No vaccinations for the under 50s!!!!!

originally posted by: thethinkingman
oh facts and figures....like 600 million dead from covid?

I see I'm still living in your head rent free!

There was some opposition about the lockdowns and that's inevitable really.

I don't thing it was much of a percentage of the population, not like on the scale of the protests in the US at any rate.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You should maybe put it in a quote to make it more obvious then.

The lockdowns weren't vehemently opposed here in the UK, people excepted the first lockdown without any opposition.

a reply to: Kurokage

You know the topic of the thread isn't about when the vaccines rolled out for use but the plans by the vaccine task force to vaccinate only those over the age of 50 and the clinically vulnerable.

As said by the head of the vaccine task force Kate Bingham:



"Ms Bingham said vaccination policy would be aimed at those most at risk and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, could cause them some freak harm, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis."

a reply to: nonspecific

That wasn't till the second lockdown really, and like you state it wasn't much of a percentage.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You should maybe put it in a quote to make it more obvious then, or use the reply "button".

Also the lockdowns weren't vehemently opposed here in the UK, people excepted the first lockdown without any opposition at all.

I did put it in quotes

And the lockdowns were massively opposed in the UK.

a reply to: Kurokage

originally posted by: Kurokage
This was down to how the vaccination process would be rolled out here in the UK and that vunerable groups were seen first, also the UK were in the middle of of a confrontation with the EU on vaccine quotas with them making demands because of shortfall in supplies to its member states.

The latest advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in the UK, published last week, states that “simple age-based [vaccination] programmes are usually easier to deliver and therefore achieve higher vaccine uptake”, and also states that health and social care workers would be a high priority.

This was linked to in the article you posted
Gov.UK

1.older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
2.all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
3.all those 75 years of age and over
4.all those 70 years of age and over
5.all those 65 years of age and over
6.high-risk adults under 65 years of age
7.moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
8.all those 60 years of age and over
9.all those 55 years of age and over
10.all those 50 years of age and over
11.rest of the population (priority to be determined)

Financial Times

EU demands UK Covid vaccines from AstraZeneca to make up shortfall.

The EU has said AstraZeneca must take coronavirus vaccines from UK factories to make up a shortfall in supplies to its member states, a demand that could unleash an explosive post-Brexit political fight.

AstraZeneca was contractually obliged to use vaccines produced at UK plants to fulfil its delivery obligations to EU states, the European Commission said, as Brussels called on the manufacturer to agree to publish its EU supply contract.

The EU demands marked a further escalation in a bitter dispute since AstraZeneca last week said its first-quarter deliveries would fall more than 50 per cent short of the bloc’s expectations.

Who was this a reply to?

originally posted by: nonspecific

There was some opposition about the lockdowns and that's inevitable really.

I don't thing it was much of a percentage of the population, not like on the scale of the protests in the US at any rate.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You should maybe put it in a quote to make it more obvious then.

The lockdowns weren't vehemently opposed here in the UK, people excepted the first lockdown without any opposition.

Those who promoted lockdowns yes they didn't protest or bothered. The rest i.e the vast majority were concerned and opposed long term lockdowns.

But the topic of the thread were the plans by the vaccine task force to vaccinate only the over 50s as everyone knows that young and healthy people shouldn't become subjects of experimentation and thus get harmed on the way.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You should maybe put it in a quote to make it more obvious then, or use the reply "button".

Also the lockdowns weren't vehemently opposed here in the UK, people excepted the first lockdown without any opposition at all.

I did put it in quotes

And the lockdowns were massively opposed in the UK.

Polls showed that lockdown measures were overwhelmingly supported or not viewed as strict enough.

Here is1.

www.ipsos.com...

Evidence they were vehemently opposed?

originally posted by: nonspecific

There was some opposition about the lockdowns and that's inevitable really.

I don't thing it was much of a percentage of the population, not like on the scale of the protests in the US at any rate.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You should maybe put it in a quote to make it more obvious then.

The lockdowns weren't vehemently opposed here in the UK, people excepted the first lockdown without any opposition.

In reality the UK Government abandoned both mandatory vaccinations and lockdowns after failing to listen to what was agreed in the first place i.e to vaccinate only those over the age of 50.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Goverment made a statment about something then some time later changed the plan.

It happened, what do you propose we do about it?

What is the aim of this thread?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You know the topic of the thread isn't about when the vaccines rolled out for use but the plans by the vaccine task force to vaccinate only those over the age of 50 and the clinically vulnerable.

I know what the topic of the thread is about.
I linked to the guidelines that were being used at the time and how the rollout of vaccines would be introduced showing how it wasn't restricted to 50 and over at the time of that article.
The government wanted to be sure enough vaccines were avalible for the more vulnerable groups first, the decision to vaccinate was based upon risk, placing those most vulnerable first incase of a shortage.
In the FT article you posted in the OP there is a link to the government website on vaccine groups

priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-25-september-2020

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Was a general reply to the opening post. Which is what happens when you hit the reply button at the bottom of the page.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Goverment made a statment about something then some time later changed the plan.

It happened, what do you propose we do about it?

What is the aim of this thread?

The vaccine task force was taking advise by several experts who obviously advised that it won't be wise to vaccinate the entire population as it could cause harm to the young and the healthy and only those above the age of 50 should be vaccinated. Changing this advise with political decisions is at least scandalous, not to say criminal.

It also disprove those who were promoting mass vaccinations.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You know the topic of the thread isn't about when the vaccines rolled out for use but the plans by the vaccine task force to vaccinate only those over the age of 50 and the clinically vulnerable.

I know what the topic of the thread is about.
I linked to the guidelines that were being used at the time and how the rollout of vaccines would be introduced showing how it wasn't restricted to 50 and over at the time of that article.
The government wanted to be sure enough vaccines were avalible for the more vulnerable groups first, the decision to vaccinate was based upon risk, placing those most vulnerable first incase of a shortage.
In the FT article you posted in the OP there is a link to the government website on vaccine groups

priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-25-september-2020

The plan was not to vaccinate those under 50 so not to cause harm to the young and healthy. This seems to have changed after some political interference.

In a few words the UK Government didn't listen to the vaccine task force and those who advised the panel and made the mistake to go for mass vaccinations for a product that nobody knew its short term, medium, and long term effects, as well as the benefit to risk ratio for the different age and risk groups.

It was the Tories back then under Johnson but had it been Labour in power they would had gone for the same.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The plan was not to vaccinate those under 50 so not to cause harm to the young and healthy. This seems to have change after some political interference.

Thats not correct.
The plan was to vaccinate the most vulnerable and care home workers first, then vacinate the rest by age group, from the .gov link at the time (which was in the FT article). it never changed.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The plan was not to vaccinate those under 50 so not to cause harm to the young and healthy. This seems to have change after some political interference.

Thats not correct.
The plan was to vaccinate the most vulnerable and care home workers first, then vacinate the rest by age group, from the .gov link at the time (which was in the FT article). it never changed.

You are mistaken very much and you don't seem to read what I have posted or what we discuss here. Go to the first page or should I do it for you again?

www.ft.com...

Head of the vaccine task force Kate Bingham:




"People keep talking about time to vaccinate the whole population but that is misguided, she said. There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable."


"Ms Bingham said vaccination policy would be aimed at those most at risk and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, could cause them some freak harm potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis."


Are you ok now? Or still in a denial?
Pay particular attention to these two paragraphs.
The bit about causing freak harm to the young and healthy is the most important one.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at www.ft.com...
www.ft.com...

The JCVI said there had not been a decision on who would be eligible for the vaccine. 

The health department said it was looking at advice from the JCVI, adding that it wanted “as many people as possible to access a Covid-19 vaccine”.

Ms Bingham, who is also managing partner at fund manager SV Health Investors, said that if any vaccine proved to be 95 per cent effective, which is thought to be unlikely, then it may make sense to vaccinate more widely but any decision on this would be taken later

Wasn't an offical decision.

Ms Bingham wouldn't be the person to make such a decision regardless.

She added caveats.

From the Weekly Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) surveillance report from between August and September 2020.
The only time the plan changed was to incorperate new data about covid. Like how we went from washing down surfaces to wearing masks when it was found to be an airbourne virus.

As of 09:00 on 29 September 2020,

The highest case rates continued to be seen in the 20-29 year olds.
Positivity was highest in 20-29 year olds in Pillar 1 and in the 60-69 year olds in Pillar 2. Cases rates and positivity continue to be highest in the North of England.

Public Health England

a reply to: Asmodeus3

There a Public Inquiry going on here about COVID and our Govt's response:

covid19.public-inquiry.uk...