Should over 50s in other countries be vaccinated before the under 50s here?

Absolutely yes imo, i can unfortunately see a sad position where developing countries are left to suffer as us rich western countries look after our own.

If this is true we’re not even going to vaccinate foreign nationals helping the NHS

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/22/foreign-nhs-workers-risk-being-denied-covid-vaccine-england

Morally, probably yes.

Selfishly – I’d like to see how infection rates and pressure on the NHS are looking at that point. I’m 52, latest estimate is I’ll have my second jab in July – if people are mixing in July and August ahead of schools and unis going back in September ahead of the winter flu/Covid pressures on the NHS, who knows what the NHS will need us to be doing

OOH – thats a tricky one.

Not other European countries no. Poor countries. I will have to think about that.

At a couple of quid a shot we should be able to manage both

Andy_Sweet
Free Member
At a couple of quid a shot we should be able to manage both

Hopefully now that America has joined Covax, it’ll go some way towards a more equitable roll out, who knows though.

What’s certain is the rich countries have first dibs. And as a 43 year old, doesn’t really seem fair if I get it before 70/80/90s around the world, we’ll considering this kinda stats…

on the other hand, what it would lead to here are prolonged restrictions, for a long time, or an acceptance, that if you are under 50 you take your chances.

Both of which don’t sound like great options either, given, then the potential for the virus to mutate.

It’s a difficult question, doesn’t really seem to be in the public consciousness so much though.

You evil man! I am going to have sleepless nights now!

Serious answer – Mrs TJ said she has already thought of this and cannot find an answer. Can she be selfless enough? Its not as tho vaccinating the under 50s here is a waste of time

Greatest good of greatest number?

My initial thought is that once we reach that situation then half our supply targeted to one place ie pick a country thats both poor and struggling and give them half our supply so that it will make a real difference – spreading half our supply round the world would make very little difference but giving half our supply to say Boliiva would.

Do we put conditions on it? ie if its a Dictatorship do we make sure its not just the elite that get it? Do we give it to ex colonies? countries we are friendly with?

I know a few years back Scotland sort of adopted Malawi as the amount of aid we could give concentrated in one small country will be noticed, spread out around the world it wouldn’t

I will ponder more and if I come up with anything that makes any sport of sense get back to you but thanks for ruining my 1st world comfy sleep 🙂

Personally I’d give up my jab for an elderly or vulnerable person in a developing country.

Not sure that’s likely to be a logistic possibility though, so it’s a hypothetical question probably?

Without knowing the long term health impacts, I think we have a duty of care to at least try to vaccinate everyone who has to “work” through this – those that have kept going outside of working from home.

Loathe to use the term “key worker” as imo the government have abused the definition in this lockdown, but the people that have to be out there facing it everyday to keep us running as a country.

Don’t think it’s a cost issue that makes this a choice, think it’s more about production capacity for now. If it was just cost…

It’s a really interesting moral dilemma. Like so many things, Covid has exposed inequalities that have always existed.

The biggest killer in the world is poverty. Is it morally right for anybody to earn over the minimum wage whilst other countries scrape by on nothing?

At a couple of quid a shot we should be able to manage both

This.

Its not just the cost – its the actual supply

Short term – every country will try to get as much as possible e.g. EU suing vaccine suppliers for not delivering to schedule.
Medium term – richer nations need to dump money into funding vaccine manufacture in poorer countries as it’s cheap and in the rich nation’s interest. Poorer countries are not actually as poor as 1950s UK and have the people and technology to do this.

Possibly a complete misunderstanding on my part… Is it not the case that only having some of a population vaccinated increases the chance of a new mutation – and possibly one that makes the existing vaccination ineffective? If that is so then it makes more sense to completely vaccinate one country at a time and then isolate that country to prevent incoming infection.

Of course, it then becomes a problem of deciding in what order each country gets it 100% vaccination program.

Without knowing the long term health impacts, I think we have a duty of care to at least try to vaccinate everyone who has to “work” through this – those that have kept going outside of working from home.

I agree with this. My son and his girlfriend are both early 20’s and work in retail that has remained open all the way through the pandemic. They are at much higher risk than me (I have also worked the whole time, but in a factory with strict Covid measures) but I will most likely be vaccinated long before them.

Maybe
How about over 40s having had the first jab
It would extend d massively the time to double vaccinate
Having watched the news the other evening with 2 guys in their 40s needing supplementary O2 we still have a wsy to go
But, the level of protection afforded by the first vaccination should half the number of folk getting infected.
Thus reducing the numbers needing hospital treatment, and a much much lower cfr then yes, corrupt african despot leaders aside then its a yes from me
Puts me out of a job most likely
You do not want to be in the brewery game just now

Its not just the cost – its the actual supply

Capacity can be created, yes it must be built and cannot be done instantly, but it can be created. At a price.

After all, if it were a magic black stick fluid found only deep under the rock of the desert or the sea, who would have though that we could dig up enough for the whole world to have enough of it to burn & it still cost less than milk.

So really, it *is* about the cost.

I’m sticking with ‘both’ if possible. If not then I think probably old folk elsewhere if not.

The table above is interesting in term of jabs needed to save a life, that’s a good metric.

And to think of the pressure reduction of all the gravely ill who are avoided too. Some (small) optimism here. Though no quick end.

scotroutes
Full Member
Possibly a complete misunderstanding on my part… Is it not the case that only having some of a population vaccinated increases the chance of a new mutation – and possibly one that makes the existing vaccination ineffective? If that is so then it makes more sense to completely vaccinate one country at a time and then isolate that country to prevent incoming infection.

I doubt mutations respect political boundaries. tbh I’m no even sure the mutation part is relevant, it’s impossible to predict where or if they’ll develop, thinking about it now..

But there’s there’s finite vaccines, around 2 billion will be created this year I think. So that’s 1 billion people being vaccinated. just strikes me that these vaccines should be used where they are doing the most damage.

Not other European countries no.

Why?

Vaccine supply should be prioritised to all countries that have not sufficiently vaccinated their vulnerable populations. There is self interest here – our economy also relies on other countries getting out of this.

Doing otherwise will also turn the developing world against the west and into the arms of Russia and China.

I mean the world population diagram looks like this.

according to that that’s about 22/23% of the population are over 50.

So 3.5ish billion doses would cover the world there.

Tricky one

We need to find out the impact of not vaccinating everyone first i think. I don’t agree only ‘key workers’ under 50 should be vaccinated, it should be all or none. Otherwise you find yourself in a position whereby there will be limitations on what the vaccinated group can do vs the non vaccinated group…ie probably go abroad from next year! Besides, let’s be honest, people cant work at home forever. I’m just as likely to get it in my office as a supermarket worker.

Also,.let’s not beat around the Bush, some of these countries may be poor, but out death rate is far far higher than practically anywhere else. And that is before we even consider long covid. Apparently 1 in 10 get it. Its all very well saying give my dose to someone else, it’s commendable of you, but when your life is turned upside down by a debilitating long term illness you may not feel quite as generous

I do agree however that this issue can be solved with cash, may be not immediately but in the medium term at least. Developed countries should be paying for the building of vaccination manufacturing plants across all developing countries. Giving half our supply away has unknown consequences for us and is a short term fix for whoever we give it to. This jab will be required every year from now on, every country needs to be able to produce it’s own supply, and if we need to pay for that then all good.

Some people seem to think that all we have to do is vaccinate people once (well twice) and that’s it, job done.
The reality is that once “everyone” had been jabbed we’ll be starting again on the 3rd dose.
We’re going to be vaccinating our own population for a long time yet.

And then there’s the economics… The economy needs to get going again to start paying for all the lost employment and massive costs that have been incurred over the last 12 months.

The idea of sending a load of vaccine to another country is nice (and, as tj says, ignores the task of actually deploying it to the population) but it may never be an option.
It may be better to try and help other countries develop their own vaccine production.

Edit: tpbiker and I agree…. Kinda.

tpbiker
Full Member
Tricky one

I do agree however that this issue can be solved with cash, may be not immediately but in the medium term at least. Developed countries should be paying for the building of vaccination manufacturing plants across all developing countries. Giving half our supply away has unknown consequences for us and is a short term fix for whoever we give it to. This jab will be required every year from now on, every country needs to be able to produce it’s own supply, and if we need to pay for that then all good.

Fair comment. defo, tbh, I think you’ve nailed the conundrum there. I wasn’t considering the obvious point multiple doses. Essentially we need to get to a capacity upto around 15 billion doses a year, year on year i guess that is the ultimate challenge.

Luckily so far there is no evidence that vaccination promotes variants of the virus according to the medical literature – although study populations have been small. Much more likely related to overcrowding, poor healthcare, having to go to work in unsafe environments – ie poverty.
The whole ‘who should be vaccinated’ has been worked through by the JCVI and I’d go some way to trusting them as they have access to the data and modeling tools at a population level. In the South West the cases noticeably much higher in 20-40 year old women – presumably with children bringing it home from school, having to work or be without enough to live on, health and care workers etc and no surprise not people driving a few miles for a walk although this very low risk activity seems to be an obsession in the press and social media. here. I wonder if they will be a target this group of women for the vaccine sooner rather than later but I’d leave that to people who understand the data to decide.

Some people seem to think that all we have to do is vaccinate people once (well twice) and that’s it, job done.

Interesting to see the Astra-Zenica person on Channel 4 making the point about switching the vaccine and needing to be told which sequence to work with. Making the point it is like the flu vaccine you need to pick one to run with. Which I guess means like flu there are going to be chances that vaccine will have more and less effective years.

If there is a switch over to a different vaccine, assuming this comes relatively quickly, it could be ready to role before all the population has had 20/21 season vaccine (for want of a better term).

Perhaps the focus once the over 50s are done should be those who are at greatest risk of exposure. Then we are back to cycling through the priority list for 21/22.

Interestingly chatting with my 80something neighbour, they would quite give up their vaccine for the younger generations. Taking the view they’ve had a good life but there’s a lot less in front on them than behind.

We have to get the capacity that high, but that is additional capacity as we cannot risk taking the capacity from other existing vaccines. Particularly as a lot of this vaccines prevent childhood mortality.
Taking that capacity would have a massive effect on the world and infant deaths.
That’s a big question, vaccinate the older or the next generation of it came to that….
Until we get that capacity up then it is always going to be a balance sadly as you can’t just create capacity

Given the vaccinated can still we are told be a carrier for the virus, the 30-50 year olds would probably not want to be in close proximity to vaccinated over 50s.
I think you might see some weird societal effects of trying to ease lockdowns with an over 50s only vaccinated population.
Could be wrong.

Was fascinated by this moral dilemma and the posters’ reactions to it. Then got brought down to earth with a bump by this very sensible comment:

The biggest killer in the world is poverty. Is it morally right for anybody to earn over the minimum wage whilst other countries scrape by on nothing?

The idea of sending a load of vaccine to another country is nice (and, as tj says, ignores the task of actually deploying it to the population) but it may never be an option.

It is an option, that’s what the COVAX programme is.

If the west hinders the program, it will be a moral, geopolitical and strategic failure that will lead to needless deaths and further the irrelevance of the west.

If you want the majority of the developing world to fall into the Chinas sphere of influence more than it already has then by all means we should pursuing a policy of idiot vaccine nationalism and staring up our own glorious brexit ridden arseholes.

The biggest killer in the world is poverty. Is it morally right for anybody to earn over the minimum wage whilst other countries scrape by on nothing?

It isn’t and it’s why China is winning the influence game, it’s ability to lift developing countries out of poverty is putting the ex-colonial powers to shame. Most of you in this thread are also the first ones to start banging on about green issues, not realising that it’s the unequal distribution of wealth and westerners that are the cause of it.

Covid is not just an epidemiological problem, it’s a foreign policy problem. It is the attitudes shown in this thread that will lead to the west being left behind, increasingly decrepit, economically irrelevant, disliked for historical and cultural reasons and ignored by the Sinosphere.

The problem with the jcvi guidance is they vaccinate based on likelihood of mortality.

I’m going to throw this out there as it’s controversial, but who deserves the vaccine more, the 92 year old in a care home with 12 months tops to live, or the healthy 35 year old who gets long covid which causes permanent lung damage or has a compromised life for next 35 years? Its not an Easy choice. But the stats say a healthy 35 year old has much chamce of getting lomg covid as an 80 year old has of dying from it.

I know it’s an outlier, but I know of at least one person who died a week after getting the vaccine. They didn’t die of covid, they died of old age..

I personally think everyone should get it, there should be the same effort put into vaccine production and distribution as there was during the war effort for building weapons, tanks etc. I honesu think.it can be done if the desire is there

Interestingly, more Americans have died due to covid than died during the second world war….

Everyone is going to get it, it’s just a question of when.

And then how often.

Given the vaccinated can still we are told be a carrier for the virus, the 30-50 year olds would probably not want to be in close proximity to vaccinated over 50s.
I think you might see some weird societal effects of trying to ease lockdowns with an over 50s only vaccinated population.

This is a key problem. I’m 52 so should be vaccinated later this year, but if I was further down the priority list, I’m not sure I’d want to be getting “back to normal” until the risk of me getting infected and risking long Covid was very reduced. My main risk is from my kids when they were in school, I’m restricting my contacts with anyone else to minimise my other exposure, and to make sure I can’t unknowingly infect other people.

I wonder how it affects the overall spread if you vaccinate region by region over globally age group by age group.

I applaud this thread and the sentiment involved, Sadly, I think it’s all moot.

Covid is a first world problem. That is to say, the rapid vaccine development & research has only happened due to Covid affecting developed nations (Although I’m not underselling the potential of this being even bigger without the current social restrictions & research funding).

TB kills almost 2 million people every year, almost exclusively in developing nations, and we have effective vaccines and treatments for that.

I’m going to be selfish and say that right now I’m struggling with lockdown and lack of purpose so no, I’d rather get the vaccine myself and get my life back to normal.

However, I’ll also say that as soon as the 50 year olds get it then I’d be quite happy to get back to normal anyway. The Covid risk to me as a healthy 40 year old is minimal and if those I can pass it on to are protected then I’m happy enough.

I suspect I’ll get shot down for this view, and right now I’m happy to take that “feedback”.

It isn’t and it’s why China is winning the influence game, it’s ability to lift developing countries out of poverty is putting the ex-colonial powers to shame. Most of you in this thread are also the first ones to start banging on about green issues, not realising that it’s the unequal distribution of wealth and westerners that are the cause of it.

China ain’t building those roads and other infrastructure in Africa et al to help those countries. They are they to either buy their favour, or to enable the resources to be easily shipped back to China. Its not ‘influencing’ per se as basically buying out the countries. If you can’t eat now you shake the hand that feeds you and don’t worry about the consequences. Its modern day colonialisation.

To my eyes, when I get vaccinated they won’t be doing it to save me, they’ll be doing it as part of the wider effort to reduce spread of the disease.

So I suspect the idea that we simply prioritise everyone by vulnerability is far too simplistic. In a disease so heavily skewed to certain groups in its mortality, it’s got to be right to do them first, but doesn’t there come a point where priorities change?

Eg, compare me, a reasonably healthy 45 year old whose job can be easily done with minimal transmission risk, Vs teachers, kids and students, whose jobs/education can’t (and are of critical importance), even though individually they’re perhaps made of stronger stuff. Shouldn’t they be ahead of me?

Agree this should be a worldwide effort though.