Why is nearly everything an opinion and not experience or in some cases facts?
COVID Vaccine !
- Thread starter kingrollo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Why is nearly everything an opinion and not experience or in some cases facts?
Deleted User
Guest
- Location
- Wolverhampton
The fella is saying in his opinion he's being 'thrown under the bus ' and the decision is wrong to ease restrictions until everyone is vaccinated, isn't that HIS opinion?
It isn't fact is it?
Deleted User
Guest
- Location
- Wolverhampton
I'm sorry but saying 'I'm not in a priority group I'm in the thrown under the bus group ' cries out as a bit of self pity in my book.
If someone said that in a pub during a conversation what would your response be?
Sorry, I'm not used to this sort of overreacting.
classic33
Leg End Member
As I've said, I've three conditions that could kill me quicker, than this. It's a minor irritation for me.
Being thrown under the bus is his opinion. However someone in groups 1-9 being offered the vaccine before mjr is by plan is a fact. Whether that happens is pretty likely to happen based on evidence. Being thrown under the bus is an opinion and way of describing it, but the vaccine's a pretty big issue. In other countries waiting for the vaccines is killing large numbers of people. It's not like saying I've been thrown under the bus as the supermarket didn't stock enough TV magazines and they sold out. There are other big things at the moment, people dying of cancer and other diseases not able to access treatment fully, people who've lost businesses, relationships, their jobs, perhaps everything.
We can't vaccinate everyone before restrictions are eased, as we cannot vaccinate those under 18 on the timescales discussed. It's his opinion on what is reasonable. Some people have factored in people who've already had the virus and themselves being in the vaccinated group that that's all right. For others, the mutations, the B117 strain and that covid spreading via particular routes means that we should go more cautiously.
I'd agree with someone that if they were 45-49 years old that sucks as they have a very similar risk level on the metrics to someone 50-54 years old who is getting vaccinated before things are planned to really start to open up.
The vaccine is great. Having a third of adults having had one vaccination is great, it protects people indirectly, everyone understands that. When it comes down to direct more personal protection if you haven't had it it's a big deal, but also not all groups are equal. If you are under 50 and most/all of the people you interact with are under 50 then most/all of them may not have been vaccinated. The massive benefits of vaccination for your local group of people doesn't exist. The virus just belts around indifferent. It's certainly the case for me that most of the people I'd interact with will not be vaccinated for a long time. So mjr and others may not only not have personal protection, but they don't have that local group protection either. Someone over 50 more typically would have the personal protection, some/a lot of local group protection and protection through the population of cases having been limited. If you cannot be vaccinated the local group and population protection is a very big deal too. It's not like we've randomly vaccinated people and we all interact with 2000 people on a regular basis and so we all get an equal chance of protection in our local groups.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
So the conclusion is the timescale for lifting all restrictions is obviously wrong. There is no good reason to do it. Just lift them enough to get the economy running again. This lifting all restrictions prematurely step just seems to be another sop from Boris to his core base, like the Christmas covid-spreading craziness which killed so many and put us into this long, damaging lockdown.
And it ain't just me. There are millions of us in the bus group.
I think Farrar, Edmunds and others are right we need to get the virus down to very low levels. You do that and it gives you more options later, including some of the options other people might be keener on than us. It let's you do backward tracing, which I wish we'd do in this country.
The politicians have dodged one aspect. They've not been clear, perhaps for political reasons when they expect to vaccinate 14-17 year olds or younger. However, they could actually vaccinate 16 and 17 year olds by saving Pfizer supply for that age group. It'd be a very messy decision, but one that would be in the best interests of the country, even though it sucks if you're 14 or 15.
Tens of millions of us. I think some people just don't get that if you're under 50 (not even got that far yet) the virus, especially B117, will just spread like wildfire in the other half/two thirds of the population (depending on dates) with barely any difference if you open everything up, as the top third of the population in particular includes many that don't interact as much with the other two thirds and sadly certainly haven't the last year. Israel's vaccinated about 50% of the population and the actual recorded case rates are way higher than here!
Matt Hancock made some comments yesterday, said it would be a slow week but that 'bumper' weeks in March would make up for it.
Deleted User
Guest
- Location
- Wolverhampton
I don't even know when my age group will be done but I'll be out the first opportunity in April jab or not, I won't be relying on a vaccination.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
1) By the time the programme gets to the extremely low risk 16 and 17 year olds (maybe in August before start of term in September) the Oxford-AZ age 5-18 trial will have delivered results. The reason why that vaccine is not authorised for under 18s is that the clinical trial (Jul-Oct) population did not include under 18s, by design, so there's no trial evidence of efficacy or safety. Provided the trial started last week gives positive satisfactory results, the doses will be there when their turn comes. This assumes the precedence is going to match roughly vulnerability with age as the easy metric and that the vaccination rate averages 400k per day (well below this last week, as expected/predicted).
2) "Tens of millions". We can expect JCVI Groups 1-9 (9 is '50-54s') (total = 32M) all to have received their first dose by end April (I think rather sooner, but it matters not). Nearly all (?85%) of the doses will then be used for second jabs till about 21 Jun. Another 4M first doses will have been given by then (to under 50s, maybe targeting particular ethnic, deprived or employment groups (currently unknown) who are judged relatively more vulnerable. So if things go to plan over half the population will have been vaccinated by 21 Jun (with about 25M laso having had their second dose). And for the next 40 days nearly all the doses go back to first doses so roughly 15M more 18-50s vaccinated (total = 51M). The total UK adult (over 18) population is 53M.
Maybe the JCVI, having set its list by vulnerability for the first phase (NB half the population over age 3) will set the next priorities to focus on the 'interacting' cohort responsible per capita for most of the transmission (is that the 18-30s? or might that be employment based?).
Last edited:
You'll likely get vaccinated 2nd to 4th week of March.
You have said this already, but the leaked reports last week said they'll just keep on going down in age order.
Things are opening up in April, not June!
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
See the Scottish supply graph: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/covid-vaccine.267960/page-152#post-6311862
We can assume the other nations' supply profile mirrors it (and the Scottish Health Sec said almost exactly that today: it's an 'all UK' thing).
