I suppose it raises a lot of questions as a society… if you just look at it from a death statistic then yes it makes sense to go top down by age and vulnerability. If you look at it from the point of view of keyworkers then it comes down to OK they might not die but they still need to quarantine if they get sick - that pulls teachers out of classrooms and police off the street. There’s no right answer except to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible.
I’ve witnessed this first hand at one of the local clinics when they had left over Pfizer doses at 5.45pm - is it feasible to ring round (often land lines) of an ageing population group and try to get them on site in 15 mins with no notice, or is it better to get the local Fire Brigade WhatsApp group alerted and have them run down the road asap to use up the last doses? It’s simply being efficient and effective.
That’s right, the top half of my comment was related to the petition theme regarding the impact on society. The second part was just an add on anecdote. I can remove it if you feel it’s not relevant.
My husband has stayed at home for the last few weeks & up tom3 weeks after I was going to have my vaccine as I am clinically extremely vulnerable. He works on construction sites with lots of men, so just didn’t feel safe.
I had my jab last Friday, so he has 2 weeks to go. It was his choice to stay home to protect me, he could have still gone to work, so I wonder if anybody living with someone like me should be vaccinated as well at the same time?
My daughters partner is clinically extremely vulnerable as well, & she was riddled with guilt about giving him COVID. But the problem is where does it stop? She couldn’t afford to stay home, my husband can so is ok for us, but there aren’t many people who can is there.
If we can agree that the restrictions which have been put in place (and removed) over the last year have been a balancing act between allowing freedom / economic activity on one hand and preventing health service pressure and deaths on the other then isn’t the allocation of vaccines based purely on ‘lives saved’ at divergence from this?
Maybe it’s pragmatically the optimal choice anyway, but has there been a shift in motivations?
I think age is still the best proxy if we want to get this done as quickly as possible.
Age is easily discovered and verified. To roll out via occupation (outside of NHS and carers) will be more complex. You would have to work with employers to verify eligibility. Also would it be done by job status or function?
I am classed as a key worker but like 85% of my colleagues can work from home. I would not expect to get vaccinated any earlier than the rest of my age cohort but I can imagine some not being so scrupulous.
The difference is that the metal worker can use protective measures, e.g. socially distance, put a mask on etc. The nursery staff can’t. They’ve got zero protection. And they might take the desease home to their family some of which will fall into the vulnerable group.
It’s not just about the individual being at risk but about reducing the spread. I can’t think of a group of have closer interaction with others at work than nursery staff. Cases in young children are grossly underrated because they rarely show symptoms so won’t isolate but can pass on the desease.
How old is the data? Does it consider teachers and nursery staff separately? Does it consider the impact of the new variant which apparently is more transmissible among young children? And does it consider any data since routine testing for staff has been introduced?
Taxi drivers, bin collectors etc. are said to be prioritised soon. Why not nursery staff?
As the article states, thile comparison is about teachers. Isn’t the petiton about nursery staff though? There is a big difference between both in terms of their interaction with children.
Do you have a source for that? I found articles about a trade association calling for taxi drivers to be moved up the priority list, but that is a long way from an actual change in prioritisation.
It’s mentioned as an option at the end of the article. So admittedly it’s not confirmed.
The question is what “prioritising” actually means. To me it doesn’t translate to queue jumping, but being treated as another group that’s recognised to being prioritised over the general public (i.e. everyone not covered by a priority group).
I think it is legitimate that there are discussions about other groups worth considering for a prioritised vaccine offer in addition to (not instead of) the ones initially identified.
Where does it say that? Who specifically are they supposed to jump in front of? At the moment they are in the same group as a fit young single adult working from home. I think the point of the petition is to account for the different level of risk they’re exposed to, not just individually but as a vector. The same goes for the kids actually but unfortunately there isn’t an approved vaccine yet.
On that note, there was at least one major outbreak at a nursery in Forest Hill during the recent wave. Unless it was purely coincidental, the trends in the local level statistic that followed seemed to suggest that this was a significant driver of increase in case numbers in the area. And that’s just what can be derived from the total numbers.
That’s fair, I was responding to a post which was discussing both nursery staff, teachers and other front line workers. I’ve moderated in this topic so won’t participate any further now other than to explain this.
You clearly have no idea how metal workers work. They have to work in tight groups where there can be no social distancing. A pipefitter for instance holds the pieces in place while a welder welds them. There can be no social distancing. And don’t you realize that metal workers have families too? So that’s a meaningless statement.
Vaccinations are quite rightly being done by age. A 60 year old is at more risk than a 20 year old. That has been proven. To vaccinate a 20 year old nursery worker ahead of a 60 year old or a 55 year old just because the 20 year old happens to work in a nursery is illogical. If low risk groups are prioritised over 50+ year olds then what can it be other than queue jumping? Rhetorical question. Would you sacrifice your 50+ year old relative or expect them to give up their vaccine for a healthy 20 year old child minder? I wouldn’t.
It will be interesting to see if studies continue to show vaccines also cut transmission, because if they do then vaccinating a 20 y/o who comes in to contact with 100 different people a day for key work purposes could well be more logical than vaccinating a 50 y/o person who comes in to contact with one or two people a day. Vaccinating the former could end up saving more lives than the latter, even if the person being vaccinated themself isn’t high risk.
I’d thought that the biggest jump in mortality rates came from 60+ rather than 50+ so was surprised to hear the over-50s were next group up.
I’d probably prefer to see those under 60 whose work puts them in higher risk groups - or, as you say, in contact with lots of others - done before the 50+ gang. I am under-50 and can WFH so no horse in the race here. But my pals over 50 are now booking holidays for the late summer/early autumn.
