Please let me know if this is a bonkers suggestion, because I have been thoroughly shot down for this, but I think they have got the order back to front.

They say vaccines are less effective on older people, and delivery will take a while, because you will have to make an appointment and hang around for a while afterwards in case of side effects.

I think they should do medical staff, (they are) and then everyone in schools, colleges, universities next, because these people are most likely to pass it on and least likely to know they have it, so I am thinking that you can protect the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time this way, as the vaccinations could be administered on site.
Then do older people.
What am I missing?

Countries are measured - in humanitarian terms - on how they treat their vulnerable.

With the exception of medics - and a few others - it would be illogical to treat others first.

Particularly students, who - because of their youth and general fitness - are probably the least vulnerable.

And also - the least likely to be infected.

If they are, brief isolation periods (without vaccine) have been shown to be enough.

Honey wrote:

What am I missing?


Interesting idea but one thing missing is that (at the moment) receiving a vaccination is voluntary. The young lack any motive to recieve a new vaccine given they effectively face no risk from Covid.

Now if you re opened the union bar and paid them in beer tokens you'd be on to a winner!

middlemas wrote:
Countries are measured - in humanitarian terms - on how they treat their vulnerable.

With the exception of medics - and a few others - it would be illogical to treat others first.

Particularly students, who - because of their youth and general fitness - are probably the least vulnerable.

And also - the least likely to be infected.

If they are, brief isolation periods (without vaccine) have been shown to be enough.

Except that hardly anyone IS isolating.

My point is not to protect the young, because they dont need protecting, but to stop them spreading the (symptomless) infection to older people.
Vaccinate the people MOST likely to have it first, not the least, and then the ones who need it are doubly protected.

Wyot wrote:
Honey wrote:

What am I missing?


Interesting idea but one thing missing is that (at the moment) receiving a vaccination is voluntary. The young lack any motive to recieve a new vaccine given they effectively face no risk from Covid.

Now if you re opened the union bar and paid them in beer tokens you'd be on to a winner!

Why not? It is cheaper than constantly furloughing and baling out businesses.

I think parents are more likely to give permission in a school setting, and not everyone needs to be vaccinated for herd immunity.

Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
Honey wrote:

What am I missing?

I think parents are more likely to give permission in a school setting, and not everyone needs to be vaccinated for herd immunity.

I have school age children. I have no problems with vaccinations; they have had them all. I have nothing but scorn for the MMR deniers. But I would be troubled by them having a vaccine for Covid at this stage. It feels rushed out.

I suppose the main difference to other vaccines is that Covid as it stands is not a threat to my children.

I get that it may be for the greater good of society. But I suspect that, when it comes to it, most parents won't prioritise this when it comes to having their children injected with the thing that has been portrayed as the greatest plague of all time...

I suspect that the media portrayal of Covid (even to an arch sceptic like me) will have caused a lot of problems in the coming battle to vaccinate against it.

The rules are different when it comes to one's children (or self)....

Wyot - you frequently advocated lockdown until we had a vaccine.


Now, when we have one (almost) - you think it shouldn't be taken?

middlemas wrote:
Wyot - you frequently advocated lockdown until we had a vaccine.


Middlemas, I have posted consistently anti lockdown material since March...

Please peruse the archives and quote me if you believe otherwise.

But did you not type that we should stay in lockdown until we have a vaccine?

middlemas wrote:
But did you not type that we should stay in lockdown until we have a vaccine?

Only if he was temporarily possessed.

Honey wrote:
middlemas wrote:
But did you not type that we should stay in lockdown until we have a vaccine?

Only if he was temporarily possessed.

Glad at least I have an audience of one paying attention!!

His post quite depressed me...Pissing in the wind was the image it conjured for me...

Honey wrote:

What am I missing?

Its a very valid observation
On Radio 4 tonight I heard a vaccine expert say that this question of who should get it first is still to be determined and could well change after first wave of vaccine. Its not a simple old v young and apparently they are prepared to be flexible depending on how effective the vaccine is in the different groups

Wyot wrote:
His post quite depressed me...Pissing in the wind was the image it conjured for me...


See my Sage post, stop being depressed and try to remember what you post!

See my Sage post genius and get over me ffs...

Wyot wrote:
See my Sage post genius and get over me ffs...

Middlemas AKA Barney should be the first to take the vaccine. Then we sit and watch for any nasty side effects.

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-professor-jo...cine-safety-12129815


Why don't Van Tam take the jab first ?


Why didn't John Gummer eat the burger ?