[BeesKnee5]

I'm not claiming the virus is going away. We are likely to see a similar situation to the flu virus dependant on viral mutation and also the longevity of resistance we get from the vaccine.

The key point is allowing this virus to spread or to try to manage it at a specific level has been shown to be irresponsible, better to treat it like smallpox and measles by attempting to eradicate it. You don't see many smallpox mutations these days.

[B0ycey]

The key point is allowing this virus to spread or to try to manage it at a specific level has been shown to be irresponsible, better to treat it like smallpox and measles by attempting to eradicate it. You don't see many smallpox mutations these days.

Well Smallpox is locked away in bio-laboratories today so sure, no mutations there.

If you want eradication, you should be asking for a Wuhan type lockdown rather than vaccinating the young. But that would mean a global effort and as such defacto impossible unless you don't ever want to open up your borders again. The other strategy is to mitigate. Nonetheless as I have already said, you are not going to stop mutations although you can manipulate what type of mutations you will come across. So going back to my first response to you, what is the objective? To save lives or to stop case rates? Because last March it was all about saving lives and today it seems we now have been conditioned to believe case rates are more important. Cases rates are the political narrative to justify their failures. So in general I usually ignore that propaganda today given I have no respect for the Tories and their clusterfuck. And as their actions to focus on vaccinate the vulnerable seems to be what is occurring, governments who are vaccinating today seem to be focusing on lives rather than cases in any case. But because people like yourself have been conditioned to think cases are more important, your revelation and ideal strategy doesn't surprise me in the slightest. But that still doesn't mean it is right.

[blackjack21]

Case rate is the new buzzword I see. Funny considering it was deaths rate during the first wave. Young people in general don't die from covid19. That is to say if you can vaccinate the vulnerable first that basically achieves what we were trying to achieve last March. That is to unburden the health service and save the most lives.

That doesn't seem to be their aim anymore. They want to prioritize minorities in the US.

I'm not trying to force hundreds of millions of people to be guinea pigs in a big pharma experiment just to save my old ass.

What do you think of this sudden interest in prioritizing minorities over the elderly--the ones most likely to die from covid?

Current evidence shows that those from a Black, Asian, or minority ethnic background have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19.

Fatalities are mostly among the elderly. They are the most vulnerable by far when looking at the mortality statistics.

Unbunch thy panties.

Hey, you're much closer to that vulnerable age range than me. If it doesn't bother you, it doesn't really bother me either.

Don't vaccinate the elderly who may die any day anyway, vaccinate those who they come into contact with and those who are vulnerable and cannot be isolated.

Well, that's precisely the opposite argument we have from above. They all blast Sivad for characterizing people as "coffin dodgers," but the very same people are suddenly comfortable with singling out minorities for priority treatment over the elderly--presumably because the elderly are too white.

Is it to relieve the NHS and save the most lives as it was back in March or is it to contain the virus? Because if it is to save the most lives and protect the NHS then you should vaccinate the the vulnerable and health workers first which is what is happening.

In the UK, perhaps. In the US, the CDC seems to have written off the elderly for minorities as some sort of "woke" distribution policy.

Gabbard: "Immoral And Bad Health Policy" To Give Vaccine To Members Of Congress Before Elderly

[BeesKnee5]

The objective is to prevent community spread and once achieved ensure any outbreak is contained.

[BeesKnee5]

Let's be real here. I'm not saying don't protect/prioritise the old.

I'm saying we have limited capacity to administer a vaccine, so the priority is to stop the elderly and vulnerable from being infected.

That may not be by giving a vaccine to someone with not long to live when there are still carers who need vaccinating.

[B0ycey]

Let's be real here. I'm not saying don't protect/prioritise the old.

I'm saying we have limited capacity to administer a vaccine, so the priority is to stop the elderly and vulnerable from being infected.

That may not be by giving a vaccine to someone with not long to live when there are still carers who need vaccinating.

Well carers are amongst the first to be vaccinated FYI. And I doubt anyone who is currently in intensive care with days to live are having letters sent through their doors in any case. As long as you acknowledge the focus is to protect the vulnerable first I don't really know what you are complaining about to be honest. That is what's happening.

[BeesKnee5]

Well carers are amongst the first to be vaccinated FYI. And I doubt anyone who is currently in intensive care with days to live are having letters sent through their doors in any case. As long as you acknowledge the focus is to protect the vulnerable first I don't really know what you are complaining about to be honest. That is what's happening.

You think I don't know who is being vaccinated?

At this rate pensioners won't have all recieved their second dose for months. The question I have, is prioritising pensioners more effective at saving lives than focusing solely on careers and vulnerable who are unable to avoid contact.

I'm not referring to those in intensive care. We all know the average age of death and so which has the biggest impact on both the spread and saving lives by preventing infection is the key.

[B0ycey]

You think I don't know who is being vaccinated?

Clearly. Health and care workers are on the priority list. The thing you are arguing for.

[late]

Hey, you're much closer to that vulnerable age range than me. If it doesn't bother you, it doesn't really bother me either.

You always have an axe to grind, and it's always BS.

The CDC knows what it's doing, you and RCP clearly do not.

[BeesKnee5]

Clearly. Health and care workers are on the priority list. The thing you are arguing for.

This is painful.
It takes time to administer the vaccine.
Each vaccine can only be given to one person
While you are using some of those vaccines on elderly in care homes you might get a bigger bang for your buck by vaccinating more people who are in the community and come in contact with pensioners.

This isn't about whether some care workers are being vaccinated.

[Drlee]

Boy. The trolls are having a field day.

Because most people do not pay attention to what has been posted let me post this statistic and put the "coffin dodger" bullshit to rest. Pick a number... A 80 year old person in the US has a life expectancy of about a decade. 10 years. Hardly a coffin dodger. A 70 year old has about 16 years. Hardly a coffin dodger. So. People in nursing homes are more vulnerable not because of their age but mostly because they are confined in a congregant situation. And, of course, co-morbidity.

If the goal is to drop the death and disability count, and it ought to be, then you vaccinate those most likely to die. See how easy that was? In doing this you also make the maximum effect on the health care system because these people are most likely to require long and intense hospitalization.

Some argue that it is easy for older folks to quarantine. Perhaps. But not much. I have to remind everyone that over 20% of those over 65 are still working or looking for work. A disproportionately large percentage of health care workers are in this age group.

Blackjack's bullshit miss-characterization of the efforts in minority communities is contemptible. This is not an experiment. It is not a choice to vaccinate minorities over whites. It is, as is the very same case with older people, an attempt to put the vaccine where the most vulnerable are and between them and the health care system. It makes no sense to vaccinate a 20 year old who would likely recover at home with little or no assistance and leave an obese, African American diabetic 50 year old un-vaccinated largely because of a lack of routine access to health care.

And finally. We are talking about a limited number of vaccines. Once production reaches full speed then we can begin to look toward herd immunity through vaccination. Before that time then the vaccine should, naturally, be used to stop the excessive death toll.

At this rate pensioners won't have all recieved their second dose for months. The question I have, is prioritising pensioners more effective at saving lives than focusing solely on careers and vulnerable who are unable to avoid contact.

Actually what will happen is that those vaccinated will get their second dose in 21-28 days depending on the vaccine. The evidence shows however that even one dose dramatically reduces infection and just as dramatically reduces the severity of and hence death from covid.

@BeesKnee5 Each vaccine can only be given to one person
While you are using some of those vaccines on elderly in care homes you might get a bigger bang for your buck by vaccinating more people who are in the community and come in contact with pensioners.

This isn't about whether some care workers are being vaccinated.

This is a non-issue because there is adequate supply right now to vaccinate both in the near term. You can drop this line of thought.

Rick

[B0ycey]

This is painful.
It takes time to administer the vaccine.
Each vaccine can only be given to one person
While you are using some of those vaccines on elderly in care homes you might get a bigger bang for your buck by vaccinating more people who are in the community and come in contact with pensioners.

This isn't about whether some care workers are being vaccinated.

We have more vaccines than those who can administer so no need to worry about the second shot. And those on the front line are on the priority list. Thinking because we are vaccinating over 80s this is going to take away vaccines from health care professionals is misunderstanding the situation completely.

HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS ARE BEING VACCINATED!!!

They are not being ignored. The only think that is painful is your ignorance thinking this isn't happening.

As for getting a bigger bang for your buck, if the objective is to save lives then those who are at risk should get the shot. Why are you struggling to understand this?

[BeesKnee5]

It does not matter whether we have more vaccines than we can administer. In fact that is the point.

Let's try a mental exercise on a smaller scale.

Twelve care homes each with ten staff and thirty residents.

Current method starts by administering a home one and uses forty doses. Thereby protecting 30 pensioners and leaving 330 pensioners still waiting for the vaccine to protect them.

How about instead we vaccinate 10 staff at four homes and protect 120 pensioners sooner .

Take this further. After three lots of doses we have protected all the pensioners in the homes by preventing infection from their carers. Thus is why I question using up your capacity on vaccinating pensioners who are less subject to community spread. However there is more to it than that, not only have you protected the pensioners, you have also reduced the ability of the virus to spread in the community at a faster rate.

The alternative is it takes twelve lots of doses before there is a level of protection in each and every home.

[B0ycey]

How about doing both?

Your whole argument unravels right there. Those care workers are being vaccinated and so are the over 80s. Half a million have had their first shot. It isn't one or the other it is both and is happening. I am not going to repeat this again. Clearly you are ignorant.

[BeesKnee5]

How about doing both?

Your whole argument unravels right there. Those care workers are being vaccinated and so are the over 80s. Half a million have had their first shot. It isn't one or the other it is both and is happening. I am not going to repeat this again. Clearly you are ignorant.

My whole example shows that both are currently being vaccinated, so it's far from unraveling to question priorities when you are restricted in how quickly you can roll out the vaccine.

[B0ycey]

My whole example shows that both are currently being vaccinated, so it's far from unraveling to question priorities when you are restricted in how quickly you can roll out the vaccine.

No, still does unravel given that those in homes meet relatives. And they are still classed as vulnerable and not vaccinated in your example.

[Drlee]

@BeesKnee5

You really can't get your head around the idea that there really is no shortage of vaccines for both groups, can you?

Why do you dislike old people to the point that you want them to die?

And just to keep you informed, the vaccines take time to work. A minimum of a couple of weeks for any major effect. Then, to confuse you even worse, we do not know for sure that the vaccine stops someone from being a carrier.

Why do you think the authorities are doing things the way they are? Do you think that you, in your moms basement or wherever you are, know better about how to handle the vaccines that people with decades of experience handling this kind of problem do?

[BeesKnee5]

@BeesKnee5

You really can't get your head around the idea that there really is no shortage of vaccines for both groups, can you?

Why do you dislike old people to the point that you want them to die?

And just to keep you informed, the vaccines take time to work. A minimum of a couple of weeks for any major effect. Then, to confuse you even worse, we do not know for sure that the vaccine stops someone from being a carrier.

Why do you think the authorities are doing things the way they are? Do you think that you, in your moms basement or wherever you are, know better about how to handle the vaccines that people with decades of experience handling this kind of problem do?

Dislike?

Not true.
If there was no shortage or restriction we would all be vaccinated tomorrow.

None of this confuses me, a person who is vaccinated will not be able to generate virus and create transmission so normal use of prevention measures are much more effective.

And yes I do think the roll out is as much about public perception and politics as it is the medical science. Not that our politicians have shown any inclination to follow the science.

[Drlee]

None of this confuses me, a person who is vaccinated will not be able to generate virus and create transmission so normal use of prevention measures are much more effective.

Do you think this statement makes sense? You do know your premise is not proved, right?

[BeesKnee5]

Do you think this statement makes sense? You do know your premise is not proved, right?

You mean a vaccinated person can catch the virus and generate virus cells within their body. What do you think the vaccine causes the human body to do when the virus enters the body?

My premise is proven. That does not mean they are unable to carry the virus in their skin, clothing and other belongings.