They need to vaccinate normal people first

We've had over 360,000 die from this already (and don't give me the claim that only 6% of them died only of COVID as if dying with comorbidities were not part of every death statistic>about that percent of cancer and flu deaths also lacked other comorbities). That compares to typical annual flu deaths as low as 12,000 when Obama-Biden took us through H1N1 smoothly in 2009-10, to 61,000 in 2017-18 under Trump, who never noticed. That's six times the worst flu pandemic we've had in decades. In another few weeks, the US per million death toll to COVID will exceed twice the worst flu death toll per capita in this country in a century.

xczvzxcv wrote:

We've had over 360,000 die from this already (and don't give me the claim that only 6% of them died only of COVID as if dying with comorbidities were not part of every death statistic>about that percent of cancer and flu deaths also lacked other comorbities). That compares to typical annual flu deaths as low as 12,000 when Obama-Biden took us through H1N1 smoothly in 2009-10, to 61,000 in 2017-18 under Trump, who never noticed. That's six times the worst flu pandemic we've had in decades. In another few weeks, the US per million death toll to COVID will exceed twice the worst flu death toll per capita in this country in a century.

You think Obama/Biden waved their magical wand and got us 'smoothly through H1N1??? Because there were no lockdowns, no masks, no social distancing, no mitigation practices whatsoever then. So either you're comparing apples to rinos, or you think Obama had magic powers.

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

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.

I disagree and think we should vaccinate the people over 70 first. Ok, maybe health care workers working with Covid first. Then everyone over 70. The death rate for someone over the age of 70 is literall 250 times (5.4%) that for someone under 50 (.02). Then the rest of healthcare.

The problem with this rationale is that many in the over 65 category are refusing the vaccine. It's no good if only 40% of them take it.

No, to stop the spread, you must stop the spreaders. As the other guy wrote, the elderly are at the end of the transmission chain. If only 40% of them want the vaccine, continued spread puts the other 60% at risk.

We need to choke the virus out, stop the spread, that will lower the death rate. Vaccinate those who are in contact with dozens of people a day, not those who are in contact with two people.

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.

Here's my take. Very, very few young people as in less than 50 are in hospitals with Covid. So vaccinating them does not get you very far at reducing the extremely at risk. That age group is also far more likely to have already had Covid due to increased exposure oppurtunities. We should not be vaccinating anyone who has had Covid, totally unscientific to do so.

There are about 36 million US citizens over 70. Only about 13 million over 80. Once you get the people over 70 vaccinated the risk to the population as a whole is dramatically reduced. That is only 11% of the population so that is a very easy target to get vaccinated over the next two months. Once you get those populations done the people at severe risk are dramatically reduced and any overload threat to the medical system should over. As far as I'm concerned at that point all restrictions should go. If you want to isolate at that point you're more than welcome to. But at some point, normal life has to resume and we have to accept a level of risk.

As I've said before the goal can be no one ever dies of Covid or catches it again. That is not an achievable metric.

dfjkdfbsvbv wrote:

mask hater wrote:

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.

Except there is absolutely no clinical data to say that's what would happen because the vaccine was never studied that way in humans. I'm in the industry and it's shocking to see a national regulatory body decide to use a therapy in a way it was NEVER studied. This is why the FDA has already issued a statement that they won't do this. For all we know using that strategy with the AstraZeneca vaccine will result in 20% effectiveness or a shorter duration of effectiveness. And that's the problem -- they're making that decision in a complete vacuum of actual clinical data.

Agreed for the most part -- get deaths and hospitalizations way, way down and I think people will be comfortable easing restrictions. Do people-facing essential workers at the same time and you may even see a significant drop in cases too.

[quote]Not a doctor wrote:

The problem with this rationale is that many in the over 65 category are refusing the vaccine. It's no good if only 40% of them take it.

No, to stop the spread, you must stop the spreaders. As the other guy wrote, the elderly are at the end of the transmission chain. If only 40% of them want the vaccine, continued spread puts the other 60% at risk.

Let those of us who have no trust in the establishment take our chances on the Covid.

Let those who fear Covid take the vaccine so they can be safe.

Let the rest of us live as free Americans hurting nobody but ourselves.

I saw the thread title, "They need to vaccinate normal people first" and that this thread was trending. My immediate thought was that means nobody on the letsrun message board will get the vaccine first, so I'm against it.

I'll also leave it to the experts to figure out vaccine distribution, not this community.

Some of the posts on here are dumb, from dumb people. The article about passing the virus around after the vaccine.......we just started vaccinating people, they dont know that yet.

Besides, our immune system and vaccines dont work that way. People are acting like our immune system stopped working. Well after a million year here, it didnt change overnight.

Its either the vaccine works or its just water being shot into you. We create immunity with a "vaccine". That means you cant get sick or you cant host, replicate, and spread a virus.

Not all vaccines work the same. I would say that an mRNA vaccine would be more comparable to a far more effective inactivated virus vaccine as compared to an attenuated live vaccine. So if if we looked to historical data on respiratory infections, we would probably want to look to pertussis and influenza vaccines, not measles, mumps or rubella.

In int he case of pertussis and flu vaccine injections, there is a question about the extent to which protection for the individual correlates with reduced transmission.

Will that be an issue at all? A major issue? I don’t know. 95% protection for the individual and 70% reduced transmission could be incredibly useful.

Could it be resolved with a nasal spray formulation? Quite possibly.

I would just hate for people to have unreasonable expectations and then learn that there is a 70% reduction in transmission after the vaccine and then conclude that it must be a conspiracy because they’ve been lied to .