Perhaps I’m splitting hairs, but the JVCI looked at the data and choose a cut-off point of 50 and over (as well as the clinically extremely vulnerable) for the first phase of vaccination as the way to prevent the most deaths.
A 50 year old is still at a lot higher risk than a 20 year old.
After stopping death and serious illness the design of the initial vaccine rollout has been chosen for speed, age is easy to identify and verify. Occupation (outside of care and frontline medical work) is harder to verify and is open to significant abuse and challenge. All of which will slow things down.
I agree, ‘means testing’ for priotiy could get really complex and ultimately hinder progress, even if transmissibility means there might be greater epidemiological value in targeting certain sub groups in theory.
Another thing that needs to be factored in are those who are self-employed or on low wages who can’t work from home. I read an article this morning (couldn’t find it to post here) that was about how an office cleaner caught Covid but couldn’t afford to self-isolate and so kept going into work and knowingly spread it onto many others. This just spreads the virus even further and keeps cases up.
In construction and factories you have hundreds of people working together and often closely together too. The spread of the virus could escalate in an environment like this; there are far less people in a nursery. Low-paid workers like the cleaner in the article can’t afford to isolate so go into work and spread it further. There are lots of factors to consider on which workers are more at risk. Risk of death versus risk of increasing cases is a rather broad debate too.
Focusing on age groups and health vulnerability is the best in my opinion.
I agree with you. My point was that no one is suggesting for anyone else to move back in the queue, but rather for the group in question to secure a place in the queue.
On the flip side of the whole argument, there is a question how far you go with defining priorities. The programme is happening at such rapid pace that perhaps there is a risk of too much complexity possibly slowing everything down?
My hunch that there will be one more round of prioritisation which will be managed through employers. This could for instance use the database of key workers which should already exist and cover nursery staff alongside all others.
Some of this already seems to happen beyond NHS and care homes - I know of a charity admin staff who has had their vaccine.
It will be interesting to see what impact a lower efficacy of the vaccine against newer variants is going to have.
Thanks for sharing. I find that last sentence intriguing - or at least the fact that they see the need to point this out. Or is it just to stop people to try and lobby them? I would very much hope that JCVI are at least being consulted.
On the topic of “key workers” some of those who I mentioned in my previous post aren’t classed as key workers, so won’t get prioritised for a vaccine but, I would suggest, are at high risk of spreading/catching the virus due to the reasons I noted.
Where is this “database of key workers” keyworkers are across all sectors and employers - civil servants, medical staff, supermarket workers, transport workers, utilities staff, HGV drivers delivering food, prison staff etc… etc…
My employer holds one. All staff who were given the status of key workers have received a written letter of proof by the company. I assume they wouldn’t have done this without at least consulting the authorities (I think it was more likely for the company to have been consulted and advised). It would be relatively easy for this employer to confirm who is on that list if government didn’t hold it themselves. Is this not standard practice?
As someone else has pointed out this would not cover every single case but it’s likely good enough to achieve the desirable effect.
Some companies may do so, but it’s not standard practice. Nor is that what this petition about.
By definition, if nursery workers are pushed further up the queue they must be leapfrogging others. You really can’t fit a quart into a pint pot without some displacement.
They could just be “leapfrogging” those who are yet to become part of any priority group, but not necessarily those who have already been confirmed to be part of one.
If you feel strongly that metal workers should get the same treatment, maybe you could start a petition?
Metal workers have been used as an example. If an alternative petition were needed it might be 'petition to ignore petitions from special interest groups '.
But that is just who your employer defines as key workers, not the government.
As I said above I am a key worker but can work from home and have no interaction with the public. Being a key worker does not necessarily mean you are at increased risk of getting covid
If media reports are to be believed the first nine cohorts will have received their first dose of the vaccine by May… even as early as May 6th according to some news outlets.
That would leave the remainder of the population or those under 50. I’ve not seen any plan yet for how those vaccinations will be rolled out but it seems unlikely there would not be further cohorts identified and adhered to.
I cannot find the news article I read, but I had read that this is when other ‘key’ professions with a higher level of interpersonal contact would be addressed. With a suggest that this would happen in the work place such as schools. I suppose eligibility would be defined by being onsite in the workplace more at risk. I’m sure this suggested retail such as grocery as well.
I think that is definitely a possibility. Apart from if they have certain underlying conditions people’s risk of serious illness and death drops drastically below the age of 50 so the need to get everyone vaccinated in strict age order might not be so pressing.
Perhaps it is also possible that this nursery is calling for staff to be vaccinated as the sector is severely struggling and they see vaccination as a measure to help the business survive, as well as helping protecting staff, children and parents:
Given how over-subscribed nurseries seem to be, it would be an utter disaster for parents if so many closed.
However, lots of other sectors are similarly struggling or doing even worse, so I’m not sure this alone is a reason to prioritise vaccination for this group.
New research published a couple of days ago does suggest that at least the Pfizer vaccine will cut the risk of Covid transmission four-fold in one shot, (see Pfizer vaccine cuts Covid-19 transmission risk four-fold, even before second dose: study - CityAM : CityAM), so vaccinating groups that have the most interactions with other people would seem like a sensible strategy for phase 2 i.e. once all the over 50’s and clinically vulnerable have been vaccinated under JCVI’s phase 1.
Interestingly enough, the JVCI have published their guidance for phase 2 of the vaccination program, having been asked by the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) to give their advice on the optimal strategy:
The nursery’s petition seems to have made about 1,000 signatures.
