You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Should over 50s in other countries be vaccinated before the under 50s here?
Absolutely yes imo, i can unfortunately see a sad position where developing countries are left to suffer as us rich western countries look after our own.
If this is true we're not even going to vaccinate foreign nationals helping the NHS
Morally, probably yes.
Selfishly - I'd like to see how infection rates and pressure on the NHS are looking at that point. I'm 52, latest estimate is I'll have my second jab in July - if people are mixing in July and August ahead of schools and unis going back in September ahead of the winter flu/Covid pressures on the NHS, who knows what the NHS will need us to be doing
OOH - thats a tricky one.
Not other European countries no. Poor countries. I will have to think about that.
At a couple of quid a shot we should be able to manage both
Andy_Sweet
Free Member
At a couple of quid a shot we should be able to manage both
Hopefully now that America has joined Covax, it'll go some way towards a more equitable roll out, who knows though.
What's certain is the rich countries have first dibs. And as a 43 year old, doesn't really seem fair if I get it before 70/80/90s around the world, we'll considering this kinda stats...
[url= http://i.imgur.com/blMW2U5.jp g" target="_blank">
on the other hand, what it would lead to here are prolonged restrictions, for a long time, or an acceptance, that if you are under 50 you take your chances.
Both of which don't sound like great options either, given, then the potential for the virus to mutate.
It's a difficult question, doesn't really seem to be in the public consciousness so much though.
You evil man! I am going to have sleepless nights now!
Serious answer - Mrs TJ said she has already thought of this and cannot find an answer. Can she be selfless enough? Its not as tho vaccinating the under 50s here is a waste of time
Greatest good of greatest number?
My initial thought is that once we reach that situation then half our supply targeted to one place ie pick a country thats both poor and struggling and give them half our supply so that it will make a real difference - spreading half our supply round the world would make very little difference but giving half our supply to say Boliiva would.
Do we put conditions on it? ie if its a Dictatorship do we make sure its not just the elite that get it? Do we give it to ex colonies? countries we are friendly with?
I know a few years back Scotland sort of adopted Malawi as the amount of aid we could give concentrated in one small country will be noticed, spread out around the world it wouldn't
I will ponder more and if I come up with anything that makes any sport of sense get back to you but thanks for ruining my 1st world comfy sleep 🙂
Personally I'd give up my jab for an elderly or vulnerable person in a developing country.
Not sure that's likely to be a logistic possibility though, so it's a hypothetical question probably?
Without knowing the long term health impacts, I think we have a duty of care to at least try to vaccinate everyone who has to "work" through this - those that have kept going outside of working from home.
Loathe to use the term "key worker" as imo the government have abused the definition in this lockdown, but the people that have to be out there facing it everyday to keep us running as a country.
Don't think it's a cost issue that makes this a choice, think it's more about production capacity for now. If it was just cost...
It's a really interesting moral dilemma. Like so many things, Covid has exposed inequalities that have always existed.
The biggest killer in the world is poverty. Is it morally right for anybody to earn over the minimum wage whilst other countries scrape by on nothing?
At a couple of quid a shot we should be able to manage both
This.
Its not just the cost - its the actual supply
Short term - every country will try to get as much as possible e.g. EU suing vaccine suppliers for not delivering to schedule.
Medium term - richer nations need to dump money into funding vaccine manufacture in poorer countries as it's cheap and in the rich nation's interest. Poorer countries are not actually as poor as 1950s UK and have the people and technology to do this.
Possibly a complete misunderstanding on my part... Is it not the case that only having some of a population vaccinated increases the chance of a new mutation - and possibly one that makes the existing vaccination ineffective? If that is so then it makes more sense to completely vaccinate one country at a time and then isolate that country to prevent incoming infection.
Of course, it then becomes a problem of deciding in what order each country gets it 100% vaccination program.
Without knowing the long term health impacts, I think we have a duty of care to at least try to vaccinate everyone who has to “work” through this – those that have kept going outside of working from home.
I agree with this. My son and his girlfriend are both early 20's and work in retail that has remained open all the way through the pandemic. They are at much higher risk than me (I have also worked the whole time, but in a factory with strict Covid measures) but I will most likely be vaccinated long before them.
Maybe
How about over 40s having had the first jab
It would extend d massively the time to double vaccinate
Having watched the news the other evening with 2 guys in their 40s needing supplementary O2 we still have a wsy to go
But, the level of protection afforded by the first vaccination should half the number of folk getting infected.
Thus reducing the numbers needing hospital treatment, and a much much lower cfr then yes, corrupt african despot leaders aside then its a yes from me
Puts me out of a job most likely
You do not want to be in the brewery game just now
Its not just the cost – its the actual supply
Capacity can be created, yes it must be built and cannot be done instantly, but it can be created. At a price.
After all, if it were a magic black stick fluid found only deep under the rock of the desert or the sea, who would have though that we could dig up enough for the whole world to have enough of it to burn & it still cost less than milk.
So really, it *is* about the cost.
I'm sticking with 'both' if possible. If not then I think probably old folk elsewhere if not.
The table above is interesting in term of jabs needed to save a life, that's a good metric.
And to think of the pressure reduction of all the gravely ill who are avoided too. Some (small) optimism here. Though no quick end.
scotroutes
Full Member
Possibly a complete misunderstanding on my part… Is it not the case that only having some of a population vaccinated increases the chance of a new mutation – and possibly one that makes the existing vaccination ineffective? If that is so then it makes more sense to completely vaccinate one country at a time and then isolate that country to prevent incoming infection.
I doubt mutations respect political boundaries. tbh I'm no even sure the mutation part is relevant, it's impossible to predict where or if they'll develop, thinking about it now..
But there's there's finite vaccines, around 2 billion will be created this year I think. So that's 1 billion people being vaccinated. just strikes me that these vaccines should be used where they are doing the most damage.
Not other European countries no.
Why?
Vaccine supply should be prioritised to all countries that have not sufficiently vaccinated their vulnerable populations. There is self interest here - our economy also relies on other countries getting out of this.
Doing otherwise will also turn the developing world against the west and into the arms of Russia and China.
I mean the world population diagram looks like this.
according to that that's about 22/23% of the population are over 50.
So 3.5ish billion doses would cover the world there.
Tricky one
We need to find out the impact of not vaccinating everyone first i think. I don't agree only 'key workers' under 50 should be vaccinated, it should be all or none. Otherwise you find yourself in a position whereby there will be limitations on what the vaccinated group can do vs the non vaccinated group...ie probably go abroad from next year! Besides, let's be honest, people cant work at home forever. I'm just as likely to get it in my office as a supermarket worker.
Also,.let's not beat around the Bush, some of these countries may be poor, but out death rate is far far higher than practically anywhere else. And that is before we even consider long covid. Apparently 1 in 10 get it. Its all very well saying give my dose to someone else, it's commendable of you, but when your life is turned upside down by a debilitating long term illness you may not feel quite as generous
I do agree however that this issue can be solved with cash, may be not immediately but in the medium term at least. Developed countries should be paying for the building of vaccination manufacturing plants across all developing countries. Giving half our supply away has unknown consequences for us and is a short term fix for whoever we give it to. This jab will be required every year from now on, every country needs to be able to produce it's own supply, and if we need to pay for that then all good.
Some people seem to think that all we have to do is vaccinate people once (well twice) and that's it, job done.
The reality is that once "everyone" had been jabbed we'll be starting again on the 3rd dose.
We're going to be vaccinating our own population for a long time yet.
And then there's the economics... The economy needs to get going again to start paying for all the lost employment and massive costs that have been incurred over the last 12 months.
The idea of sending a load of vaccine to another country is nice (and, as tj says, ignores the task of actually deploying it to the population) but it may never be an option.
It may be better to try and help other countries develop their own vaccine production.
Edit: tpbiker and I agree.... Kinda.
tpbiker
Full Member
Tricky oneI do agree however that this issue can be solved with cash, may be not immediately but in the medium term at least. Developed countries should be paying for the building of vaccination manufacturing plants across all developing countries. Giving half our supply away has unknown consequences for us and is a short term fix for whoever we give it to. This jab will be required every year from now on, every country needs to be able to produce it’s own supply, and if we need to pay for that then all good.
Fair comment. defo, tbh, I think you've nailed the conundrum there. I wasn't considering the obvious point multiple doses. Essentially we need to get to a capacity upto around 15 billion doses a year, year on year i guess that is the ultimate challenge.
Luckily so far there is no evidence that vaccination promotes variants of the virus according to the medical literature - although study populations have been small. Much more likely related to overcrowding, poor healthcare, having to go to work in unsafe environments - ie poverty.
The whole ‘who should be vaccinated’ has been worked through by the JCVI and I’d go some way to trusting them as they have access to the data and modeling tools at a population level. In the South West the cases noticeably much higher in 20-40 year old women - presumably with children bringing it home from school, having to work or be without enough to live on, health and care workers etc and no surprise not people driving a few miles for a walk although this very low risk activity seems to be an obsession in the press and social media. here. I wonder if they will be a target this group of women for the vaccine sooner rather than later but I’d leave that to people who understand the data to decide.
Some people seem to think that all we have to do is vaccinate people once (well twice) and that’s it, job done.
Interesting to see the Astra-Zenica person on Channel 4 making the point about switching the vaccine and needing to be told which sequence to work with. Making the point it is like the flu vaccine you need to pick one to run with. Which I guess means like flu there are going to be chances that vaccine will have more and less effective years.
If there is a switch over to a different vaccine, assuming this comes relatively quickly, it could be ready to role before all the population has had 20/21 season vaccine (for want of a better term).
Perhaps the focus once the over 50s are done should be those who are at greatest risk of exposure. Then we are back to cycling through the priority list for 21/22.
Interestingly chatting with my 80something neighbour, they would quite give up their vaccine for the younger generations. Taking the view they've had a good life but there's a lot less in front on them than behind.
We have to get the capacity that high, but that is additional capacity as we cannot risk taking the capacity from other existing vaccines. Particularly as a lot of this vaccines prevent childhood mortality.
Taking that capacity would have a massive effect on the world and infant deaths.
That's a big question, vaccinate the older or the next generation of it came to that....
Until we get that capacity up then it is always going to be a balance sadly as you can't just create capacity
Given the vaccinated can still we are told be a carrier for the virus, the 30-50 year olds would probably not want to be in close proximity to vaccinated over 50s.
I think you might see some weird societal effects of trying to ease lockdowns with an over 50s only vaccinated population.
Could be wrong.
Was fascinated by this moral dilemma and the posters' reactions to it. Then got brought down to earth with a bump by this very sensible comment:
The biggest killer in the world is poverty. Is it morally right for anybody to earn over the minimum wage whilst other countries scrape by on nothing?
The idea of sending a load of vaccine to another country is nice (and, as tj says, ignores the task of actually deploying it to the population) but it may never be an option.
It is an option, that's what the COVAX programme is.
If the west hinders the program, it will be a moral, geopolitical and strategic failure that will lead to needless deaths and further the irrelevance of the west.
If you want the majority of the developing world to fall into the Chinas sphere of influence more than it already has then by all means we should pursuing a policy of idiot vaccine nationalism and staring up our own glorious brexit ridden arseholes.
The biggest killer in the world is poverty. Is it morally right for anybody to earn over the minimum wage whilst other countries scrape by on nothing?
It isn't and it's why China is winning the influence game, it's ability to lift developing countries out of poverty is putting the ex-colonial powers to shame. Most of you in this thread are also the first ones to start banging on about green issues, not realising that it's the unequal distribution of wealth and westerners that are the cause of it.
Covid is not just an epidemiological problem, it's a foreign policy problem. It is the attitudes shown in this thread that will lead to the west being left behind, increasingly decrepit, economically irrelevant, disliked for historical and cultural reasons and ignored by the Sinosphere.
The problem with the jcvi guidance is they vaccinate based on likelihood of mortality.
I'm going to throw this out there as it's controversial, but who deserves the vaccine more, the 92 year old in a care home with 12 months tops to live, or the healthy 35 year old who gets long covid which causes permanent lung damage or has a compromised life for next 35 years? Its not an Easy choice. But the stats say a healthy 35 year old has much chamce of getting lomg covid as an 80 year old has of dying from it.
I know it's an outlier, but I know of at least one person who died a week after getting the vaccine. They didn't die of covid, they died of old age..
I personally think everyone should get it, there should be the same effort put into vaccine production and distribution as there was during the war effort for building weapons, tanks etc. I honesu think.it can be done if the desire is there
Interestingly, more Americans have died due to covid than died during the second world war....
Everyone is going to get it, it's just a question of when.
And then how often.
Given the vaccinated can still we are told be a carrier for the virus, the 30-50 year olds would probably not want to be in close proximity to vaccinated over 50s.
I think you might see some weird societal effects of trying to ease lockdowns with an over 50s only vaccinated population.
This is a key problem. I'm 52 so should be vaccinated later this year, but if I was further down the priority list, I'm not sure I'd want to be getting "back to normal" until the risk of me getting infected and risking long Covid was very reduced. My main risk is from my kids when they were in school, I'm restricting my contacts with anyone else to minimise my other exposure, and to make sure I can't unknowingly infect other people.
I wonder how it affects the overall spread if you vaccinate region by region over globally age group by age group.
I applaud this thread and the sentiment involved, Sadly, I think it's all moot.
Covid is a first world problem. That is to say, the rapid vaccine development & research has only happened due to Covid affecting developed nations (Although I'm not underselling the potential of this being even bigger without the current social restrictions & research funding).
TB kills almost 2 million people every year, almost exclusively in developing nations, and we have effective vaccines and treatments for that.
I’m going to be selfish and say that right now I’m struggling with lockdown and lack of purpose so no, I’d rather get the vaccine myself and get my life back to normal.
However, I’ll also say that as soon as the 50 year olds get it then I’d be quite happy to get back to normal anyway. The Covid risk to me as a healthy 40 year old is minimal and if those I can pass it on to are protected then I’m happy enough.
I suspect I’ll get shot down for this view, and right now I’m happy to take that “feedback”.
It isn’t and it’s why China is winning the influence game, it’s ability to lift developing countries out of poverty is putting the ex-colonial powers to shame. Most of you in this thread are also the first ones to start banging on about green issues, not realising that it’s the unequal distribution of wealth and westerners that are the cause of it.
China ain't building those roads and other infrastructure in Africa et al to help those countries. They are they to either buy their favour, or to enable the resources to be easily shipped back to China. Its not 'influencing' per se as basically buying out the countries. If you can't eat now you shake the hand that feeds you and don't worry about the consequences. Its modern day colonialisation.
To my eyes, when I get vaccinated they won't be doing it to save me, they'll be doing it as part of the wider effort to reduce spread of the disease.
So I suspect the idea that we simply prioritise everyone by vulnerability is far too simplistic. In a disease so heavily skewed to certain groups in its mortality, it's got to be right to do them first, but doesn't there come a point where priorities change?
Eg, compare me, a reasonably healthy 45 year old whose job can be easily done with minimal transmission risk, Vs teachers, kids and students, whose jobs/education can't (and are of critical importance), even though individually they're perhaps made of stronger stuff. Shouldn't they be ahead of me?
Agree this should be a worldwide effort though.
simian
Full Member
I applaud this thread and the sentiment involved, Sadly, I think it’s all moot.Covid is a first world problem. That is to say, the rapid vaccine development & research has only happened due to Covid affecting developed nations (Although I’m not underselling the potential of this being even bigger without the current social restrictions & research funding).
TB kills almost 2 million people every year, almost exclusively in developing nations, and we have effective vaccines and treatments for that.
This is a very salient point and hopefully something that becomes a big issue going forward.
The Covid risk to me as a healthy 40 year old is minimal and if those I can pass it on to are protected then I’m happy enough.
Its not tiny though. The risk of dying with it is tiny. The risk of long covid is 1 in 10 apparently, and from what I hear you wont be 'going back to normality' if you get it..my mate had it and it's absolutely brutal apparently.. And despite being told on another thread that asthma (which i have) poses no risk, studies show it makes you more acceptable to long covid. As does being female apparently. So my behaviour won't be changing for a while yet.
Once the over 50s have been vaccinated there will be another huge healthcare issue facing us, debilitating illness in young people. Sure it won't generate such dramatic headlines, but the impact to young people's health in this country will be devastating. hopefully the over 50s are prepared to make the same sacrafices to keep us safe as the younger generations have done for them.
Was fascinated by this moral dilemma and the posters’ reactions to it. Then got brought down to earth with a bump by this very sensible comment:
+1
The biggest killer in the world is poverty. Is it morally right for anybody to earn over the minimum wage whilst other countries scrape by on nothing?
Covid is a first world problem. That is to say, the rapid vaccine development & research has only happened due to Covid affecting developed nations (Although I’m not underselling the potential of this being even bigger without the current social restrictions & research funding).
TB kills almost 2 million people every year, almost exclusively in developing nations, and we have effective vaccines and treatments for that.
Countries like Vietnam and the Philippines aren't locking down despite having high rates of TB, they don't have high rates. 30 countries in the world are disproportionate contributors to global TB infections and deaths, with 8 of those 30 contributing an even more disproportionate amount. Not all developing countries have bigger fish to fry than Covid.
The TB vaccine is also only effective on children.
China ain’t building those roads and other infrastructure in Africa et al to help those countries. They are they to either buy their favour, or to enable the resources to be easily shipped back to China. Its not ‘influencing’ per se as basically buying out the countries. If you can’t eat now you shake the hand that feeds you and don’t worry about the consequences. Its modern day colonialisation.
Of course they aren't, but after suffering the indignity of the opium wars - they're much better at playing the hearts and mind game than us. We would be doing the same, if the developing world didn't see China as a better bet.
*Puts on his best John Malkovich impression*
Covid is just as much of a domain for great power competition as is oil, cyber, space, maritime access etc - any failure to understand that risks the status of the west and it's democratic allies.
I sometimes think the only time we'll get back to normal is once we've reached herd immunity.
No point in having a small % immunised when essentially everyone is susceptible to the virus.
Do we reach here immunity once the virus has ravaged its way through all of earth's populations?
If so, are we looking at conditions/deaths rates like those during the Spanish Flu? Have a look at wiki and skip to mortality. What we're seeing now around the world is nothing.
Covid is not going away it will be endemic. The point is to get enough people vaccinated every year to make it manageable.
We would be doing the same, if the developing world didn’t see China as a better bet.
China doesn't place human rights restrictions on its investment / aid.
And yet it can and is willing to provide its vaccine at cost to the developing world, whilst the west harps on about human rights but does its utmost best to help cause human rights tragedies like ISIS and trip over itself infighting over vaccine supply.
Refer to the comment on the west staring up its own arsehole from earlier.
tpbiker - dunno where you get 1:10 from but my experience its a lot lot lower than that. I know dozens of people who have had it. Most were completely asymptomatic. 2 had symptoms beyond 2 weeks, one of those was fine after 4 and I do not know what happened with the other one. this was in people across the whole age range
You were not told that your asthma was not an increased risk - just that the data shows those with mild not moderate asthma and younger than 50 that increased risk is slight
And yet it can and is willing to provide its vaccine at cost to the developing world, whilst the west harps on about human rights but does its utmost best to help cause human rights tragedies like ISIS and trip over itself infighting over vaccine supply.
I never said implicitly or explicitly that the west were perfect. I am stating that a major reason countries like Chinese investment over western is because there is no human rights requirements.
tpbiker – dunno where you get 1:10 from but my experience its a lot lot lower than that. I know dozens of people who have had it. Most were completely asymptomatic. 2 had symptoms beyond 2 weeks, one of those was fine after 4 and I do not know what happened with the other one. this was in people across the whole age range
You were not told that your asthma was not an increased risk – just that the data shows those with mild not moderate asthma and younger than 50 that increased risk is slight
This TP. I know plenty that age who’ve had it, my wife was likely the worst, she lost her taste for 8 or so weeks.
For those under 50 the risk, be it of death or long Covid is low. You do much higher risk stuff every day.
The problem with the jcvi guidance is they vaccinate based on likelihood of mortality.
It’s based on a range of factors of which mortality is only one. Others include hospital admission rates and ability for hospitals to do other things, sources of high transmission (sadly care homes staff in our area are 5-6x more likely to get it and they then spread it), the need to protect front line NHS staff and so on.
Surely the Uber rich oil producing nations should have a rummage down the back of their collective sofas?
I know oil prices are low today, but over the last 50 years or so the income has been mind blowing
And it's totally in their interest to facilitate. The oil price will rise as all the lockdown restrictions lift globally as demand picks up.
Would be some 'tribal' issue in some respect, became 200 years ago your neighbour might have stolen a camal therefore his great grandchildren dont deserve a jab
One of the guys I work with, fit healthy if a bit of a gym bunny, got COVID back in late spring. He’s still working n long term sick and we’re not expecting him back soon. He’s in his 30s.
That of course is one individual and anecdotal. But it does affect some young, fit and healthy types.
And I do know a fair number of folk who have just been laid up unable to get out of bed for a week and then started to recover.
Of all the folk I know who’ve had it, the fitest seem to take longer to get back on stream, but that might be because the standard they are trying to get back to is higher.
Long covid affects a proportion of those who get it and are symptomatic. I thought it was 1 in 20 of those. It's not 1 in 10 of the population.
Edit: here you go:
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/long-covid
Don't worry about those poor foreign places. We'll send over our asymptomatic vaccinated retirees as poverty tourists to help rescue their economies.
That of course is one individual and anecdotal. But it does affect some young, fit and healthy types.
Of course it does but how many and how much is the question. If the impact to under 50's is on a par with lots of other issues then is it worth a country being in lockdown for it?
The risk seems to be that the under 50's will continue to spread it around and there will be more and more mutations to the point that the vaccine everyone is currently having won't work and we will almost be back at square one.
The risk seems to be that the under 50’s will continue to spread it around and there will be more and more mutations to the point that the vaccine everyone is currently having won’t work and we will almost be back at square one.
Which is the point I was making on the last page.
I sometimes think the only time we’ll get back to normal is once we’ve reached herd immunity.
Is herd immunity from Covid even a think, I was under the impression that immunity without a vaccine only lasted a few months?
joepud
Full Member
I sometimes think the only time we’ll get back to normal is once we’ve reached herd immunity.Is herd immunity from Covid even a think, I was under the impression that immunity without a vaccine only lasted a few months?
I think how long the vaccine lasts is one of the great unknowns, and will be a factor we'll find out on the current phase 4 mass trials we're doing just now. ie the current roll out.
There you go TJ and lunge, taken from the ons. Whether it be 1 in 10, or 1 on 20, you aren't going to convince me that it's not serious for young folks, so no point in getting into a debate about it with me.
Lunge, you cite anecdotal evidence. My anecdotal evidence is I know 2 folk that had it, one aged 44 one 36. One took 6 months to get back to normal. The other ended up in hospital with breathing difficulties before Christmas and is still off work.
Fact is, if so many young folks end up getting the virus, even if only a small percentage get long covid, that'll still be a huge number of people. According to one mp who was discussing it, the number suffering could already be 300000.
Should over 50s in other countries be vaccinated before the under 50s here?
Interesting question. The obvious moral answer is yes they should. However as usual the devil is in the detail. Would we be the only first world country doing this? Is it fair to people in this country who have lost a lot of money due to the ongoing lockdown? What if other countries see vaccinating the under 50s as being more important?
Is herd immunity from Covid even a think, I was under the impression that immunity without a vaccine only lasted a few months?
That is precisely the point of vaccinations, to provide herd immunity.
If the impact to under 50’s is on a par with lots of other issues then is it worth a country being in lockdown for it?
Are they though or is it the case that the impact on under 50's when combined with lockdown measures, is on a par with other issues? That is one thing that seems to be being missed when talking about how "bad/Not bad" covid is. All the data that we have was gathered WITH massive restrictions and changes to our way of life. Take away the restrictions and what else will change?
I should add though that despite being under 50 I expect to be in group 6 as I do have underlying health conditions.
Not going to debate at all TP.
It's all about weighing up risk, as many things are. For me, as a healthy 40 year old, the risks are not high enough for me to worry about once the vulnerable are vaccinated. Your views may be different, and that's fine.
I guess at some point, that risk decision is one we'll all have to make.
Where does one draw the line? Helping poor countries in Africa/South America, other western nations that are significantly more antiVax than us? The countries most in need may not actually be the poorest, as they have a lack of old and vunerable people to begin with.
What happens in the former colonies where it might be seen as Britain throwing their weight around trying to get back to the old days - take your jab and thank your masters?
And also, how best can we help?
-Just giving them vaccines that we otherwise would use on our fit and healthy?
-helping the world set up a better/more efficient system/vaccine (I can't see countries with questionable power grids and large ground areas being well served by a vaccine that needs -70C freezers)?
-just paying for it?
-sending our boys in green to set up vaccination centres?
All the data that we have was gathered WITH massive restrictions and changes to our way of life. Take away the restrictions and what else will change?
Exactly..
300000 estimated long covid cases and we've been in lockdown pretty much since March.
Lift those restrictions and pretty much every non vaccinated person will have had it by end of the year. That's a hell of a lot of ill folks if that ons stat of 1 in 10 is to be believed.
1 in 10, or 1 on 20, you aren’t going to convince me that it’s not serious for young folks, so no point in getting into a debate about it with me
No one's debating it can't be serious but your original statement wasn't accurate.
The risk of dying with it is tiny. The risk of long covid is 1 in 10
That statement suggests that there's a 1 in 10 chance to the population as a whole of suffering long covid issues. It's not. It's a 1 in 10 chance of those who get it and also suffer symptoms in the first place. Big difference as a lot of people won't get it, and of those that do, a sizeable number are asymptomatic.
Long covid is the thing about this that scares me even though it's not necessarily that logical a fear for me. I'm in my mid forties.
It’s a 1 in 10 chance of those who get it and also suffer symptoms in the first place
Well I thought it was obvious that It was referring to people who got the virus! Fair point if it's only 1 in 10 symptomatic folks, however i was under the impression that's still 80% of those infected.
What frightens me most is all the folks getting the vaccine who then think the rules don't apply. Just read one comment on the asthma uk fb page when someone said that they'd be getting the vaccine..
'Hope so. And I'm Group 6. Its worrying me so much because otherwise hubby will have his second before I get my first and he's already planned things to do'
What do these people not understand. Are they simply stupid, or just selfish.
TBF that independent article isn't very clear and neither is the quote from the doctor they've got.
In order to having ongoing symptoms you have to first have symptoms. 🙂
I share your concerns though. I think there are quite a few who think it's party time as soon as they've been jabbed (or at best 2 weeks later). I think it also likely that the government will expect everyone to go back to normal life some time in march.
I'm not returning to normal life until I've been jabbed and that's unlikely to happen until the autumn of imagine.
Combination of stupid and ignorance with a side order of 'well I'm alright now'
One of my mums friends (mum is shielding) told her that now she has had the vaccine (first dose only) she could get the train down from Doncaster to visit mum.
My mum was not impressed and pointed a few things out to her.
Edit: I'm not planning on returning to pre pandemic behaviours for a long time if ever. The world has changed and people need to realise that.
My changes will be relatively minor such as use a mask more and make sure of space and not go to crowded areas.
I’m not returning to normal life until I’ve been jabbed and that’s unlikely to happen until the autumn of imagine
Yep, that's my view as well. But I think we'll be in the minority.
That said, it all depends on whetjer the jab reduces transmission. Assuming that you are less likely to get it if you've already had it in last 6 months, combined with a huge number of population having the vaccine, it may just mean herd immunity is closer than we think
Big if though, and until I see some science on it I wont believe it.
I’m not returning to normal life until I’ve been jabbed and that’s unlikely to happen until the autumn of imagine
I'm the same, but I'm intrigued what people will and won't do?
I'd happily sit in a restaurant which has measures in place and would sit with a small group in a beer garden. I'll also meet groups of friends outside for a run/bike ride and would entertain a UK holiday.
Not sure I'd be jumping on a plane or going to a nightclub mind you. I'm also not sure I'd be meeting groups of any size in someone's house.
Not sure I’d be jumping on a plane or going to a nightclub mind you. I’m also not sure I’d be meeting groups of any size in someone’s house.
Judging by what I've read online it's all bets are off. Cruise ships kicking off again in July for those that can prove they've been vaccinated and apparently coach tour bookings for the over 50s are through the roof! I can not think of any environment more conducive to transmission than a coach trip!!!
Long covid is the thing about this that scares me even though it’s not necessarily that logical a fear for me. I’m in my mid forties.
I've been wiped out with long covid for ten months now and counting. I know four people - friends I knew before this thing - who have it in varying degrees. One is in his 20s, one in his 30s and the other two, 40s, I think. I'm in my 50s. All men, all very fit and active.
I wouldn't wish this on anyone. It's not just 'fatigue' or 'tiredness', people are suffering serious neurological disorders, ongoing breathing difficulties, heart inflammation, brain fog bordering on dementia, autonomic disorders including POTS and similar posture-based issues. For months I was doing well if I could manage to walk around a football pitch without relapsing for weeks.
So far there's virtually no idea of causation and no treatment. Many GPs are still telling long covid sufferers that they have 'anxiety'. It's not very nice.
But anyway, two points. One is that age and fitness are seemingly irrelevant when it comes to long covid, though gender seems to be an issue with more women suffering than men. The other is that even at the lower levels people are talking about - and it's probably under-reported, some people simply don't realise what's happened - it has the potential to be a health crisis of its own, both for individuals and for the population as a whole, particularly if we let the virus 'burn through' the under 50s.
Depressingly you know that this is exactly what is going to happen when Boris can't bear the idea of people no longer being able to go to the pub.
Linking our own vaccination policy to worldwide distribution seems unrealistic on all sorts of levels. It's more important that we do our utmost to facilitate distribution of vaccines on a global level, I seem to remember that AZ has already pledged to sell the vaccine at cost to developing countries. Rather than agonising over moral dilemmas that aren't ever going to be concrete ones, we should be subsidising the cost of vaccines to those nations who are going to struggle to afford the price of vaccination even at cost.
I had a version of this conversation with my parents (who started it). They're both mid-70s, both classed as highly vulnerable and Dad has just had his first jab. They're grateful for being first in the line, but wondered whether or not it was more logical to vaccinate younger age groups first, teens, 20s, 30s, key workers, teachers etc. Those are the people that are out and about, studying, starting careers, having kids, going to pubs, nightclubs etc. My parents were thinking about it in a purely utilitarian framework - the greatest number of hours well lived perhaps. Frankly, although they've not been out for ten months, at most they potter about the garden anyway. So while their lives are sort of protected for a few years, younger generations' lives remain on hold while the virus spreads among them. They would have given up their vaccine slot today, to wait a few more months. Obviously I'm pleased that they've got it but it doesn't actually change their life much in the near future anyway.
I had a version of this conversation with my parents (who started it). They’re both mid-70s, both classed as highly vulnerable and Dad has just had his first jab. They’re grateful for being first in the line, but wondered whether or not it was more logical to vaccinate younger age groups first, teens, 20s, 30s, key workers, teachers etc. Those are the people that are out and about, studying, starting careers, having kids, going to pubs, nightclubs etc. My parents were thinking about it in a purely utilitarian framework – the greatest number of hours well lived perhaps. Frankly, although they’ve not been out for ten months, at most they potter about the garden anyway. So while their lives are sort of protected for a few years, younger generations’ lives remain on hold while the virus spreads among them. They would have given up their vaccine slot today, to wait a few more months. Obviously I’m pleased that they’ve got it but it doesn’t actually change their life much in the near future anyway.
My parents are the same, and I believe there is some debate about it in the scientific community.
Politically though, can you imagine the backlash, "Partying youngsters vaccinated as pensioners told to stay indoors", "Pubs full as elderly told they're not a priority".
Politically
Boris's core voting base would not be having that I'm sure!
Tbf it would make alot more sense if the vaccine prevented transmission, but we don't know that yet
Indonesia is taking exactly that approach. The rest of the world isn't.
Well your post has cheered me up greatly!!😂
Hope you are on the mend and feeling better soon
It's an interesting discussion, if that stat bears out - a 35 year old is statistically more likely to suffer long covid, than an 80 year old is to die. We save a whole load of folk for a few years, and have a raft of people with long term respiratory damage?, the folk that are out and about working and exposing themselves to the virus to keep the economy going....
Suppose it's that hindsight thing again, isn't it.
Not other European countries no.
You do realise what Charles Michel was getting at when he complained that Pfizer weren't respecting their contracts? If the pharma companies continue to take the piss out of EU members there will first be legal action and then, well, look at EU treaties and law and see where they could go.
I understood what he he was saying is happening but like him won't type it, and I also understand what he could do, but won't type theat either. Not surprising then that the threatened delivery dealys magically disappeared.