Heard it was something like this:
1. Long-term care residents/staff
2. Hospital workers
3. Anyone 85+ years old.
1. Long-term care residents/staff
2. Hospital workers
3. Anyone 85+ years old.
Care homes are all mostly small, with a handful of employees.
EDIT: Wales has just said it's going to be really hard getting the Pfizer vaccine out to care homes: https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/immunology-...
* older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
* all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
* all those 75 years of age and over
* all those 70 years of age and over
* all those 65 years of age and over
* high-risk adults under 65 years of age
* moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
* all those 60 years of age and over
* all those 55 years of age and over
* all those 50 years of age and over
* rest of the population (priority to be determined)
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-f...
That is:
1. Immunize the age group that is dominating in the hospitalization statistics, then 2. Immunize the age group is accounting for the majority of transmission, then 3. Immunize the rest.
There's a good chance that situation will create a black market both for vaccines (real and fake) and forged proof of vaccination.
The UK government has ruled out having a vacination passport (for good reason in my opinion).
The UK government changed their mind about a second lockdown given new evidence. The virus got much worse and they responded. What new evidence is there that the UK government is going to start vaccination passports? Has something changed?
That's the wrong question. The right one is "may something change in the future?" And an answer on this: "maybe, we don't know, nobody knows the future".
That being said, extrapolation of the exponential curve a month forward is one of relatively simple ways to predict the future. And yet, it was _completely_ unexpected for the UK government. Think about that.
Strong opinions, loosely held.
At first glance forgery seems like a very real threat considering how hard it is to tell vaccine from sodium chloride (entire testing procedures are based on this), but the same difficulty is also working against a black market: why pay if the seller can't give event the slightest indication that it's not a fake and the fake has no intrinsic value at all? You'd have to fake the distribution structures and not the product and an elaborate fake structure isn't something that suddenly pops up from some dark market investment, it could only evolve from simpler black market schemes. But those won't happen, at least not in time (except maybe in places with a truly corrupt regular distribution system, where it would start with "redistributed" real vaccine and then slowly shift over to fakes)
I have no doubt there are some pretty interesting models being developed to determine the best course of action.
So we don't know how beneficial your 2 above would be.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/941030?src=soc_tw_20111...
The results announced up to now just showed that the vaccines reduce chance of a vaccinated person becoming sick.
Where do I sign up?!
If the goal is to slow down the pandemic, then the "irresponsible spreaders" should be vaccinated first.
On the other side, if the goal is to punish "irresponsible spreaders", then they should be vaccinated last. But that also means that pandemics would not be slowed down, and the ones taking that decision will be responsible for further spreading.
Or you could go by demographics. The hardest hit groups in the worst spreading areas. Etc.
You're right that it's not a trivial thing, but if you wanted to do it, reasonable approximations could be found.
HN-ians like to model stuff, and i get that. To do it properly we need to know how many "young"(active ppl) there are, how many old with lung problems, the rates of propagation in and between those, and probably other stuff. But the goal is to keep the deaths down, and my opinion is that by far the smartest way is to first vaccinate the vulnerable people and those who deal with them directly (nurses, etc.). There's also a lot of points about practicality. For example; If i get infected not much happens (i'd just have to isolate myself, even with heavier symptoms). But if my mother gets those severe symptoms she would need to go to the hospital, if she would live at all.
Even if the math says it's better to vaccinate the young ones first, i'd still argue that it's overall safer to vaccinate the vulnerable ones first.
I believe that most experts are expecting it won't.
> The final decision on the prioritisation for health and social care workers will be dependent on vaccine characteristics and the epidemiology at the start of any programme.
Which hospital / trust are you with? I had mine done at Royal Free.
Priority ranking is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-f...
Though this is generic and should change depending on the results on vaccine trials (should there be evidence of differential effectiveness).