They need to vaccinate normal people first

No, for 2 reasons, in my opinion:

You vaccinate the high risk people first, that way the overall risk goes way down and we open up. You don't keep the economy shut down for the effect of covid on people under 50. Its another cold/flu season. (covid deniers - don't even comment, I know what you are going to say and I don't care)

As I understand it, you can also still spread covid around after you've been vaccinated, so the older people are still at risk.

hank jr wrote:

As I understand it, you can also still spread covid around after you've been vaccinated, so the older people are still at risk.

The media keeps repeating this ad nauseum to make sure everybody keeps wearing a mask forever, but it is very likely that even if the vaccines don’t provide perfect sterilizing immunity, they at least dramatically reduce infectiousness.

We will wear masks forever because there will always be a few young people dying from it.

A tiered system based on how many people you come into contact with on a daily basis would be best.

Obviously, health care workers, first responders, etc, are still at the front. They're around lots of people.

But maybe a grocery clerk should get it before a shut in.

How about us who go to large parties a few night per week?

mask hater wrote:

hank jr wrote:

As I understand it, you can also still spread covid around after you've been vaccinated, so the older people are still at risk.

The media keeps repeating this ad nauseum to make sure everybody keeps wearing a mask forever, but it is very likely that even if the vaccines don’t provide perfect sterilizing immunity, they at least dramatically reduce infectiousness.

There is no "the media," and why would need to keep wearing masks when everyone who wants the vac has gotten it?

There is an in-between that the UK is considering, and that is getting the first shot out to everyone before giving nearly anyone the second dose. Roughly, it is better to have 100% of the people 70% protected than 50% of the people 95% protected in the short term.

Not a doctor wrote:

I think the strategy of vaccinating the older population first is bound to backfire. The older population can continue to isolate themselves as they have been -- they are not working, don't need to be out and about.

Better to vaccinate the people who are working, out, and potentially catching and spreading. Getting through these people first will bring the virus to its knees faster than vaccinating people who aren't spreaders.

The people looking after the old isolated people have to go home after their shift.

Most in U.S. public health agree with you.

1) Vaccinate front health care workers first. Front line healthcare workers are age 20 to 70.

2) Vaccinate secondary health care workers. Same age range, 20 to 70.

3) Vaccinate first responders. Tend to be age 21 to 65.

4) Vaccinate at risk public persons. See grocery store cashiers. Usually 15 age to 70.

5) Vaccinate old people over 80.

6) Vaccinate people 70 to 80.

7) Vaccinate people 60 to 70

8) Vaccinate people 50 to 60

9) Vaccinate people 35 to 50

10) Vaccinate older teenagers to 35.

Texas and some other southern states prefer to vaccinate old people first for racist reasons. Relatively speaking, there are not many Blacks & Latins over age 65. There are millions of Whites over age 65. Many Blacks & Latins are younger front line workers.

Who cares. Anyone getting covid-19 vaxx are test subjects.

Society 100 years from now looking back at 2020, "man, those people were dumb AF." Kind of like all of history so far.

We do not know whether the vaccination prevents transmission yet. If you give priority to people who are already taking a lot of risks, you will run the risk of those people misunderstanding the effect of the vaccine and further spreading the virus by taking even more risks. My wife is a speech language pathologist. A bunch of her friends work in hospitals and got first in line for the vaccination. One posted a pic on facebook and wrote about how they cannot wait to go visit grandparents. Everyone had to jump on the replies to say that it was not safe until the grandparents get vaccinated. The person who posted had no idea that they could still transmit the virus after getting vaccinated.

Also, the vaccine roll out is currently too slow to have the desired effect even if transmission was stopped. The big issue right now is limiting the stress on the health care system and saving lives. Putting people over 65 in the front of the line is the most efficient way to accomplish that goal. Younger people can wait until spring and summer to go to brunch.

most in U.S. public health agree ... wrote:

Most in U.S. public health agree with you.

Texas and some other southern states prefer to vaccinate old people first for racist reasons. Relatively speaking, there are not many Blacks & Latins over age 65. There are millions of Whites over age 65. Many Blacks & Latins are younger front line workers.

This is not correct. There's a consensus that vaccinating older people ahead of essential workers will save many lives. The CDC acknowledged this. It suggested prioritizing essential workers anyway because that would lead to more minorities getting vaccinated. The CDC was quite open about the fact that this recommendation was not to minimize harm from the virus but rather to promote racial justice. The states that have prioritized the elderly ahead of essential workers are doing what public health officials believe is likely to cause the fewest deaths.

I agree. The way I see it, they shouldn't have to wait all that long. Once the high risk population is covered, the young and healthy can make that risk assessment, because their actions effect only themselves. The riskiest part of a young person getting covid is them giving it to grandma. Once grandma is vaccinated, I, personally, can't justify the restrictions any longer.

hank jr wrote:

Once grandma is vaccinated, I, personally, can't justify the restrictions any longer.

Total eradication is the new goal though. Masks for all, for years and years, better safe than sorry!!

mask hater wrote:

hank jr wrote:

Once grandma is vaccinated, I, personally, can't justify the restrictions any longer.

Total eradication is the new goal though. Masks for all, for years and years, better safe than sorry!!

You hate masks, we get it. No need to keep commenting.

hank jr wrote:

No, for 2 reasons, in my opinion:

You vaccinate the high risk people first, that way the overall risk goes way down and we open up. You don't keep the economy shut down for the effect of covid on people under 50. Its another cold/flu season. (covid deniers - don't even comment, I know what you are going to say and I don't care)

As I understand it, you can also still spread covid around after you've been vaccinated, so the older people are still at risk.

It's really really sad that this bit of misinformation has become so widely disseminated and believed. Yes, IN THEORY, it is possible that the COVID vaccine could not reduce transmissibility.

However, this is an absurdly remote possibility. IMHO, it was very irresponsible for media sources to suggest this as a real possibility, leading people who are less educated about medicine, epidemiology and immunology to believe it might really be true. But fear sells.

There are NO vaccines that reduce symptoms this effectively and yet do not reduce transmission at all. Now, there are vaccines that REDUCE symtoms and transmission but do not completely eliminate them - the flu vaccine being the most well known of these. If anyone can name me a single vaccine as effective as the new COVID vaccines that doesn't SERIOUSLY decrease transmission, I'll be happy to apologize and admit I'm wrong.

And if you don't believe me, here are quotes from two people who actually research these things (cited from

):

“If you have a vaccine that’s 95 percent effective at reducing symptoms, there is no universe in which it wouldn’t also reduce the likelihood of transmission. It’s just not possible.” - Deepta Bhattacharya, a professor of immunobiology at the University of Arizona

"I suspect the answer will be that people will not be able to transmit — that the virus will protect from transmission, because I think there will be enough antibodies made that will neutralize the virus even at the mucosal surface,” said Dr. Warner Greene, senior investigator at Gladstone Institutes, an independent, nonprofit research lab in San Francisco.

Precious Roy is the resident know-it-all lawyer. Let's hear his rebuttal to this.

Fair enough.

I still stand by my idea, which is the the strategy that's in place. Vaccinate the high risk first and the overall risk goes down to the point we can get on with our lives, faster. Its not a big deal if someone under 50 gets covid, as long as they don't give it to someone else. Protect the weak. I can fend for myself in the meantime. Once the high risk are protected, there is no reason for harsh restrictions.

For the record, I will wear a mask, socially distance, and adhere to the restrictions as long as it takes. I'm not a covid denier and I'm not against being responsible.

hank jr wrote:

Fair enough.

I still stand by my idea, which is the the strategy that's in place. Vaccinate the high risk first and the overall risk goes down to the point we can get on with our lives, faster. Its not a big deal if someone under 50 gets covid, as long as they don't give it to someone else. Protect the weak. I can fend for myself in the meantime. Once the high risk are protected, there is no reason for harsh restrictions.

For the record, I will wear a mask, socially distance, and adhere to the restrictions as long as it takes. I'm not a covid denier and I'm not against being responsible.

Oh yea, I agree with you 100% to vaccinate the high risk first. The data and modeling supports this strategy as the way to save the most lives (the most black lives too). I'm not a fan of large scale restrictions/lockdowns in general but at this point I think we can all hunker down a bit longer and we will start seeing deaths drop dramatically as the most vulnerable get vaccinated.

When you say "as long as it takes" though...as long as it takes for what? It's never going away.

As long as it takes to get the mortality rates under control.

Don't read too much into it, I just didn't want anything thinking I was a denier.