Vaccinating the under-50s - who should get priority?

[PTR 444]

The government has published a list stating which age groups will get priority for the vaccine. This could change depending on effectiveness of the vaccine but as things stand now, here is the list:

[Withdrawn] JCVI: updated interim advice on priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination

www.gov.uk

1. older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers1
2. all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
3. all those 75 years of age and over
4. all those 70 years of age and over
5. all those 65 years of age and over
6. high-risk adults under 65 years of age
7. moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
8. all those 60 years of age and over
9. all those 55 years of age and over
10. all those 50 years of age and over

11. rest of the population (priority to be determined)

The rest of the population essentially covers everyone under the age of 50 without an underlying health condition. That’s quite a lot of people so I thought it might be a good idea to discuss which people in that bracket should get priority.

I think that key workers should be among those at the top, with emergency services and armed forces prioritised first, then non-frontline NHS workers and school staff, and transport workers after that. Lower down the list, I’d say there is a case to prioritise university students and BAME groups, although the latter group may prefer not to be singled out after BLM events of this year. As for children, I’m not sure if the would even need to be vaccinated, but if they are, I’d imagine they’d be among the last due to their low risk of catching the virus.

What would you do?

 

[Darandio]

What would you do?

I'm at a loss as to why they have even made a plan public at this point. Despite all the talk of a miracle vaccine from Pfizer which is getting people excited at the thought of protecting the elderly and those at risk, the truth is they don't even know if the vaccine works on that type of age group. At this point there is every chance that plan needs to go in the bin.

However, if it does work then vaccinate everyone deemed at risk but only if they choose to do so. Then let the virus burn it's course through the rest of us without restriction so it becomes less of a problem, much like has been done with every other virus.

 

[bramling]

I'm at a loss as to why they have even made a plan public at this point. Despite all the talk of a miracle vaccine from Pfizer which is getting people excited at the thought of protecting the elderly and those at risk, the truth is they don't even know if the vaccine works on that type of age group. At this point there is every chance that plan needs to go in the bin.

However, if it does work then vaccinate everyone deemed at risk but only if they choose to do so. Then let the virus burn it's course through the rest of us without restriction so it becomes less of a problem, much like has been done with every other virus.

Yes it seems like another “it will all be over by November” thing to keep people sweet. Whether it will do that is of course a matter of conjecture, especially when younger people seem themselves quite conspicuously placed at the very bottom of the pile.

 

[Domh245]

I agree. On the basis of singling out age groups, part of me does wonder whether we should be immunising all of the elderly in one go, or whether it would be better to do a mix of young and old people in the first stage. I’ve set up a dedicated thread to discuss priorities here:

Absolutely not to vaccinating young & old* together. Working on the basis of preserving lives, which is what the government by most accounts seems to be doing, you absolutely vaccinate the elderly and otherwise clinically vulnerable first and foremost. 'wasting' vaccines on people who will be able to shrug off covid with mild symptoms at worst whilst not giving them to those in need is a bad idea. Especially if done to placate people who feel like they "deserve" a vaccine having been terrified into thinking that covid is some sort of airborne super disease that'll either kill you on the spot or completely debilitate you, or to enable them to attend events because somebody with no medical qualifications is making stupid decisions (see other thread)

The government (and others around the world) really need to level with the population, that these first generation vaccines don't significantly prevent you spreading it, they're just a way to create an immune response to help you fight off any future infections - the vaccines aren't being rolled out to stop covid from spreading amongst the population, they're being rolled out to help prevent the elderly and vulnerable getting more severe symptoms, and therefore preserve NHS capacity. The press conference the other day was a good start, but it needs to go further. Bad expectation management has become somewhat of a theme of this whole wretched affair

*obviously some young people will be vaccinated early on - healthcare workers, carers, etc

 

[43066]

Absolutely not to vaccinating young & old* together. Working on the basis of preserving lives, which is what the government by most accounts seems to be doing, you absolutely vaccinate the elderly and otherwise clinically vulnerable first and foremost. 'wasting' vaccines on people who will be able to shrug off covid with mild symptoms at worst whilst not giving them to those in need is a bad idea. Especially if done to placate people who feel like they "deserve" a vaccine having been terrified into thinking that covid is some sort of airborne super disease that'll either kill you on the spot or completely debilitate you, or to enable them to attend events because somebody with no medical qualifications is making stupid decisions (see other thread)

What’s going to be quite amusing is watching the government try to explain to the terrified lockdown fanatics, who are often young and healthy themselves, that the “keeping everybody safe” strategy doesn’t extend to giving them the vaccine any time soon!

 

[bramling]

Absolutely not to vaccinating young & old* together. Working on the basis of preserving lives, which is what the government by most accounts seems to be doing, you absolutely vaccinate the elderly and otherwise clinically vulnerable first and foremost. 'wasting' vaccines on people who will be able to shrug off covid with mild symptoms at worst whilst not giving them to those in need is a bad idea. Especially if done to placate people who feel like they "deserve" a vaccine having been terrified into thinking that covid is some sort of airborne super disease that'll either kill you on the spot or completely debilitate you, or to enable them to attend events because somebody with no medical qualifications is making stupid decisions (see other thread)

The government (and others around the world) really need to level with the population, that these first generation vaccines don't significantly prevent you spreading it, they're just a way to create an immune response to help you fight off any future infections - the vaccines aren't being rolled out to stop covid from spreading amongst the population, they're being rolled out to help prevent the elderly and vulnerable getting more severe symptoms, and therefore preserve NHS capacity. The press conference the other day was a good start, but it needs to go further. Bad expectation management has become somewhat of a theme of this whole wretched affair

*obviously some young people will be vaccinated early on - healthcare workers, carers, etc

Whilst I agree with all this, the difficulty is that they have been attempting to scare younger people, not least with the long Covid thing.

It then becomes difficulty not to justify including younger people, especially as theoretically their age makes then a better return on the vaccine investment in terms of years.

I’m not advocating this, however it’s going to be difficult to avoid a “pensioners strike it lucky again” feeling, especially as this will all be around the time those of working age find themselves hammered with tax rises whilst meanwhile pensions rise in accordance with the triple lock as usual.

What’s going to be quite amusing is watching the government try to explain to the terrified lockdown fanatics, who are often young and healthy themselves, that the “keeping everybody safe” strategy doesn’t extend to giving them the vaccine any time soon!

Absolutely. And even more so should we find situations where places adopt a “no vaccination = no entry” policy, like we’ve seen with masks. One for Bridgnorth Cliff Railway one suspects!

The stereotypical Facebook Karen is certainly some years below 50. Oh dear!

 

[Domh245]

It then becomes difficulty not to justify including younger people, especially as theoretically their age makes then a better return on the vaccine investment in terms of years.

I’m not advocating this, however it’s going to be difficult to avoid a “pensioners strike it lucky again” feeling, especially as this will all be around those of working age find themselves hammered with tax rises whilst meanwhile pensions rise in accordance with the triple lock as usual.

In terms of years, possibly - much like immunity through actually catching it, it isn't known how long the immunity granted by any vaccine would last. In terms of actually utility, no. If all the vaccine does is elicit the immune response (which is what all the current vaccines appear to be capable of) as opposed to preventing transmission, then from the NHS' point of view you either spend however much for the 2 doses of vaccine needed on the young/healthy person to generate this immune response, or you just let them catch covid and treat the handful of people who suffer complications. From a purely economic point of view of cost of vaccine x population vs cost of treatment x small subset of the population, it is difficult to justify vaccinating everybody. That's not to say in the fullness of time we shouldn't roll it out to everyone if possible, and that other economic factors of the governments own making, particularly putting the fear of god into people who absolutely should not be afraid, make mass-vaccination more appealing. But that point won't be reached for a while

At this point, after so many cases of "pensioners strike it lucky again"/"pensioners are screwing me over" I've got very little in the way of positive feeling towards that age group bar the select few that I know or am related to. Then again, so long as the pensioners are able to wield as much political power as they do, it's daft not to listen to and prioritise them, from a government point of view at least, but that's a matter for another thread.

 

[HSTEd]

Reality, from a coldblooded approach to maximise utility savings, it would be in order of decreasing age, excluding care home residents.

Release restrictions once you get down to over 75s having been completed.

 

[gingerheid]

It's not so simple though, as giving it to younger (and therefore more likely to see the vaccine work) employees in high risk positions (like shops workers / bus drivers) may stop them giving it to multiple more vulnerable people (for whom the vaccine is less likely to work).

 

[43066]

Reality, from a coldblooded approach to maximise utility savings, it would be in order of decreasing age, excluding care home residents.

Release restrictions once you get down to over 75s having been completed.

And quite possibly a minimum age below which is isn’t deemed worth vaccinating at all on the NHS, absent high risk medical conditions, as is the case with the flu jab currently (perhaps 45 as, IIRC, that’s the age below which it poses a similar risk to flu for healthy individuals).

 

[HSTEd]

It's not so simple though, as giving it to younger (and therefore more likely to see the vaccine work) employees in high risk positions (like shops workers / bus drivers) may stop them giving it to multiple more vulnerable people (for whom the vaccine is less likely to work).

Well if you prioritise university students come summer you could get them all done ready to go back and avoid any kind of spike.

 

[43066]

It's not so simple though, as giving it to younger (and therefore more likely to see the vaccine work) employees in high risk positions (like shops workers / bus drivers) may stop them giving it to multiple more vulnerable people (for whom the vaccine is less likely to work).

But the vaccine seems primarily to reduce severity of symptoms. Its effects on asymptomatic infections/spread are unknown as yet.

 

[jtuk]

NHS workers and care home workers. Nobody else needs it.

 

[py_megapixel]

NHS workers and care home workers. Nobody else needs it.

They're already in the plan, second and first respectively.

It also seems stupid to not give it to as much of the population who feel comfortable taking it as possible. The question is in what order.

 

[Yew]

How much sense does group 1 actually make?

 

[HSTEd]

How much sense does group 1 actually make?

From a utility perspective, not much.

They won't live long enough to get substantial benefit.

 

[Bantamzen]

What’s going to be quite amusing is watching the government try to explain to the terrified lockdown fanatics, who are often young and healthy themselves, that the “keeping everybody safe” strategy doesn’t extend to giving them the vaccine any time soon!

Oh now there's a job I'd happily sign up for!

 

[westv]

They do seem to have started the list at a very young age.

 

[big_rig]

They do seem to have started the list at a very young age.

Quite. 1/4 of all deaths are over 90 so I would have thought that would be the first age cutoff, but it as with much of this it wouldn’t be right to be honest that it is very, very old people who this mostly affects.

Anyway I look forward to people aged say, 70+ making a sacrifice by being made to ‘shield’ themselves (if they want to) and letting everybody of working age who won’t be getting the vaccine anyway go back to life as normal as soon as distribution of group 1 starts. It’s only a few more months inside in a pandemic, as they say. Pigs may fly too!

 

[AM9]

Quite. 1/4 of all deaths are over 90 so I would have thought that would be the first age cutoff, but it as with much of this it wouldn’t be right to be honest that it is very, very old people who this mostly affects.

Anyway I look forward to people aged say, 70+ making a sacrifice by being made to ‘shield’ themselves (if they want to) and letting everybody of working age who won’t be getting the vaccine anyway go back to life as normal as soon as distribution of group 1 starts. It’s only a few more months inside in a pandemic, as they say. Pigs may fly too!

The distribution and priority (age wise at least) is really based on the level of vulnerability that the government has given the population since the beginning of restrictions. So it is appropriate that the same demographic profile is applied in the vaccination programme. Once they have been vaccinated, then those that weren't asked to shield/severely restrict their movements can be dealt with.
This thread is about that last group. Whichever programme is implemented, there will be all sorts of 'not fair' and attempted justifications for different groups.
Throughout the pandemic there have been claims from younger and healthier people that they can 'shrug off' the infection, therefore should be able to participate in whatever 'normal' activities they wish. So changing their tack that they should have a priority call on limited early supplies of the vaccine are unlikely to be taken seriously. Why are they suddenly taking their health risk so seriously?
One thing that might happen is that the 'anti-vaxxers' can now practice what they preach, which might ultimately constrain their gene pool.

 

[Bantamzen]

The distribution and priority (age wise at least) is really based on the level of vulnerability that the government has given the population since the beginning of restrictions. So it is appropriate that the same demographic profile is applied in the vaccination programme. Once they have been vaccinated, then those that weren't asked to shield/severely restrict their movements can be dealt with.
This thread is about that last group. Whichever programme is implemented, there will be all sorts of 'not fair' and attempted justifications for different groups.
Throughout the pandemic there have been claims from younger and healthier people that they can shrug off the infection, therefore should be able to participate in whatever 'normal' activities they wish. So changing their tack that they should have a priority call on limited early supplies of the vaccine are unlikely to be taken seriously. Why are they suddenly taking their health risk so seriously?
One thing that might happen is that the 'anti-vaxxers' can now practice what they preach, which might ultimately constrain their gene pool.

Are there really people actually doing what you claim, or are you just making it up. The people in the low risk groups who may demand the vaccine sooner are more likely to be people scared by the virus not those less concerned.

 

[yorksrob]

Throughout the pandemic there have been claims from younger and healthier people that they can shrug off the infection, therefore should be able to participate in whatever 'normal' activities they wish. So changing their tack that they should have a priority call on limited early supplies of the vaccine are unlikely to be taken seriously. Why are they suddenly taking their health risk so seriously?

The quid pro quo with prioritisation of the vaccine by vulnerability, is that the rest of us must then be allowed to get on with our lives without onerous restrictions.

 

[big_rig]

The quid pro quo with prioritisation of the vaccine by vulnerability, is that the rest of us must then be allowed to get on with our lives without onerous restrictions.

Yep. I don’t know why some posters are so intent on being obtuse. On day one of the vaccination program (starting with people who are very, very old) I want life to go back to normal for people of working age who will not be getting the vaccine either way (every formal body has been clear it’s not for under 50s). People who are in line for the jab can continue to hide under the bed until they get it but it will be absolutely beyond the pale for society to continue to be run for their benefit and to the detriment of the majority of the population to indulge them further. Working people have to get cracking on paying off the mountain of debt that has been accrued

 

[py_megapixel]

Yep. I don’t know why some posters are so intent on being obtuse. On day one of the vaccination program (starting with people who are very, very old) I want life to go back to normal for people of working age who will not be getting the vaccine either way (every formal body has been clear it’s not for under 50s). People who are in line for the jab can continue to hide under the bed until they get it but it will be absolutely beyond the pale for society to continue to be run for their benefit and to the detriment of the majority of the population to indulge them further. Working people have to get cracking on paying off the mountain of debt that has been accrued

This vaccine requires 2 doses staggered apart. So nobody will be immune on day one. And of course only a tiny fraction of the population will have been vaccinated at all on day one. Expecting life to go back to normal on day one is cloud cuckoo land.

But honestly, I don't know why plans are being publicised in this level of detail yet. There's still the significant possibility that there is a problem leading to the case that the whole thing is written off for whatever reason...

The quid pro quo with prioritisation of the vaccine by vulnerability, is that the rest of us must then be allowed to get on with our lives without onerous restrictions.

What other way would you suggest the vaccination was prioritised?

 

[yorksrob]

What other way would you suggest the vaccination was prioritised?

I wouldn't.

But my point stands that the balance of that is that restrictions need to be lifted once those most likely to be hospitalised have been vaccinated.

 

[AM9]

The quid pro quo with prioritisation of the vaccine by vulnerability, is that the rest of us must then be allowed to get on with our lives without onerous restrictions.

I'd in part agree with that but those thinking that the partying can go back to what it was any time soon should be careful of that they wish for. Less onerous restrictions may be gradually introduced for all (which thanks to the possible mitigation of risk for the most vulnerable with the forthcoming vaccines) but this virus hasn't finished yet.

 

[py_megapixel]

I wouldn't.

??

There is a limit to the quantity of vaccine available... giving to everyone all in one go isn't even remotely an option...

 

[big_rig]

This vaccine requires 2 doses staggered apart. So nobody will be immune on day one. And of course only a tiny fraction of the population will have been vaccinated at all on day one. Expecting life to go back to normal on day one is cloud cuckoo land.

But honestly, I don't know why plans are being publicised in this level of detail yet. There's still the significant possibility that there is a problem leading to the case that the whole thing is written off for whatever reason...


What other way would you suggest the vaccination was prioritised?

Again, you miss the point I’m afraid.
This is not about people of working age wanting the vaccine first. They will likely never get it. The head of the vaccine task force in the UK has said that the risk of covid for people under 50 does not outweigh any potential risk from the vaccine. We won’t be getting it. Therefore restrictions for us are pointless.

I also don’t think people of working age want the economically and socially ruinous state of society to continue until everybody older than them gets it. When the program starts the onus should be on people who want the jab to stay indoors until they themselves get it. To propose otherwise would be the biggest act of selfishness in human history. Do you think there should be another year of lockdowns and restrictions until every last pensioner gets their shot?

 

[Bantamzen]

This vaccine requires 2 doses staggered apart. So nobody will be immune on day one. And of course only a tiny fraction of the population will have been vaccinated at all on day one. Expecting life to go back to normal on day one is cloud cuckoo land.

But honestly, I don't know why plans are being publicised in this level of detail yet. There's still the significant possibility that there is a problem leading to the case that the whole thing is written off for whatever reason...


What other way would you suggest the vaccination was prioritised?

The plan will be the same for whatever vaccine becomes available. We start with the most vulnerable, i.e. the elderly in care & hospitals as well as those who care for them. This could be achieved relatively quickly as vaccinations can take part in places where staff & carers are on hand to administer them without the need for huge logistical planning. As this programme runs through and the very most vulnerable are taken care of, we can have more confidence is letting everyone else get back to normal.

??

There is a limit to the quantity of vaccine available... giving to everyone all in one go isn't even remotely an option...

Everyone isn't going to get it, so its a moot point. Once you have vaccinated the most vulnerable, the risk to the NHS decreases greatly and hence we can get back to it.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd in part agree with that but those thinking that the partying can go back to what it was any time soon should be careful of that they wish for. Less onerous restrictions may be gradually introduced for all (which thanks to the possible mitigation of risk for the most vulnerable with the forthcoming vaccines) but this virus hasn't finished yet.

I agree that there would need to be a transition period of less onerous restrictions whilst vulnerable people are receiving the vaccination as opposed to full party mode.

However once this has been completed, and the threat to NHS services has been mitigated, I'm of the view that restrictions should be removed and people allowed to judge their own risk.

??

There is a limit to the quantity of vaccine available... giving to everyone all in one go isn't even remotely an option...

You're missing my point. I'm not offering an alternative vaccination strategy because prioritising vulnerable groups is the only sensible strategy to my mind.