Given that around 90% recover with no problem at all, and given that the number would be even higher if every sick person  was discovered, why vaccianate everybody instead of 10%, at most 20%, in the risk group?

The very vulnerable are the elderly patients who don't make it into ICU for one reason or another - like they're too old and frail to survive invasive emergency treatment (ventilation), so they die before it gets to this stage.

 

That leaves the vast majority of other patients - people in their 50's and 60's - these need treating for weeks at a time and fill ICU into expanded emergency capacity.

 

This expanded emergency capacity comes from shutting down other parts of the hospital and converting the available treatment rooms like an operating theater into a ICU treatment room

 

The above is why they're going to vaccinate everyone over 50 as a priority.

 

Before the ICU stage are the others who also require treatment, these can be from any age group and they may move between categories of severity. Some only requiring oxygen before recovery - they also take up a huge amount of space.

 

The reason the vaccine is being rolled out is so people can receive healthcare on an ongoing basis, it's not about getting you down the pub again for a couple of beers, it's to make sure when you have a heart attack or stroke or break your back that there's a hospital available to treat you.

 

The above covers merely the basics and is just a slight summary based on what I've heard from an 'ICU Lead' in the UK - someone who is in control of a load of COVID patients on a daily basis, consider it a first hand report from the front line by way of this post.

 

 

+ 1 for the post above [ukrules]

 

Vaccinate the elderly and those in high risk groups first (which they are doing).

i.e. 80+ high risk, then 70+ then 60+ etc

 

In addition to what ukrules has written... 

 

Even though statistically a person is younger than 60 is at less risk of serious symptoms related to Covid-19 there is still a risk. There has been talk of additional risk of thrombosis etc.. and no one wants a horrible flu that knocks them on their backside for a week or more, the same for Covid-19. If the vaccine means we only suffer mild (or no) symptoms vs being stuck in bed for 5 days etc then we should all take it. 

 

I want to see everyone vaccinated as soon as possible so I can get back to travel without quarantine.

 

I want to see the world get back to as close to normal as soon possible. 

 

Even though people suggest that we can make our own minds up and take the risk if we want to be vaccinated or expose ourselves to Covid-19, some suggest its their choice. But, what they are failing to recognise in their selfishness is that if they become sick and need hospitalisation they are using up vital resources needed for others. 

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, gafdtomaka366 said:

Given that around 90% recover with no problem at all, and given that the number would be even higher if every sick person  was discovered, why vaccianate everybody instead of 10%, at most 20%, in the risk group?

 

When I read questions like this I think of "business consultants" or new employees who came into the job where i worked and said "The way you do the job is wrong."  Usually this was based on insufficient information and ignorance of the fact that the way things were done was a result of applying experience and the knowledge that comes with it.  I recently saw a cartoon that sums it up with humor: 3 scientists are in the lab and one is at his computer.  He says to the others "I know we have devoted our whole lives to the study of infectious disease, but this guy on Facebook makes a lot of sense."

12 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

When I read questions like this I think of "business consultants" or new employees who came into the job where i worked and said "The way you do the job is wrong."  Usually this was based on insufficient information and ignorance of the fact that the way things were done was a result of applying experience and the knowledge that comes with it.  I recently saw a cartoon that sums it up with humor: 3 scientists are in the lab and one is at his computer.  He says to the others "I know we have devoted our whole lives to the study of infectious disease, but this guy on Facebook makes a lot of sense."

 

I see that you have nothing to say but still want to say something? Better say nothing then.

 

If they - the governments, WHO and whoever you refer to - know better, how come that we have pandemic going on, and which has been going on for over 1 year with increasing speed, in the first place?

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

The very vulnerable are the elderly patients who don't make it into ICU for one reason or another - like they're too old and frail to survive invasive emergency treatment (ventilation), so they die before it gets to this stage.

 

That leaves the vast majority of other patients - people in their 50's and 60's - these need treating for weeks at a time and fill ICU into expanded emergency capacity.

 

...........

You've answered something but my question.

4 minutes ago, gafdtomaka366 said:

You've answered something but my question.

 

He answered your question perfectly....  cdemundo’s response probably explains why you don’t understand it ! 

30 minutes ago, gafdtomaka366 said:

I see that you have nothing to say but still want to say something? Better say nothing then.

 

If they - the governments, WHO and whoever you refer to - know better, how come that we have pandemic going on, and which has been going on for over 1 year with increasing speed, in the first place?

 You make my case exactly.  You know better than those who have education, experience, and knowledge.  Welcome to TVF, you will fit right in.

 

34 minutes ago, gafdtomaka366 said:

 

I see that you have nothing to say but still want to say something? Better say nothing then.

 

If they - the governments, WHO and whoever you refer to - know better, how come that we have pandemic going on, and which has been going on for over 1 year with increasing speed, in the first place?

Trouble is the Governments and WHO (who appears to be manipulated by the Chinese) don't appear to have the slightest idea about this. who is pulling the strings as it isn't the governments. If the governments "knew best" why do they use information that has been shown to be wrong?

Because the vaccine is not there to only prevent those with severe reaction from getting ill but to also reduce infection incident and reduce or eliminate mutations that can invalidate the vaccine and/or change the trajectory of the virus. 

every time there is a new infection, symptomatic or not there is a chance for a mutation, the more infections the more chances for a mutation, if it is allowed to run rampant it is inevitable that it will mutate. 

Conspiracy post and replies removed.  

 

3 hours ago, gafdtomaka366 said:

Given that around 90% recover with no problem at all, and given that the number would be even higher if every sick person  was discovered, why vaccianate everybody instead of 10%, at most 20%, in the risk group?

Your argument doesn't hold water when it comes to possible mutations of the virus that are far more contagious and deadly than the current covid-19 one...

No country will ever get 100% compliance with the vaccines and you can't discriminate against 10 or 20 or 30% of the population. Personal choice is whether you want it or not, my personal choice is I don't need it just as I don't need the flu vaccine. My choice, my life.

If the proportion of vaccinated people in a community falls below the herd immunity threshold, exposure to a contagious disease could result in the disease quickly spreading. Measles has recently resurged in several parts of the world with relatively low vaccination rates, including the United States. Opposition to vaccines can pose a real challenge to herd immunity.  

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808

 

Generally needs to be higher than 80%

 

Saying 90% recover is over simplictic,  as it does not account for ongoing long term effects, extreme longterm fatigue, cardiac complication.\, kidney impairment, ongoing respiratory effects,increased risk of stroke, (research suggests the risk of stroke in under 50s on respirators is very high)  this is not only occurrring in older people but also younger infected.

 

58 minutes ago, tribalfusion001 said:

No country will ever get 100% compliance with the vaccines and you can't discriminate against 10 or 20 or 30% of the population. Personal choice is whether you want it or not, my personal choice is I don't need it just as I don't need the flu vaccine. My choice, my life.

 

Unfortunately, your choices may impact others if you choose to avoid a vaccine. 

 

For the vaccine such as this to work over a certain ’threshold’ (%) of a population needs to be vaccinated to prevent further spread.

 

If 50% of the people refuse to have a virus and carry on as normal, they are still placing those in high risk groups at risk.

 

If 10% of the people refuse to have a virus and carry on as normal, there is less chance the virus can spread to and through them as when / if the virus reaches them the have a lower viral load and are contagious for a shorter period. 

 

 

Thus: For those unwilling to take vaccine I would argue that this is fine. IF they are prepared to refuse medical cover if they fall sick from Covid-19 leaving ‘medical facilities available' for those who chose differently, and, IF they are prepared to continue to isolate so they don’t put others at risk. 

 

Your life, Your choice, as you wrote - but that surely must come with conditions if you wish to remain part of society. 

 

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Unfortunately, your choices may impact others if you choose to avoid a vaccine. 

 

For the vaccine such as this to work over a certain ’threshold’ (%) of a population needs to be vaccinated to prevent further spread.

 

If 50% of the people refuse to have a virus and carry on as normal, they are still placing those in high risk groups at risk.

 

If 10% of the people refuse to have a virus and carry on as normal, there is less chance the virus can spread to and through them as when / if the virus reaches them the have a lower viral load and are contagious for a shorter period. 

 

 

Thus: For those unwilling to take vaccine I would argue that this is fine. IF they are prepared to refuse medical cover if they fall sick from Covid-19 leaving ‘medical facilities available' for those who chose differently, and, IF they are prepared to continue to isolate so they don’t put others at risk. 

 

Your life, Your choice, as you wrote - but that surely must come with conditions if you wish to remain part of society. 

 

You don't seem to understand a large proportion do not want the vaccines and will refuse them. Your point of view and your fear of this virus is what's driving this agenda. I live my life and I don't want a covid vaccine. You are advocating medical fascism by saying remain part of society, who are you to decide who is remain part of society for a mild virus, yes mild, 98% of those who die have underlying conditions.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Unfortunately, your choices may impact others if you choose to avoid a vaccine. 

 

For the vaccine such as this to work over a certain ’threshold’ (%) of a population needs to be vaccinated to prevent further spread.

 

If 50% of the people refuse to have a virus and carry on as normal, they are still placing those in high risk groups at risk.

 

If 10% of the people refuse to have a virus and carry on as normal, there is less chance the virus can spread to and through them as when / if the virus reaches them the have a lower viral load and are contagious for a shorter period. 

 

 

Thus: For those unwilling to take vaccine I would argue that this is fine. IF they are prepared to refuse medical cover if they fall sick from Covid-19 leaving ‘medical facilities available' for those who chose differently, and, IF they are prepared to continue to isolate so they don’t put others at risk. 

 

Your life, Your choice, as you wrote - but that surely must come with conditions if you wish to remain part of society. 

 

 

For some strange reason people like yourself feel it's their God given right to force people to do things against their will....

It must not be a very good vaxx if after you take it your not protected....

Viruses mutate all the time, that's why they give flu shots every year...So it stands to reason that people will need to take this vaxx 1-2 times a year indefinitely as the virus mutates to try to get the herd immunity that can never be achieved.....

 

OP asks a legitimate question and the majority of posters immediately basically ridicule him with rude, aggressive remarks and the usual churned out parrot fashion responses.

 

People even saying you must do as your told without question or you are selfish and should not be part of society and must be refused medical help! 

 

Uneducated panic about this virus when most people outside the vulnerable groups don't even get symptoms and those that do recover quickly with no lasting health problems. 

 

Maybe most of the posters are in this elderly or unhealthy group...that would explain some of their fears. If so, then it's up to them to take precautions like staying at home and getting the vaccine, but they don't want do be the ones who are not allowed to travel or go outside do they? They want everybody else to suffer with them. 

 

Only the at risk groups need the vaccine in my opinion, same as with the flu shots. 

 

The rest of the argument have no basis is science. There is no evidence of the virus mutating into a more deadly version to affect younger fitter people any more than the flu or cold virus could. Why don't they make everyone have flu vaccines each year too? 

 

Most of the reasons hospitals can't cope (at least in the UK) are due to bad management and lack of facilities and general incompetence of those in charge to manage the system. Think how many hospitals have been closed down over the years. There are hardly enough the the population now. 

 

It may sound cruel, but what quality of life do these elderly people who already have health issues really have anyway? They are a massive strain on the health care system. Damaging the economy, putting people out of work, closing down businesses, schools and travel just to give sick elderly people a couple extra lingering years in the old folks home does not seem worth it.

 

These are the people who are being selfish and not thinking about society  not the healthy younger people who question the way this situation is being handled and who need to work. 

Any other narrative than vaccine good, anti vax bad is not tolerated & is considered a conspiracy theory... You have achieved the echo chamber you so desire.  Sorry to tell you,  the king still has no clothes; and nazi's eventually get rounded up...

5 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Uneducated panic about this virus when most people outside the vulnerable groups don't even get symptoms and those that do recover quickly with no lasting health problems.

That part of your statement is another incorrect generalisation, read the research on infected and longer term effects of infection across all age age groups please.

 

Viruses mutate all the time, that's why they give flu shots every year...So it stands to reason that people will need to take this vaxx 1-2 times a year indefinitely as the virus mutates to try to get the herd immunity that can never be achieved.....

 

Even still, smallpox has been eliminated from the earth and polio has been eliminated from all but Pakistan and Afghanistan.  So there is a use for vaccines.

8 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

f the proportion of vaccinated people in a community falls below the herd immunity threshold, exposure to a contagious disease could result in the disease quickly spreading.

Oh God, how would we handle a desease from which almost everybody recovers with no issue? Let alone the fact that for the rest, 10-20%, there'll be a vacciane.

 

A person, 9 out of 10 that is, who's ALREADY capable of recovering with NO ISSUE doesn't need a vacciane. Are you a 1 out of 10? Go get a vacciane if you so desire and for YOU it may be better.

But "my choice, my life" is a very selfish one & I trust you never want to travel internationally  in  the forseeable future. I hope you are not allowed anyway

The cost of treatment should you contract , I hope will be met by yourself or do you expect "the nanny state" to pay

The only way to  control any infectious disease is to vaccinate  the entire  population. If you don't  there will always be  further outbreaks. That is why we all receive our shots when we are young. If we don't  the only remedy  is to isolate, quarantine and improve public health  over time.  In the meantime hundreds thousands millions of people  die.  There is no other way. 

7 hours ago, redwood1 said:

Viruses mutate all the time

Different viruses mutate at different rates.

7 hours ago, redwood1 said:

that's why they give flu shots every year

True that the influenza virus has a very fast mutation rate

 

7 hours ago, redwood1 said:

So it stands to reason that people will need to take this vaxx 1-2 times a year indefinitely as the virus mutates to try to get the herd immunity that can never be achieved.....

Totally faulty reasoning. Yellow fever (to give one example) is a virus disease and a vaccination lasts for at least 10 years.

 

Do try to understand that there are millions of viruses all have different mutation rates, some infect humans.

 

Your reasoning is similar to saying that because your Chihuahua can be carried in a handbag that my Saint Bernard/Great Dane can also be carried in a similar handbag. 

7 hours ago, redwood1 said:

If 50% of the people refuse to have a virus and carry on as normal, they are still placing those in high risk groups at risk.

How? You take a vacciane, how would you be at risk? Ahhh, maybe because a vaccian still won't protect you? Then why would take it in the first place, if it wouldn't protect you? ????

 

Get a shot of a vacciane, but it won't protect you. Johnny, I think we just ate sheeiieet for free!

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

Because the vaccine is not there to only prevent those with severe reaction from getting ill but to also reduce infection incident and reduce or eliminate mutations that can invalidate the vaccine and/or change the trajectory of the virus. 

every time there is a new infection, symptomatic or not there is a chance for a mutation, the more infections the more chances for a mutation, if it is allowed to run rampant it is inevitable that it will mutate. 

a vaccine will not reduce infections. It will, assuming it does the job it is supposed to do, reduce the effect of the infection.

11 hours ago, ezzra said:

Your argument doesn't hold water when it comes to possible mutations of the virus that are far more contagious and deadly than the current covid-19 one...

If what you say is true and I have no idea if it is or not, this must be the first virus to ever mutate into something far more dangerous. Which other virus do you know of that has mutated into a more dangerous strain? I have never heard of any virus doing it.

The common cold mutates virtually all of the time which is why there is no vaccine for it. As the Covid virus comprises, among others, the cold virus which is a Corona virus, how is a vaccine ever going to be effective?

If anyone can explain this I would be very interested to hear it

Currently none of the newly developed covid vaccines have been clinically trialed on children and as a result they will not be offered to those under 16 until that happens which is some months off yet.

 

This means that at least 25% of the population will not be offered the vaccine. To achieve herd immunity its important for all responsible adults to take the vaccines when offered or available.

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Currently none of the newly developed covid vaccines have been clinically trialed on children and as a result they will not be offered to those under 16 until that happens which is some months off yet.

 

This means that at least 25% of the population will not be offered the vaccine. To achieve herd immunity its important for all responsible adults to take the vaccines when offered or available.

Why the word 'responsible' in your opinion-statement that To achieve herd immunity its important for all responsible adults to take the vaccines when offered or available.

And important for who?  Surely not for those that have serious second-thoughts about this so-called Vaccine-solution.