be putting money before lives. Survival of the fittest.
It’s a natural instinct to protect the most vulnerable. It would be very hard to go against that. In the end we are all going to have to wait our turn - which is fortunately something the British at least are very good at.
Click to expand...

The UK already conducts health economic assessments of new medicines, based on quality of life benefits and life years saved. There is an argument that the optimal group to treat therefore are middle aged people who are still economically active and have dependents. They have more to gain from preventing Covid both in terms of quality of life, life years and economic benefits. Middle aged people are less likely to die than older people, but may be more likely to have a protracted illness with complications. You could further focus by choosing those in that age category who have additional risk factors. Then work both p and down to treat older people and younger people afterwards.

The current priorities are set as much for simplicity as for clinical priority, though. It shouldn't make a lot of difference provided the Oxford vaccine gets approved, but I hear that the initial approval may be for the full-full dosing regimen, which I think is a mistake.
 
Sweep said:
I understand the theory of what the OP is saying. Shield the old while you vaccinate those of working age so they can keep (get) the economy going. That way fewer people die or become seriously ill, the economy recovers quicker and the old can come out of shielding when they get the vaccine or it’s safe to do so.
It’s a good theory. However in reality, after a year we can’t shield the old for longer than necessary and once they see the younger people getting back to normal they will give up shielding. The sense of injustice would be unpalatable. Politically it would be a dire move. Imagine the furore when the first older person dies when it’s perceived they could have been saved, whilst we are actively protecting the stronger in the community. We would be putting money before lives. Survival of the fittest.
It’s a natural instinct to protect the most vulnerable. It would be very hard to go against that. In the end we are all going to have to wait our turn - which is fortunately something the British at least are very good at.
Click to expand...
Good answer. I understand why they are doing it like they are.....I just wanted to throw out a different way of looking at the situation that wasn't getting any attention. It may or may not be a better answer to the problem, but some people tend to shoot different ideas down as being nonsense and not worth considering.
 
Mudball said:
probably not a good idea.... instead of going door to door with a vaccine.. why dont they just mix it in the water supply.. Bingo, everyone covered for the year.. drink from the fountain of eternal youth.
Click to expand...

They have probably worked out the filtration systems will take all the chips out of it:ROFLMAO:
 
What you are saying , Banjofred,has an element of "Spock" logic to it, but it strikes me that it is on an understanding that the elderly are mostly sat at home doing not much travelling or movement out and about. That being a part of the argument that says they are not big spreaders .
But in this day and age , we old buggers are all over the place. What proportion of golf clubs, bowling clubs, cricket clubs even, do the elderly make?
Same with shops, cinemas, bingo halls etc etc.
I would reckon that the retired are as capable of spreading this virus almost as far and as much as the "workers"

Now we come to the Humanity element. Let's take it down to say family size, as an example.
Family is two schoolchildren, worker mum and dad in forties, grandad and grandma in seventies. ( The old buggers are mobile and active).
You have vaccine for two, who do you choose?
Most would agree that if the schoolchildren get the virus without the vaccine, they will hardly notice. If the mum and dad do ,they will very likely be inconvenienced, flu like , but soon back to normal. ( agreed ,some of this age have it bad ).
Gran and grandad would be more than a fair bet for hospital, likely one would die.

Bearing in mind the ability for all to spread the virus, to me it is a no brainer who the family would elect to have the vaccine.
And extrapolating the family to the Nation, that is one of the considerations I think has led to the Government's decision on priorities. The other is the effect on the NHS.
 
Swinglowandslow said:
What you are saying , Banjofred,has an element of "Spock" logic to it, but it strikes me that it is on an understanding that the elderly are mostly sat at home doing not much travelling or movement out and about. That being a part of the argument that says they are not big spreaders .
But in this day and age , we old buggers are all over the place. What proportion of golf clubs, bowling clubs, cricket clubs even, do the elderly make?
Same with shops, cinemas, bingo halls etc etc.
I would reckon that the retired are as capable of spreading this virus almost as far and as much as the "workers"

Now we come to the Humanity element. Let's take it down to say family size, as an example.
Family is two schoolchildren, worker mum and dad in forties, grandad and grandma in seventies. ( The old buggers are mobile and active).
You have vaccine for two, who do you choose?
Most would agree that if the schoolchildren get the virus without the vaccine, they will hardly notice. If the mum and dad do ,they will very likely be inconvenienced, flu like , but soon back to normal. ( agreed ,some of this age have it bad ).
Gran and grandad would be more than a fair bet for hospital, likely one would die.

Bearing in mind the ability for all to spread the virus, to me it is a no brainer who the family would elect to have the vaccine.
And extrapolating the family to the Nation, that is one of the considerations I think has led to the Government's decision on priorities. The other is the effect on the NHS.
Click to expand...
I pretty well agree with this. The point in the original post wasn't to do anything more than to get people to think a bit. As I've stated, I understand why they are doing things as they are.......there are alternatives which may or may not be better and there have been some articles (I linked several in an early post) that show there is some discussion on which way is better. It seems to me that the "best way" is arguable, but I've no problem with doing the oldest/most vulnerable/health care/store workers etc first.....
 
In the UK, the population of the young group, 20-50 is about 26m
The population of the old group over 70s is about 9m.
How long would it take to vaccinate 26m million people and how many of the older group would die in the meantime?

Vaccinate the old, already ill and vulnerable first, then the young folk.
After all, it will be quicker and if the young folk do spread it to the old, it wont matter as they will already be immune.
 
bobmac said:
In the UK, the population of the young group, 20-50 is about 26m
The population of the old group over 70s is about 9m.
How long would it take to vaccinate 26m million people and how many of the older group would die in the meantime?

Vaccinate the old, already ill and vulnerable first, then the young folk.
After all, it will be quicker and if the young folk do spread it to the old, it wont matter as they will already be immune.
Click to expand...
-Quicker? I would have thought it takes the same time no matter who is given the vaccine.
-You could be right.....read the first article I linked to earlier in the post if you haven't....and I am assuming you haven't since I tend not to read people's links.
-Again (and again and again) I am not suggesting that vaccinating the young first is the best choice......just a different choice. Some people think it is better.....I've no idea.

This kind of reminds me of a post I put on months ago asking why people got SO mad if someone was talking while they were hitting. I had people accusing me of saying it was alright to talk while others were hitting....which was not what I was saying, but it's what people read and wanted to believe. If I wanted someone to be quiet while I was hitting I'd just ask them to be quiet....without getting mad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Deep in the stat cave
Replies
3
Views
2K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
Orikoru
Two Points of Discussion - 'Virtually Certain' and Stroke & Distance
2 3
Replies
49
Views
9K
Steven Rules
S
sjw
Went for an iron fitting yesterday, as a bit of a sceptic...
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
14K
sjw
sjw
D
COVID-19 - So what would you do in the current situation?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
Swinglowandslow
S
D
Unsolicited trade calls to the door not taking no for an answer
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Robster59
Robster59
Top