I'm well aware that the vast majority cannot even think about my suspicion that Covid19 is nowhere near as deadly as media has hyped it and that media deliberately exaggerated the dangers when it was first discovered in Wuhan. Like religion, if you believe something, very little can change your mind or even make you re-assess. So most people simply reinterpret into ludicrous extremes (like conspiracy theories) in order to reject it more convincingly. The rapid discovery of vaccines which render it harmless only makes me suspect I was right indeed about it. Likewise the Oxford "miracle vaccine". I suspect (and hope) that, since this is essentially a trivial virus, all vaccines will have some kind of effect. That's why I've always taken the flu vaccine and now being 76, a Covid vaccine is even more important to my tired old body. But I do find it very disturbing that the manufacturers and, worse, the authorising bodies are perfectly happy that so few older people were tested with it before it was sanctioned. And that this didn't worry our Prime Minister. Still, medically "I know nothing". My fear is - neither does he.

And this is worth bearing in mind... I seem to remember the Flu vaccine, at its best, is under 50% effective but, I always found, it does lessen the symptoms. Except that year when we were given the wrong vaccine (I spent 4-5 days in bed in Morocco in early 2018).

On Thursday, Novavax Inc. announced a trial conducted in the UK found that its COVID-19 vaccine is nearly 90% effective in preventing infection. The results from the trial suggest that the vaccine offers protection against the more contagious UK variant of COVID-19. However, the company also found that the vaccine was not as effective — just less than 50% — in a smaller study in South Africa, largely due to the presence of the B.1.351 variant.

Apologies if all this is far too complex for the majority of 21st Century thinkers.

I'm told the reason over 65s are rarely amongst test groups is because most have underlying health problems and are on various medications which could affect the efficacy of a vaccine. But isn't that the point? Isn't that WHY so many older people have been dying? So isn't it more important to test for that generation? I really do wonder if it is MY brain that can't work out these things. They seem so obvious. Surely experts consider these?

I think you are correct in the vaccine debate not seeming to make sense because some of us have been correct all along that this has been a much hyped virus in terms how lethal it is.

Of course a vaccine efficacy of 50-60% is ok because then deaths won't amount to more than a normal flu season, and we know now how to treat it better. And the NHS won't struggle, so it becomes politically safer.

Just imagine, in contrast, saying that a 50% vaccine efficacy would be ok to lift lockdown if our island was covered with ebola. There is no doubt C19 has been hyped.

Yes the elderly will be hit more; but they will be by most viruses. The public conversation will move on; we will be surprised how fast we accommodate this virus along with others after March. Silly things will linger, mask rules here and there. Conspiracy theorists will move on to the next suspicious explanatory gap.

Spring will warm our tired souls and the Easter Bunny bring chocolate eggs.

JK2006 wrote:
I'm told the reason over 65s are rarely amongst test groups is because most have underlying health problems and are on various medications which could affect the efficacy of a vaccine. But isn't that the point? Isn't that WHY so many older people have been dying? So isn't it more important to test for that generation? I really do wonder if it is MY brain that can't work out these things. They seem so obvious. Surely experts consider these?

You almost cited the reason but not quite. The problem isn't the underlying condition itself but rather the multiple drugs that the over 65 age folks group will be taking to combat and/or control those ailments. When analysing test results you need to have controls and be able to eliminate other factors.

Exactly BB - isn't it rather important to see if the interaction might be damaging (or negating)? So how can a test not include a large percentage of old people taking those drugs? Statins. Glucose control. Gout. Aspirin. I'm on the lot (and much more).,