[JD6]

Originally Posted by Hooded

The majority of under 50’s won’t get offered it until the autumn anyway so they can do exactly what I’m doing if they choose and it’ll make no difference

We’re vaccinating more than 1.5 million a week as of yesterday. I guess that we’ll be at 3 million a week within a month, given the target that has been set. I don’t know your age (perhaps about 12 given that you just asked someone you disagreed with for a fight ) but at that rate under 50s should start to be offered their first jab around April.

The calculator only allows a single rate to be used, so if we assume 3m a week, you can insert that but I suggest adding a couple of weeks to allow for the ramp up.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

[isleaiw1]

An unqualified yes from me. The restrictions necessary to protect the vulnerable are too damaging to continue long term and it needs most of us to have the vaccine to be able to move on - I will take any small risk around efficacy changes due to delay of getting second shot or side effects as a small price to pay to help the majority get their lives back.

Its not all about me, you see.....

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

An unqualified yes from me. The restrictions necessary to protect the vulnerable are too damaging to continue long term and it needs most of us to have the vaccine to be able to move on - I will take any small risk around efficacy changes due to delay of getting second shot or side effects as a small price to pay to help the majority get their lives back.

Its not all about me, you see.....

However many experts are saying it’s likely you can still spread the virus to others if you catch it even if you’ve been vaccinated. You just won’t get sick yourself you’ll become an asymptomatic carrier temporarily, that’s why you’ve still got to wear a mask everywhere until all the vulnerable groups have been vaccinated even if you are protected.

So It’s likely having the vaccine will just be about you and your own protection after all you see

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

As has been said before, it's a good job that not all under-50s are taking your view of waiting for more data. We would be in lockdown for an awfully long time, if the vote in this poll was 98% no.

Why would we stay in lockdown if the only people who aren't protected are those with a very small chance of either developing severe symptoms or dying? I was reading an article a week or so back that said last year around three times as many under-60's had died in the UK in road accidents as had died from Covid. Notwithstanding the risk I'm sure that age group will continue to get in their cars and drive so why would we lockdown to protect them from the much smaller risk posed by Covid?

[Pentland]

Originally Posted by SteveChester

Couple of No votes so far - would be interested in finding out from those people reasons for voting not to have it.

Perhaps. However, given the pelters against one who abstained, the presence of our own chief (medical) expert on this thread combined with the for and against numbers, I suspect all it would achieve is another thread deletion.

[CajunBMW]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Why would we stay in lockdown if the only people who aren't protected are those with a very small chance of either developing severe symptoms or dying? I was reading an article a week or so back that said last year around three times as many under-60's had died in the UK in road accidents as had died from Covid. Notwithstanding the risk I'm sure that age group will continue to get in their cars and drive so why would we lockdown to protect them from the much smaller risk posed by Covid?

My guess is the lockdown will only end when numbers go down to acceptable levels of infections/deaths. So if that is due to it being summer, vaccine acceptance, mask wearing, etc then that is when the lockdown will subside. The epidemiologists will easily, as will anyone else who watches the news, note when numbers get to some acceptable level. What that acceptable level is will likely depend on our respective governments and what the feel comfortable with as far as infections and deaths. Again, this is just my opinion, but these values have been driving all the decisions around the world, so I don't see why that would change.

[CajunBMW]

Originally Posted by SteveChester

Anyone on the forum had it? It will be a while before I get mine I think looking at the JVCI list but looking forward to having it and hopefully getting back to some form of normality later this year!!

Anyone not having it and why not?

So I am a yes and have already had both shots, as have my wife and 17 yo daughter. We all even have our official CDC certificates saying we have been vaccinated (I suppose it means we can travel outside the country, although I am not sure where we can go right now). Maybe this will allow us all to head to Hawaii this summer. Now that would be fun.

All is well with us, other than a mild headache with dose 2 and maybe a bit more tired than usual on the second day. Thus we are good and have had no issues with vaccine. From my point of view I am very satisfied with the vaccine and it's safety profile and thus am recommending it to all who want to go out and about. For clarity I had the Pfizer vaccine and am working with our clinical trials office who in turn work directly with Pfizer. The three of us were all in the clinical trial so got the vaccine a bit early then most. I even made a few dollars as a guinea pig and now can get the better tail pipes to make the mppsk on my car standout more - so bonus....I am protected from the darn new CoV and get a sportier look to my car. My wife and daughter also got funds and spent them on new clothes.
Cheers,

[CajunBMW]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

An unqualified yes from me. The restrictions necessary to protect the vulnerable are too damaging to continue long term and it needs most of us to have the vaccine to be able to move on - I will take any small risk around efficacy changes due to delay of getting second shot or side effects as a small price to pay to help the majority get their lives back.

Its not all about me, you see.....

The only real side effects are a very slim chance of an allergic reaction with 5-15 mins. We are handling that by observing all of the hospital and med school staff for 20 mins after the vaccination. We also have Benadryl and epinephrine on site.

We are a charity hospital and med school and are the official vaccine distribution center for our citizens in this part of the state. Thus as part of our service mission we are vaccinating the 65 and older crowd right now. We are doing vaccinations in their cars and then keeping them around for 20 mins to monitor for issues. We have trained nurses and Docs to resolve any problems.

The other reported issues are headaches, mild fever, pain at the site of injection, malaise, fatigue, mild body aches the next day or two or maybe even three for some. There have been no other issues with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines that we are aware of or have been reported. Essentially all side effects occur quickly within mins or within a few days to a week or so after vaccination. Nothing but else has been noted in the 10's of million already vaccinated.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Why would we stay in lockdown if the only people who aren't protected are those with a very small chance of either developing severe symptoms or dying? I was reading an article a week or so back that said last year around three times as many under-60's had died in the UK in road accidents as had died from Covid. Notwithstanding the risk I'm sure that age group will continue to get in their cars and drive so why would we lockdown to protect them from the much smaller risk posed by Covid?

Erm, even in lockdown we have a reasonable number of under 50s in hospital and some, sadly, dying. If we were all bouncing around the pubs and restaurants, my back of the *** packet calculations say that those numbers would increase between tenfold and a thousand fold (I left my accurate *** packet at home). If I take my Close of largely under-50s, I wouldn't want all of us catching covid and I wouldn't guarantee we'd all come out unscathed. We've all been staying alternately hunkered down and locked down for ten months and there will be tens of thousands of streets in the same position.

[planemad]

Originally Posted by CajunBMW

The only real side effects are a very slim chance of an allergic reaction with 5-15 mins. We are handling that by observing all of the hospital and med school staff for 20 mins after the vaccination. We also have Benadryl and epinephrine on site.

We are a charity hospital and med school and are the official vaccine distribution center for our citizens in this part of the state. Thus as part of our service mission we are vaccinating the 65 and older crowd right now. We are doing vaccinations in their cars and then keeping them around for 20 mins to monitor for issues. We have trained nurses and Docs to resolve any problems.

The other reported issues are headaches, mild fever, pain at the site of injection, malaise, fatigue, mild body aches the next day or two or maybe even three for some. There have been no other issues with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines that we are aware of or have been reported. Essentially all side effects occur quickly within mins or within a few days to a week or so after vaccination. Nothing but else has been noted in the 10's of million already vaccinated.

Great summary Cajun. Very educating.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JD6

The U.K. wide figure is 224,000 vaccinated on Tuesday according to C4 factcheck, which is 1.568 million per week, up from 165,000 the day before.

Anecdotally, my parents (late 70s no underlying health issues) both received their Pfizer jab today at the local health centre. Apparently it didn’t seem to be stretched at all. If that’s representative of other places too, stepping up to 3 million a week once more places are giving it looks feasible. My money is on them hitting their mid February target for the over 70s, except for a tiny minority.




https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...nation-targets

Yes, they’ve probably got figures from all countries. Just looked again at my link to the official NHS figures and they’re for England only.

Now pharmacies are starting to administer as well I wonder how accurate they’re going to be able to keep the stats. Not that it matters too much if it means a bit of under reporting.

[SteveChester]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Yes, they’ve probably got figures from all countries. Just looked again at my link to the official NHS figures and they’re for England only.

Now pharmacies are starting to administer as well I wonder how accurate they’re going to be able to keep the stats. Not that it matters too much if it means a bit of under reporting.

The numbers getting vaccinating and the infrastructure that has been put in place in a relatively short space of time is quite impressive and is probably one of the few things this government has actually done a good job so far on doing. I do think we stand a good chance of meeting the target - I think it may slip a week or so but really think that with most of the high risk categories done we should be able at the start of March to at least lift lockdown and go back to Tier 4 then 3 etc. Think they will need to get down to the over 50's before we can go back to 2 and then hopefully 1 later in the year.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by CajunBMW

My guess is the lockdown will only end when numbers go down to acceptable levels of infections/deaths. So if that is due to it being summer, vaccine acceptance, mask wearing, etc then that is when the lockdown will subside. The epidemiologists will easily, as will anyone else who watches the news, note when numbers get to some acceptable level. What that acceptable level is will likely depend on our respective governments and what the feel comfortable with as far as infections and deaths. Again, this is just my opinion, but these values have been driving all the decisions around the world, so I don't see why that would change.

I don't disagree with that but thus far the evidence has been the ratio of infections to deaths varies significantly depending on age (with the elderly by far the most likely to develop severe symptoms and die). Therefore, if that vulnerable group has been vaccinated, what I'm questioning is why we'd continue with a general lockdown; in effect wouldn't you be doing it - with all the negatives it involves - to protect a group which, on the whole, doesn't really need protecting?

In saying that I'm certainly not suggesting people under 50 don't get Covid and die; some clearly do and it's obviously very sad when that happens. However, the point I'm making is there are other activities which apparently present a higher risk to that age group yet we seem perfectly happy to continue to undertake those. It therefore seems to me some people have an additional risk aversion where Covid's concerned and, while that's understandable given the events of the last year, condemning everyone to on-going lockdowns to mitigate that heightened anxiety isn't reasonable or sensible in my view.

I should probably also clarify that I'm not suggesting we'd just jump straight from lockdowns back to the "old normal" either; I'm sure an element of social distancing - and things like mask wearing - will be with us for a while but IMO that's quite different from a lockdown.

I just think there's a balance to be struck between protecting people from Covid on the one hand and destroying the economy and society through lockdowns on the other. There has to come at time when you start to relax restrictions and commence a move back towards normality and personally I think that process should start once the vulnerable groups have been vaccinated....

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

Erm, even in lockdown we have a reasonable number of under 50s in hospital and some, sadly, dying. If we were all bouncing around the pubs and restaurants, my back of the *** packet calculations say that those numbers would increase between tenfold and a thousand fold (I left my accurate *** packet at home). If I take my Close of largely under-50s, I wouldn't want all of us catching covid and I wouldn't guarantee we'd all come out unscathed. We've all been staying alternately hunkered down and locked down for ten months and there will be tens of thousands of streets in the same position.

Yes and I daresay as a result of the sort of thing you describe we've all been doing a lot less miles which will in turn have reduced the level of road accidents and fatalities as well.

Anyway, leaving that aside the reality is the evidence shows the mortality rate of Covid is much reduced for lower age groups and the actual figures on fatalities I mentioned were from NHS data (and therefore factual); in contrast you're offering "calculations" that are, to put it politely, little more than wild speculation!

And if you're really worried about Covid isn't it about time you gave up those cigarettes?

[Ronstein]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I don't disagree with that but thus far the evidence has been the ratio of infections to deaths varies significantly depending on age (with the elderly by far the most likely to develop severe symptoms and die). Therefore, if that vulnerable group has been vaccinated, what I'm questioning is why we'd continue with a general lockdown; in effect wouldn't you be doing it - with all the negatives it involves - to protect a group which, on the whole, doesn't really need protecting?

In saying that I'm certainly not suggesting people under 50 don't get Covid and die; some clearly do and it's obviously very sad when that happens. However, the point I'm making is there are other activities which apparently present a higher risk to that age group yet we seem perfectly happy to continue to undertake those. It therefore seems to me some people have an additional risk aversion where Covid's concerned and, while that's understandable given the events of the last year, condemning everyone to on-going lockdowns to mitigate that heightened anxiety isn't reasonable or sensible in my view.

I should probably also clarify that I'm not suggesting we'd just jump straight from lockdowns back to the "old normal" either; I'm sure an element of social distancing - and things like mask wearing - will be with us for a while but IMO that's quite different from a lockdown.

I just think there's a balance to be struck between protecting people from Covid on the one hand and destroying the economy and society through lockdowns on the other. There has to come at time when you start to relax restrictions and commence a move back towards normality and personally I think that process should start once the vulnerable groups have been vaccinated....

The lockdown or the Tier system? Lockdown will end when the hospitalisations get back to a manageable level, at which point the Tiers will be re-introduced. The decisions around the Tiers will continue to be a political balancing act for the government between those calling for both extremes of action (all or none) but I can believe those that suggest that our way of life has changed to some extent for the foreseeable future due to this Covid, unless is mutates and dies out like SARS did

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I don't disagree with that but thus far the evidence has been the ratio of infections to deaths varies significantly depending on age (with the elderly by far the most likely to develop severe symptoms and die). Therefore, if that vulnerable group has been vaccinated, what I'm questioning is why we'd continue with a general lockdown; in effect wouldn't you be doing it - with all the negatives it involves - to protect a group which, on the whole, doesn't really need protecting?

In saying that I'm certainly not suggesting people under 50 don't get Covid and die; some clearly do and it's obviously very sad when that happens. However, the point I'm making is there are other activities which apparently present a higher risk to that age group yet we seem perfectly happy to continue to undertake those. It therefore seems to me some people have an additional risk aversion where Covid's concerned and, while that's understandable given the events of the last year, condemning everyone to on-going lockdowns to mitigate that heightened anxiety isn't reasonable or sensible in my view.

I should probably also clarify that I'm not suggesting we'd just jump straight from lockdowns back to the "old normal" either; I'm sure an element of social distancing - and things like mask wearing - will be with us for a while but IMO that's quite different from a lockdown.

I just think there's a balance to be struck between protecting people from Covid on the one hand and destroying the economy and society through lockdowns on the other. There has to come at time when you start to relax restrictions and commence a move back towards normality and personally I think that process should start once the vulnerable groups have been vaccinated....

I completely agree with those points. The risk of death from covid for under 50s (0.1/2%) is considerably lower than the risk from flu for say over 70s (1%). So once they’ve vaccinated the majority of the over 50s and vulnerable people we should be able to remove the majority of lockdown restrictions while then gradually rolling the vaccine out to the younger population.

There has to be a sensible balance between protecting people and destroying the economy and taking away your freedom which affects mental health considerably for many.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Yes and I daresay as a result of the sort of thing you describe we've all been doing a lot less miles which will in turn have reduced the level of road accidents and fatalities as well.

Anyway, leaving that aside the reality is the evidence shows the mortality rate of Covid is much reduced for lower age groups and the actual figures on fatalities I mentioned were from NHS data (and therefore factual); in contrast you're offering "calculations" that are, to put it politely, little more than wild speculation!

And if you're really worried about Covid isn't it about time you gave up those cigarettes?

You're welcome to believe that Covid infections and impacts would be other than between 10x and 1000x greater in the under-50s without a vaccine and the lockdowns. I'm certainly not going to try to prove you wrong if you have a different view on either, or both of, the transmissibility of the disease and the impact of the reduction in physical interactions.

Luckily we have a vaccine and a large majority of sensible and unselfish types willing to take it.

I really don't know what car accident death rates have to do with it. At, what, 3k a year, they are very small in comparison.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Hooded

I completely agree with those points. The risk of death from covid for under 50s (0.1/2%) is considerably lower than the risk from flu for say over 70s (1%). So once they’ve vaccinated the majority of the over 50s and vulnerable people we should be able to remove the majority of lockdown restrictions while then gradually rolling the vaccine out to the younger population.

There has to be a sensible balance between protecting people and destroying the economy and taking away your freedom which affects mental health considerably for many.

The big issue isnt deaths only but pressure on NHS so to make that decision I'd need to see the numbers on under 50s in hospital and needing intervention first...

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

The big issue isnt deaths only but pressure on NHS so to make that decision I'd need to see the numbers on under 50s in hospital and needing intervention first...

Agree, but Didn’t the government recently say on a briefing that over 80% are in the 4 groups that they are vaccinating first before mid Feb?

If that is the case we should be good to go by at least late March (taking into account the delay between initial infection and hospitalisation etc). The government only care about the hospitals becoming overrun and running out of critical care beds, once that is solved we are all expendable as individuals and second to fixing the economy to the government.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

You're welcome to believe that Covid infections and impacts would be other than between 10x and 1000x greater in the under-50s without a vaccine and the lockdowns. I'm certainly not going to try to prove you wrong if you have a different view on either, or both of, the transmissibility of the disease and the impact of the reduction in physical interactions.

I've no idea what the impact would be but, equally, neither have you; like I said, you're just speculating.

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

Luckily we have a vaccine and a large majority of sensible and unselfish types willing to take it.

I agree that for most - and especially those in the vulnerable groups - it would be silly not to take the vaccine and, as I've said previously, I'll certainly take it when offered. I'm not sure why those who refuse would be classified as selfish though - surely that's only the case if the vaccines are shown to prevent the spread of the virus but I don't think that's been proved?

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

I really don't know what car accident death rates have to do with it. At, what, 3k a year, they are very small in comparison.

What the death rate on the roads has to do with it is we're prepared to accept that risk as part of our normal lives yet with Covid we - or at least some - demand continued lockdowns to mitigate what is actually a lower risk. It's like back in September when some were worried about sending Henry and Henrietta back to school - because it might not be safe - only to have it pointed out to them that their children were far more at risk of dying in the back of mummy's Chelsea Tractor on the way to or from school than they were of dying from Covid picked-up while they were there. So the point I'm making is some have an inconsistent and (IMO) illogical attitude to risk.

[CajunBMW]

Originally Posted by Ronstein

The lockdown or the Tier system? Lockdown will end when the hospitalisations get back to a manageable level, at which point the Tiers will be re-introduced. The decisions around the Tiers will continue to be a political balancing act for the government between those calling for both extremes of action (all or none) but I can believe those that suggest that our way of life has changed to some extent for the foreseeable future due to this Covid, unless is mutates and dies out like SARS did

Yes that is exactly my point above. The ending of lockdowns will be data driven. If vaccinating the 65 and older crowd drives infections and deaths to a low level than things open up. It is not the act of vaccination per se that will open our respective countries up but the efficacy of that vaccine to drive numbers down.

[CajunBMW]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I don't disagree with that but thus far the evidence has been the ratio of infections to deaths varies significantly depending on age (with the elderly by far the most likely to develop severe symptoms and die). Therefore, if that vulnerable group has been vaccinated, what I'm questioning is why we'd continue with a general lockdown; in effect wouldn't you be doing it - with all the negatives it involves - to protect a group which, on the whole, doesn't really need protecting?

In saying that I'm certainly not suggesting people under 50 don't get Covid and die; some clearly do and it's obviously very sad when that happens. However, the point I'm making is there are other activities which apparently present a higher risk to that age group yet we seem perfectly happy to continue to undertake those. It therefore seems to me some people have an additional risk aversion where Covid's concerned and, while that's understandable given the events of the last year, condemning everyone to on-going lockdowns to mitigate that heightened anxiety isn't reasonable or sensible in my view.

I should probably also clarify that I'm not suggesting we'd just jump straight from lockdowns back to the "old normal" either; I'm sure an element of social distancing - and things like mask wearing - will be with us for a while but IMO that's quite different from a lockdown.

I just think there's a balance to be struck between protecting people from Covid on the one hand and destroying the economy and society through lockdowns on the other. There has to come at time when you start to relax restrictions and commence a move back towards normality and personally I think that process should start once the vulnerable groups have been vaccinated....

I do think all these things will be taken into account, but I still believe the major driver of lockdown or no lockdown or something in between will be the numbers. So if deaths drop as expected with the vaccine then that will relive pressure on the health care system and then things will open up. If the virus mutates and becomes less virulent then that would also be good. On the other hand if we remove what is now the vulnerable population and the virus takes a sinister turn and infects those 55 and under at a greater rate and causes issues similar to the 1918 flu which really targeted and caused deaths in the 20-50 crowd then lock downs would go back in place until those folks got vaccinated. Obviously that is not a scenario I favor, but in this thought exercise, it was to illustrate how fluid the situation could be. That is why I believe numbers and statistics will drive the governmental decisions. Obviously just my opinion.