Are We Administering The Vaccine The Wrong Way Round?

[naomi24]

Top of the list are the most vulnerable, mostly the elderly who are, in the main, isolating, but if as is reported the young are responsible for spreading the virus shouldn’t we be vaccinating them first, thereby safeguarding everyone else as well as allowing workers to get back to normal and hence, limiting the damage to the economy?

[emmie]

i just don't think its feasible at all TTT, we get visitors from all over the world countries that have high rates of infection. As i said before
isn't this how it started in UK, it came from China, Wuhan specifically

[jno]

that's the whole purpose of the vaccine

no doubt. But do we know yet if that purpose has been fulfilled?

[New Judge]

//Also airports are testing.//

Only at a very limited number of airports, Tora. The cost is a minimum of £60, much more in some instances. If the government had any regard for the travel industry (and, as an aside, for the spread of the virus) it would have made arrangements by now to have testing which it recognises widely available. But it hasn't. It prefers instead to virtually close industries down and leave them to their own devices. They will find that many businesses (upon which they normally rely upon for revenue) will no longer be there when they finally manage to get everybody vaccinated. Then everybody will be free to go where they like but there will be nowhere for them to go.

[pixie374]

I don't see that matters, emmie... if we have protected as many as possible... bringing it in to the country, shouldn't be an excessive risk... except to those bringing it in maybe.

[emmie]

are they testing people coming into UK?

[teacake44]

NJ15.28 Cancel for the foreseeable future? if you want to, if you don't no skin off my nose, if you're arrangements are more important, then miss you're vaccine. But don't expect the NHS to work round you're needs in this instant. Unless you've forgot most of the scientific world has been working all year on behalf of you're needs, what a selfish chappy you are!

[emmie]

its going to take at least a year to get this vaccination programme rolling and perhaps done to the best of our abilities, meanwhile we are unprotected by and large, so anyone coming in with the virus has a potential to infect many. Is that not the case.

[emmie]

for fear of repeating myself which i have been accused of
isn't this how it all started, visitors from China Wuhan specifically coming already infected, we didn't know it of course. Now we do.

[New Judge]

//If it's highly speculative, why are you making such a big deal about it coinciding with your trip?//

I'm not making a big deal about it at all, Zacs. I simply wondered (at 13:36) purely out of idle curiosity, how it would be viewed if I was absent at the required time. The only way I won't be away (provided Mrs NJ are both fit and well) is if restrictions in force either here or in my destination prevent it. I'll worry about missing my slot (should I do so) upon my return. I was just intrigued that I should be expected to cancel my arrangements in case I become subject to a whim of the NHS. I assume that they will want as many people as possible to take up their offer so I imagine that even they will be able to make some arrangements.

[bobbinwales]

Thats an interesting choice of best answer. Its clear all the scientific points made about vaccinnated peopel still being able to infect others have been ignored as an inconveniant truth.

It look's to me as if Aunt PollyGray would rather leave the over 90s unvaccinnated in enforced lockdown for another 12 months, even tho there the category with most deaths , so as to allow the young to enjoy themselves and still risk infecting grannies

[Zacs-Master]

'I'm not making a big deal about it at all, Zacs.'

Well you did a flippin' good impression!

Describing the effort to have everyone vaccinated as a 'whim' is staggeringly ignorant.

[teacake44]

Nobody I know is subject to a whim of the NHS, you can turn up, or not turn up when asked, the choice is you'res I believe.

[pixie374]

//so as to allow the young to enjoy themselves and still risk infecting grannies//

No, to allow them to work and support their grannies. "Grannies" are still entitled to shield.

[jim360]

Indeed, bobinwales. It may be that vaccinating the young indirectly benefits the old, but we do not know this for a fact. It would be foolish to base the priority for vaccines on speculation, rather than fact: namely, that the elderly are dying and the young are far less likely to.

What a shame that the selected BA entirely ignores all of that.

[bednobs]

i dont get why there are nearly 100 posts discussing this. the order is the order is the order and no amount of whingeing on a website will get it changed

[bobbinwales]

True bednobs very true. You could argue that for many of the threads on here tho' about Tiers, pubs being shut, substantial meals, having to wear masks in shops, Christmas visiting, ect, Answerbank would be very quiet if we just accept it all with a shrug of are shoulders

[emmie]

no more will it for most things, like one poster who seems to think that Boris makes all the wrong decisions and that by saying that he should do this or that will make it happen.

[emmie]

getting it rolled out is the most important thing, and that's going to take some time

[jourdain2]

Re. certification before being allowed to do various things, like travel for instance. OH was vaccinated on Tuesday afternoon and received a small cert. to keep in his wallet, it has space for the 2nd vaccination to be logged. I, on the other hand, am extremely likely to be told that I cannot have it. I've asked and am awaiting an answer, but it is not encouraging at the moment.
So, he can go on holiday - but I can't? Just a question.

[New Judge]

//Describing the effort to have everyone vaccinated as a 'whim' is staggeringly ignorant.

The effort is not a whim, Zacs. The effort is admirable. What is a whim is expecting everybody to be available on demand rather than by a mutually convenient appointment. But the NHS often works on the basis of unilaterally imposed appointments. The last time Mrs NJ had the unfortunate need to require its services she was told by the sawbones that she needed to return for a further appointment. We had a lot on at the time and tried to make an appointment upon leaving the hospital. The following exchange took place:

"Oh no, you can't do that."

"But I may well be unavailable. I'm trying to save you and me the trouble of making an appointment that I'll be unable to keep. Can't you do it for me now?"

"No. It's a separate department. They'll write to you."

"So what happens if I can't make it?"

"You'll have to get in touch and cancel it"

"But I will not even be at home for much of the next three weeks to open my mail. I probably won't even know it's been made. Can't you get them to ring me or send a text?"

"No. They don't do that. You'll just go down as a 'missed appointment.'"

This, I'm afraid, is the mindset of the NHS administrators. They'd sooner see a missed appointment rather than accommodate the patient's requirements. That's what I mean by a "whim."