How would you prioritise the vaccine schedule?

[LDC]

Politicians and the corrupt elites first with the vaccine administered by an independent organisation to eliminate placebo jabs.

New member, check.
Incoherent posts, check.
Hints of anti-lockdown stuff, check.

Any guesses what's coming next?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Politicians and the corrupt elites first with the vaccine administered by an independent organisation to eliminate placebo jabs.

Best you just fuck off now, no point in delaying the inevitable.

 

[quimcunx]

Hospital and care workers globally
Over 80s globally
Vulnerable globally
Over 70s globally
Key workers globally
Over 60s globally
Etc
Rich people and politicians

You cant move on until every country's demographic is covered.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Rich people and politicians

And rank the rich based on how much of a tax dodger they are to determine how near the bottom of the list they go.

 

[William of Walworth]

William of Walworth - yes, I would, personally give less priority to people with pre-existing conditions unless they have to go into hospital or they're a key worker who can't work from home. I can self isolate, but teachers, etc, can't. I'd happily be moved down in the queue to let them go before me.

I do get what you're saying, and it's hard to disagree with prioritising teachers and other key workers, so I absolutely see your point.

Don't forget that many of those with pre-existing conditions do work as well, mind -- sometimes even as teachers .....

But I'm not going to argue anyway -- at least your original list included those with pre-existing conditions (no. 8) higher then 'Everyone else' (no. 10)

 

[scifisam]

I also included people with pre

I do get what you;re saying, and it's hard to disagree with prioritising teachers and other key workers, so I absolutely see your point. Don't forget that many of those with pre-existing conditions do work as well, mind!

But I'm not going to argue anyway -- at least your original list included those with pre-existing conditions (no. 8) higher then 'Everyone else' (no. 10)

I do get what you;re saying, and it's hard to disagree with prioritising teachers and other key workers, so I absolutely see your point. Don't forget that many of those with pre-existing conditions do work as well, mind!

But I'm not going to argue anyway -- at least your original list included those with pre-existing conditions (no. 8) higher then 'Everyone else' (no. 10)

People with pre-existing conditions who have to go out to work would be in my group 4a, or 1a if they work in healthcare (which is how the NHS is doing it already).

 

[William of Walworth]

I also included people with pre

I hope the edit I did to my post clarifies that I did see that -- no issues!

 

[scifisam]

I hope the edit I did to my post clarifies that I did see that -- no issues!

Well, not really, no, but it doesn't matter.

 

[William of Walworth]

To be honest I'm reasonably happy (in general) with the official priority list.

It could do with a few tweaks, principally in terms of broadening the essential workers categories.

But right now, especially after the Oxford/AstraZeneca announcement this morning, the big focus should (IMO!) be on speeding up vaccine distribution/administration as much as logistically possible.

If that happened, then debates about priority details would become less important .....

 

[William of Walworth]

To be honest I'm reasonably happy (in general) with the official priority list.

It could do with a few tweaks, principally in terms of broadening the essential workers categories.

But right now, especially after the Oxford/AstraZeneca announcement this morning, the big focus should (IMO!) be on speeding up vaccine distribution/administration as much as logistically possible.

If that happened, then debates about priority details would become less important .....

I'm in part out of date, it now seems - as of today, official priority listings are now under review -- the old stuff that I linked to above has now been withdrawn.

There'll be more from the JCVI soon, I'm sure.

 

[Indeliblelink]

Public Health England had this on twitter earlier today
mmm no mention of education work force

 

[iona]

(At the moment I think you have to have some vaccines (like Hep B), as well as be tested for some things (HIV) to work in healthcare. I say I think as I'm not 100% sure it's do it or lose your job, but it is presented in that way. Anyone know for sure?)

Short answer: it depends/it's complicated. There's (iirc) 50-odd pages of phe guidance I can dig out if you're reeeally interested.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Public Health England had this on twitter earlier todayView attachment 246087
mmm no mention of education work force

Over-50s as a group more likely to vote tory than teachers, I reckon

 

[LDC]

Short answer: it depends/it's complicated. There's (iirc) 50-odd pages of phe guidance I can dig out if you're reeeally interested.

Thanks (I think!). I'll have a look. I work in healthcare and recently had a Hep B booster (and an MMR as I'd never had it) but wonder what would have happened if refused. It is a total minefield I know re: worker rights etc. as well as all the other stuff. I know a few healthcare workers who are this vaccine skeptical at best, anti-vaxxers at worst so made me think about it.

 

[iona]

Thanks (I think!). I'll have a look. I work in healthcare and recently had a Hep B booster (and an MMR as I'd never had it) but wonder what wiuld have happened if refused. I know a few healthcare workers who are this vaccine skeptical at best, anti-vaxxers at worst so made me think about it.

Went looking anyway because I'm the kind of boring twat who reads things like phe guidance and health technical memorandums just out of interest

This (pdf) is the one I remembered from when I was dental nursing, not sure if it still applies or if it's been rolled into this (pdf) guidance for healthcare workers with BBVs.

E2a: that second pdf says current guidance for immunising HCWs can be found in the green book ('Immunisation against Infectious Disease') but a quick skim through the relevant chapter of that looks a lot less detailed than the first pdf I linked to.

 

[wtfftw]

Apparently it's a no if you're pregnant or breastfeeding but not the same in the states?

Guidance has changed on this

The JCVI has also amended its previous highly precautionary advice on COVID-19 vaccines and pregnancy or breastfeeding. Vaccination with either vaccine in pregnancy should be considered where the risk of exposure SARS-CoV2 infection is high and cannot be avoided, or where the woman has underlying conditions that place her at very high risk of serious complications of COVID-19, and the risks and benefits of vaccination should be discussed. Those who are trying to become pregnant do not need to avoid pregnancy after vaccination, and breastfeeding women may be offered vaccination with either vaccine following consideration of the woman’s clinical need for immunisation against COVID-19. The UK Chief Medical Officers agree with this advice.

Statement from the UK Chief Medical Officers on the prioritisation of first doses of COVID-19 vaccines

Joint clinical advice from the 4 UK Chief Medical Officers on the prioritisation of first doses of the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines.

www.gov.uk

(I know, not about how I'd prioritise)

 

[scifisam]

Guidance has changed on this

Statement from the UK Chief Medical Officers on the prioritisation of first doses of COVID-19 vaccines

Joint clinical advice from the 4 UK Chief Medical Officers on the prioritisation of first doses of the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines.

www.gov.uk

(I know, not about how I'd prioritise)

That seems like a sensible change.

 

[MickiQ]

That seems like a sensible change.

Yeah well this was drawn up by doctors not politicians who no doubt will intervene to bugger it up

 

[elbows]

Yeah well this was drawn up by doctors not politicians who no doubt will intervene to bugger it up

The politicians are busily promoting the 'prioritise the first dose' approach today, they are very much onboard.

 

[frogwoman]

This...doesn't sound very sensible tbh

 

[gentlegreen]

This...doesn't sound very sensible tbh

I haven't paid any more attention than usual to the crap spouted by the government, but hopefully they have let people know that even having the second shot doesn't mean people can stop being cautious any time soon ?

I.e. masks and distance until late in 2021 at the earliest ...

 

[weltweit]

Blair was promoting this idea of doing lots of first jabs last week.

I am assuming there should be a lot of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines about for use soon and they should be able to be administered in lots more NHS locations.

 

[SpookyFrank]

This...doesn't sound very sensible tbh

Just when you think something was maybe starting to go right...

Realistically they don't seem to be organised enough to get the right people to the right places at the same time as enough vaccines to deliver second doses. But I really don't think treating a second dose as an optional extra makes much sense. You're potentially delaying the point at which anyone at all has effective immunity.

 

[William of Walworth]

Blair was promoting this idea of doing lots of first jabs last week.

I am assuming there should be a lot of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines about for use soon and they should be able to be administered in lots more NHS locations.

That's exactly what I'm hoping.
Looks to me like what Hancock seems (?) to have recommended about only the first dose being needed for the time being, and about second-dose Pfizer jabs should be cancelled, is a misreading of what's really suggested.

That is, when you read what JCVI said about first and second doses, they do emphasise that even if delayed, second doses should happen with both the Pfizer/BioNtech and the Oxford/Astra/Zeneca vaccines :

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has subsequently recommended that as many people on the JCVI priority list as possible should sequentially be offered a first vaccine dose as the initial priority. They have advised that the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may be given between 3 to 12 weeks following the first dose, and that the second dose of the AstraZeneca (Oxford) vaccine may be given between 4 to 12 weeks following the first dose. The clinical risk priority order for deployment of the vaccines remains unchanged and applies to both vaccines. Both are very effective vaccines.

 

[chilango]

By wealth (reverse order).

Should focus minds a little.

 

[weltweit]

..
Realistically they don't seem to be organised enough to get the right people to the right places at the same time as enough vaccines to deliver second doses. But I really don't think treating a second dose as an optional extra makes much sense. You're potentially delaying the point at which anyone at all has effective immunity.

I think the calculation they are making is that for example with the AstraZeneca/Oxford Vaccine you can get 60% immunity from the first dose and a reduced illness if you do get it, so hit a lot of vulnerable people with the first dose and already you will be saving lives.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just when you think something was maybe starting to go right...

Realistically they don't seem to be organised enough to get the right people to the right places at the same time as enough vaccines to deliver second doses. But I really don't think treating a second dose as an optional extra makes much sense. You're potentially delaying the point at which anyone at all has effective immunity.

It would be helpful if they published their workings. Ultimately it's about saving the most lives, and it could easily be that providing more people with partial immunity saves more lives than providing fewer people with greater immunity. The general levels of infection and infectiousness will affect that calculation. Someone somewhere will have done the maths on it. I don't know if it's been made available - I can't find it if it has. There does also seem to be some doubt about how effective the first dose is on its own. This article suggests perhaps 80% with the Pfizer one, but nobody really knows for sure because the tests weren't designed to find out. If it is 80%, I can see sense in prioritising one dose for the first month or two.

But we don't have a government that trusts us with information! Big part of the problem.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I think the calculation they are making is that for example with the AstraZeneca/Oxford Vaccine you can get 60% immunity from the first dose and a reduced illness if you do get it, so hit a lot of vulnerable people with the first dose and already you will be saving lives.

I dunno, if it says on the box 'two doses' then people should be given two doses. I certainly don't trust Hancock to make the call that second doses aren't needed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I dunno, if it says on the box 'two doses' then people should be given two doses. I certainly don't trust Hancock to make the call that second doses aren't needed.

That's where publishing the workings should come in. You wouldn't have to trust Hancock then - you'd have all the information he does to be able to evaluate his decision. It's been one of my biggest gripes with the UK during the pandemic - the attitude of secrecy as if this were a matter of national security. It's not. It's a matter of national health. There is no reason at all not to be totally open about all decisions.

 

[platinumsage]

Its from JCVI not Hancock:

JCVI issues advice on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has issued its advice on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

www.gov.uk