Poll vaccine distribution priorities

[Orphia Nay]

You would though. We're in the middle of a raging epidemic. It's not possible to wave a magic wand and get the vaccine into everyone simultaneously even if you have plenty. So it's quite right to start with the people most likely to die if they get it.

We'd need to also give it earlier to people most likely to spread it to lots of people.

We don't want people working in retail and supermarkets to get it, for example.

 

[Sherkeu]

You would though. We're in the middle of a raging epidemic. It's not possible to wave a magic wand and get the vaccine into everyone simultaneously even if you have plenty. So it's quite right to start with the people most likely to die if they get it.

No.
Not the smart tactic. Viruses have a supply chain like everything else...follow it and stop it in its' tracks. If the risky people are in there, then they get the jab, otherwise, they would not be my very first priority.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Top of Australia's list are quarantine and border workers.

Makes sense.

 

[Francesca R]

I assume that the priority system that governments are using (actually I only know about the UK in any detail so it may be wrong to assume it is representative) . . . . for vaccination is the one they believe will have the fastest impact on those statistics in which improvement will bring the most political gain.

This seems to fit with inoculating those most likely to die first and most likely to occupy health system capacity second. There is a decent overlap between this implied distribution of priority and a "protect those with greatest need first" and probably sufficient leeway to include many folks coming under "front line work" in the list so that it looks pretty much wholly based on need, rather than politically capturable gains.

I think the "priority list" according to the UK amounts to slightly more than half of the adult population. This reminds me from when I used to fly a lot (IE before March 2020) where the various priority boarding groups getting on a plane consisted of way more passengers than the left over non-priority-boarding ones.

I have been vaccinated already (first dose) because I volunteer time as a steward in a local pop-up vaccination centre and they have unused doses at the end of shifts. The place is not currently very busy but capacity and supply in the UK will need to be scalable within the next couple of weeks as second jabs become due, otherwise the vax rate will fall quite a bit.

 

[Francesca R]

Front of house people in ALL facists.

So here's me wondering why cullennz is so keen to get all the fascists inoculated against covid . . . .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

While you do want to vaccinate the people most likely to spread it, vaccinating those most likely to suffer severe disease decreases the burden on hospitals, also a key issue.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If we believe vaccine rates will increase significantly and soon, focus on those most vulnerable to the disease.

If we don't, and herein we simply have to realistic with our answer, focus on those more likely to spread it.

 

[Rolfe]

Much as I criticise the government, I don't think a desire to have the lowest possible death statistics at a time when hundreds of people a day are dying of this can be dismissed as simply chasing good headlines. Especially when it isn't certain how good the vaccine is at preventing transmission as opposed to preventing deaths.

 

[Francesca R]

I remember reading that Indonesia plans/planned to vaccinate working age people first and seniors later. The rationale was that this would reboot the economy more quickly since the former group could get back to producing and the latter could just hide out with this not affecting growth much.

I don't know if it is still the plan. I think they also wanted to vaccinate celebrity influencers early too so that they would story it on their instas and encourage uptake.

From an economic perspective this is superior to doing it on the basis of clinical risk faced by recipients. If you believe that growth is also one of the more powerful ways to save lives it has OK ethical force too. If there is high urgency to relieve the stress on the health system it doesn't do that. Also good luck to any European government selling the idea domestically.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Much as I criticise the government, I don't think a desire to have the lowest possible death statistics at a time when hundreds of people a day are dying of this can be dismissed as simply chasing good headlines. Especially when it isn't certain how good the vaccine is at preventing transmission as opposed to preventing deaths.

Trump operated that way, maybe BoJo did? I see no evidence Biden is operating under the goal of making the fight against COVID look successful.

 

[angrysoba]

I see no evidence Biden is operating under the goal of making the fight against COVID look successful.

Give him a chance. He’s only just been sworn in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I remember reading that Indonesia plans/planned to vaccinate working age people first and seniors later. The rationale was that this would reboot the economy more quickly since the former group could get back to producing and the latter could just hide out with this not affecting growth much.

I don't know if it is still the plan. I think they also wanted to vaccinate celebrity influencers early too so that they would story it on their instas and encourage uptake.

From an economic perspective this is superior to doing it on the basis of clinical risk faced by recipients. If you believe that growth is also one of the more powerful ways to save lives it has OK ethical force too. If there is high urgency to relieve the stress on the health system it doesn't do that. Also good luck to any European government selling the idea domestically.

Just a comment about reopening schools being key to get the economy going:

I know people want to see teachers vaccinated because they believe it will open up schools more quickly. It might if teachers are refusing to teach before they are vaccinated.

But as for vaccinating teachers to decrease spread, hopefully that isn't the reason people think teachers should be vaccinated.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think many teachers are refusing to work here.

The official (government backed if nominally independent) scientific advice here is IIRC that teachers face no more risk than other adults who are not front line health workers. It is however very hard to square that with the fact of much higher transmission having occurred among secondary school kids (when schools were open the last time which was Sept-Dec)

But it means that the government can point to the opposition's call to bump teachers up the line as being not based on any justifying evidence.

Schools aren't top priority for "getting the economy going" apart from the extent to which they keep parents home from work. I don't know what the influence of that is but I suspect it is a lot smaller than, say, keeping hospitality closed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Schools aren't top priority for "getting the economy going" apart from the extent to which they keep parents home from work. I don't know what the influence of that is but I suspect it is a lot smaller than, say, keeping hospitality closed.

Around here (meaning very locally) either moms want to get back to work (most of them I think) or they just really want their kids back in school, the biggest motivator I think even if it wasn't work they wanted to get back to.

I can't blame them. It was one thing when it seemed like it would only be a couple months. But now it's been 11 months, soon to be a year and counting. That could be devastating for older teens when socializing with peers replaces parental influence.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't think many teachers are refusing to work here.

The official (government backed if nominally independent) scientific advice here is IIRC that teachers face no more risk than other adults who are not front line health workers. It is however very hard to square that with the fact of much higher transmission having occurred among secondary school kids (when schools were open the last time which was Sept-Dec)

But it means that the government can point to the opposition's call to bump teachers up the line as being not based on any justifying evidence.

This is one of those things that seem to make no sense on the face of it, just like the opposition to mask wearing. If there was little risk from crowded classroom settings where kids are not always going to maintain social distancing, then why would schools be closed by the government (even as pubs were open at one point iirc.)

 

[Nessie]

It makes more sense to vaccinate those most likely to fall seriously ill and end up in hospital before those most likely to spread it.

It stops the NHS being totally overwhelmed and PPE and hygiene measures are readily available to limit the spread.

 

[Rolfe]

That too, obviously. But the proposal that front-line workers, very few of whom would die or become seriously ill, should have priority over people at a high chance of dying from the virus, is abhorrent even if you don't factor in the costs to the NHS while they're doing their dying.

I was all in favour of an approach designed to stop community spread in the places where that was still going on, as fast as possible, when the virus was well suppressed. But when it's running rampant I agree with the government (almost a first, in this pandemic) that protecting the vulnerable elderly has to be done before we seriously tackle the issue of community spread.

 

[Orphia Nay]

That too, obviously. But the proposal that front-line workers, very few of whom would die or become seriously ill, should have priority over people at a high chance of dying from the virus, is abhorrent even if you don't factor in the costs to the NHS while they're doing their dying.

I was all in favour of an approach designed to stop community spread in the places where that was still going on, as fast as possible, when the virus was well suppressed. But when it's running rampant I agree with the government (almost a first, in this pandemic) that protecting the vulnerable elderly has to be done before we seriously tackle the issue of community spread.

UK's first priority is residents AND staff in aged care.


Risk group
1Residents in a care home for older adults and staff working in care homes for older adults
2All those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers
3All those 75 years of age and over
4All those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals (not including pregnant women and those under 16 years of age)
5All those 65 years of age and over
6Adults aged 16 to 65 years in an at-risk group (see clinical conditions below)
7All those 60 years of age and over
8All those 55 years of age and over
9All those 50 years of age and over
10Rest of the population (to be determined).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...id-19-vaccination-first-phase-priority-groups

- UK Government

 

[Rolfe]

Funnily enough, I knew all that.

 

[dann]

The homeless were moved up the list in Denmark when it was noticed that the virus was spreading in shelters for the homeless.