Probably not the popular idea but....

[Mandofred]

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.

 

[CliveW]

Why should the biggest spreaders get the vaccine first? They are the ones who are not being responsible by spreading the virus to the more vulnerable of us. If people were more responsible then it wouldn't be spreading at the rate it is!

 

[Billysboots]

I think there may be a bit of misunderstanding here. Unless I’ve totally missed the point the vaccine doesn’t prevent you contracting Covid, merely from becoming ill/seriously ill with it. My understanding all along has been that all a vaccine does is provoke a response from your immune system to fight illness off. And it must surely follow that, if you can still catch it, then you can still spread it.

Hence the need to prioritise based on vulnerability.

 

[Mandofred]

Why should the biggest spreaders get the vaccine first? They are the ones who are not being responsible by spreading the virus to the more vulnerable of us. If people were more responsible then it wouldn't be spreading at the rate it is!

That was kind of my point. The young are the biggest spreaders.....and if vaccinated wouldn't spread as much...would they? If they got the shots and didn't spread as much, wouldn't less people get infected? I'm in NO WAY stating I think they deserve the shots more. No way did I say that.

But here is a scenario....Dr McCoy and friends (Star Trek) came down somehow gave the vaccine to the younger half of the population only....wouldn't the transmission rate reduce much quicker than if he gave to the older half of the population. Same amount of people, but as you stated.....it's the younger half that aren't being wise in their choices.

Just a theory. Again......I am not saying that I think it is even the right thing to do.....just another way of looking at things.

 

[jim8flog]

As per Billyboots

The vaccine does not stop you getting the virus and from what is being said neither will it stop someone who has it from spreading it.

It is all about the severity of the reaction to the virus and how likely you are to either die or be so seriously ill that you end up in hospital. The older you are the more serious it is likely to be.

It is also about reducing the pressure on the hospitals the younger you are the less likely will be the need to go to hospital.

 

[Mandofred]

So Covid doesn't act like the flu? Not being snarky.....serious question. This is from the NHS website..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flu vaccine gives the best protection against flu.

Flu vaccines help protect against the main types of flu viruses, although there's still a chance you might get flu.

If you do get flu after vaccination, it's likely to be milder and not last as long.

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

It can take 10 to 14 days for the flu vaccine to work.

 

[Billysboots]

So Covid doesn't act like the flu? Not being snarky.....serious question. This is from the NHS website..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flu vaccine gives the best protection against flu.

Flu vaccines help protect against the main types of flu viruses, although there's still a chance you might get flu.

If you do get flu after vaccination, it's likely to be milder and not last as long.

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

It can take 10 to 14 days for the flu vaccine to work.

I’m sure the interviews I have seen, including those with people involved with Oxford/AZ, have suggested that they don’t yet know what impact the vaccine will have on a recipient’s ability to spread the virus.

If Ethan picks up on this thread he might be able to shed some light on it.

 

[Foxholer]

While not an unreasonable suggestion imo - though I'm not entirely convinced that it's 'younger' folk tht are the irresponsible transmitters - the entire purpose of this vaccination is to prevent deaths, not simply to reduce transmission! So for that reason, the strategy is, imo, correct! And WIW, the very young (school-aged) seem to be fairly 'resistant' to the major effects of the virus, so should be, and I believe are, low on the priority list.
I (aged 67) am quite high up the list, which is fortunate as some of my work colleagues are stupidly irresponsible about 'social distancing'! And this is in spite of the manager (and his wife) being particularly vulnerable!

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

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

 

[upsidedown]

Asked SM who is a vaccinator and they don't know if you are able to spread after you've had the vaccine. A week after your second jab you can still catch it but you won't be ill as the body is ready for it

 

[Mandofred]

While not an unreasonable suggestion imo - though I'm not entirely convinced that it's 'younger' folk tht are the irresponsible transmitters - the entire purpose of this vaccination is to prevent deaths, not simply to reduce transmission!

Remember.....this was just a theory I had.....which means it may or may not be true.....

But......with my weird way of thinking......to prevent deaths as you mention.....if the younger half of the population all got the Star Trek treatment.....there should be less transmission. Less transmission results in less death in my way of thinking (again.....I'm not normal).

 

[Foxholer]

Remember.....this was just a theory I had.....which means it may or may not be true.....

But......with my weird way of thinking......to prevent deaths as you mention.....if the younger half of the population all got the Star Trek treatment.....there should be less transmission. Less transmission results in less death in my way of thinking (again.....I'm not normal).

I've no problem with 'theories', but it doesn't seem, to me, to be a particular good one - at least in preventing deaths - for a couple of reasons.
1. The youngest group are significantly less likely to die!
2. The older group, those more likely to die, rarely associate with the youngest group (e.g.grandchildren) - except with very significanrt precautions!
And I'd also suggest that significantly more qualified folk than you or me have already considered the order of/reasons for the priority and their reasoning seems pretty sensible!
It's pretty similar to the way yearly flu vaccine is allocated - and for the same reasons!

 

[Deleted member 21784]

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

Not just the young

Someone at work didn't believe it was that serious .. he's in his late 40s

He now has it and really believes it now. Got it bad by all accounts

 

[Mandofred]

I've no problem with 'theories', but it doesn't seem, to me, to be a particular good one - at least in preventing deaths - for a couple of reasons.
1. The youngest group are significantly less likely to die!
2. The older group, those more likely to die, rarely associate with the youngest group (e.g.grandchildren) - except with very significanrt precautions!
And I'd also suggest that significantly more qualified folk than you or me have already considered the order of/reasons for the priority and their reasoning seems pretty sensible!
It's pretty similar to the way yearly flu vaccine is allocated - and for the same reasons!

Just being the anti-everything person again.....and besides that ......you insulted my theory!!!!! People are still taking this a bit too seriously.....I'm just asking the question......
1. Yes, the youngest are less likely to die.....but most likely to transmit it.
2. So how do the old get it? The young stick it everywhere.....and then the old touch/breath etc and get it. If there are less young transmitting it......wouldn't there be less older people getting sick?...and thereby, less people dying. Nobody has touched on this yet.....
Yep....almost anybody is smarter than me....just ask my wife (kidding....kind of). So you think the govt decision makers only make decisions on what is best for everybody? Hmmmmm...I tend to think they make decisions on what is best for them and what looks good (again...to benefit themselves).

I find this topic to be like golf course thinking....don't do anything different.....different is bad. People don't like different.....

 

[Foxholer]

Just being the anti-everything person again.....and besides that ......you insulted my theory!!!!! People are still taking this a bit too seriously.....I'm just asking the question......
1. Yes, the youngest are less likely to die.....but most likely to transmit it.
2. So how do the old get it? The young stick it everywhere.....and then the old touch/breath etc and get it. If there are less young transmitting it......wouldn't there be less older people getting sick?...and thereby, less people dying. Nobody has touched on this yet.....
Yep....almost anybody is smarter than me....just ask my wife (kidding....kind of). So you think the govt decision makers only make decisions on what is best for everybody? Hmmmmm...I tend to think they make decisions on what is best for them and what looks good (again...to benefit themselves).

I find this topic to be like golf course thinking....don't do anything different.....different is bad. People don't like different.....

Much of the above is simply twaddle!

Can't be bothered wasting my time replying further, so I'm out!

 

[Mandofred]

Much of the above is simply twaddle!

Can't be bothered wasting my time replying further, so I'm out!

Yet....you made sure you replied....

 

[williamalex1]

I'm sure Ethan already confirmed, that after being vaccinated a person should have some immunity BUT COULD STILL BE A CARRIER and could still pass it on to others.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Only reason to get the under 50s done first is because their the workers in the main so get economy going again

But protect the elderly then focus on getting the workers

 

[Mandofred]

I'm sure Ethan already confirmed, that after being vaccinated a person should have some immunity BUT COULD STILL BE A CARRIER and could still pass it on to others.

Yeah.....I agree. All I'm doing is posing a theory....which I knew might be taken badly by some people (and has). But, iffffffff it acts like the flu (and I don't know) then the NHS states that the flu vaccine reduces the transmission rates....so iffffff it acts like the flu....???

Please....people on this site keep taking things way to seriously and getting upset where there is no need to do so.

Only reason to get the under 50s done first is because their the workers in the main so get economy going again

But protect the elderly then focus on getting the workers

Bingo.....that's what my wife and I think as well. Nobody wants to talk about the people at Asda......but without them everybody would be crying...

 

[Mandofred]

I'm sure Ethan already confirmed, that after being vaccinated a person should have some immunity BUT COULD STILL BE A CARRIER and could still pass it on to others.

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.