Who Gets Vaccinated First

[Dustyrose33]

I was reading an article about who would get priority in being vaccinated and ran across this near the end of the article:

If the first vaccine that’s available produces less of an immune response in older adults, that could change the priority consideration for older adults.

 

And I'm thinking what the H does that mean, that just because the immune response was lower in some older people, that all people 65 or older are all lumped together and pushed to the side?   Are they saying people in the 65+ age bracket are gonna die anyway, so that's tough if the virus gets them?  Gee thanks a frickin lot US government.    Som' beaches.

[stereologist]

The first people to get a vaccine are those that volunteer for the trials. I'd volunteer.

It is unfortunate that as people age there are slow downs in the human system.

On the bright side if the clueless younger kids that are going to parties get vaccinated they are going to lower the risk to those that are older.

 

[Dustyrose33]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The first people to get a vaccine are those that volunteer for the trials. I'd volunteer.

It is unfortunate that as people age there are slow downs in the human system.

On the bright side if the clueless younger kids that are going to parties get vaccinated they are going to lower the risk to those that are older.

 

Problem is some of these kids are going to Covid parties actually trying to get infected.  Others just don't care.

[Katniss]

4 minutes ago, Dustyrose33 said:

Problem is some of these kids are going to Covid parties actually trying to get infected.  Others just don't care.

That and with some of the comments I've seen, I'm beginning to wonder if there are not some people out there whom want to see a bunch of people die off. As if they think this virus is a golden opportunity to get rid of some of the population.

[Dustyrose33]

17 minutes ago, Katniss said:

That and with some of the comments I've seen, I'm beginning to wonder if there are not some people out there whom want to see a bunch of people die off. As if they think this virus is a golden opportunity to get rid of some of the population.

Sad, but you are right.  Long before this virus came along it troubled me a lot when I'd read posted messages on some of the forums what negative attitudes were shown toward fellow humans.   I'd think "what is wrong with people?"

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, Dustyrose33 said:

I was reading an article about who would get priority in being vaccinated and ran across this near the end of the article:

If the first vaccine that’s available produces less of an immune response in older adults, that could change the priority consideration for older adults.

 

And I'm thinking what the H does that mean, that just because the immune response was lower in some older people, that all people 65 or older are all lumped together and pushed to the side?   Are they saying people in the 65+ age bracket are gonna die anyway, so that's tough if the virus gets them?  Gee thanks a frickin lot US government.    Som' beaches.

I wonder if it means that the immune system in the 65 and up were just too weak fro the vaccine to cause and immunity. 

[Dustyrose33]

11 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I wonder if it means that the immune system in the 65 and up were just too weak fro the vaccine to cause and immunity. 

Could be, but not every person 65+ has the same weak immune system, so they should not lump all older people together.

[TigerBright19]

Plenty of people will refuse the vaccination under religious grounds - same as blood transfusions.  Wonder if they will be prosecuted because of their religious beliefs?

 

 

[Dustyrose33]

44 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

Plenty of people will refuse the vaccination under religious grounds - same as blood transfusions.  Wonder if they will be prosecuted because of their religious beliefs?

 

 

I searched and could find nothing about prosecution of rejecting vaccination based on religious beliefs, but this is part of an article I found:

Turning to the parents’ religious claims, the court relied on a 1944 case, Prince v. Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court stated that a parent “cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds.” The court went on to note that the First Amendment right to religious freedom “does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.” And because the law compelling vaccinations is neutral—that is, it applies to everyone and doesn’t specifically target a particular religion—no constitutional violation occurred. Plus, two of the parents had received exemptions, so the court viewed New York’s limited exclusion during an outbreak as permissible.

Of course, the ruling is only binding within the context of public education; nothing prevents the parents from homeschooling their children and keeping them vaccination-free. And it remains to be seen whether these parents will be appealing to a higher court to review the case. But given that the Supreme Court has already spoken loudly on the matter, here’s hoping faith in the judgment of the courts and the rule of law will prevail. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Dustyrose33

[ChrLzs]

I'd be more optimistic about what was meant, and read that as if it would be my choice - so if a fairly weak vaccine became available early, I might prefer to just continue safe practices and wait for something better...

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

I wonder if it means that the immune system in the 65 and up were just too weak fro the vaccine to cause and immunity. 

It's the opposite.  Cytokine storm is occuring in older people with more developed immune systems. 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

I do trust vaccines, most of people in my region, back in the days of Yugoslavia got extra shots of different kind of vaccines (oh, the beauty of socialism) which were not mandatory in many nations at the time. Thanks God my immune system is great, was rarely ill. But these days, after so many poorly executed vaccinations which have made many people's lives miserable... I would reject shots.

Hopefully there will be no need for them and this situation will end and never return but without 100% government project without private profit seekers... We must not rush it. Whatever the price, results of poor job behind vaccine could be worse than prolonged measures in Corona crisis.

[TigerBright19]

Everyone will probably have a mark on their body which will show they have been vaccinated and this mark will allow them to be permitted into shops, terminals, and workplaces etc.

 

Maybe automatic doors will be triggered only with shoppers who carry the mark?  This will guarantee that only vaccinated citizens can enter.

 

 

[Dustyrose33]

1 hour ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

I do trust vaccines, most of people in my region, back in the days of Yugoslavia got extra shots of different kind of vaccines (oh, the beauty of socialism) which were not mandatory in many nations at the time. Thanks God my immune system is great, was rarely ill. But these days, after so many poorly executed vaccinations which have made many people's lives miserable... I would reject shots.

Hopefully there will be no need for them and this situation will end and never return but without 100% government project without private profit seekers... We must not rush it. Whatever the price, results of poor job behind vaccine could be worse than prolonged measures in Corona crisis.

I have the same hope as you and others that this virus will end and never return.   However, now Fauci says he doesn't think it will ever be eradicated.   That's not to say that will be true though.   His opinion is that the virus would one day be sustained in small outbreaks and kept at low level.

[Setton]

5 hours ago, Dustyrose33 said:

I was reading an article about who would get priority in being vaccinated and ran across this near the end of the article:

If the first vaccine that’s available produces less of an immune response in older adults, that could change the priority consideration for older adults.

 

And I'm thinking what the H does that mean, that just because the immune response was lower in some older people, that all people 65 or older are all lumped together and pushed to the side?   Are they saying people in the 65+ age bracket are gonna die anyway, so that's tough if the virus gets them?  Gee thanks a frickin lot US government.    Som' beaches.

Remember, not everyone needs to be vaccinated for the virus to die out.

I think (off the top of my head) about 60% of the population needs to be immune. If a lot of older people don't get immunity from the vaccine, that's just wasted doses. You can give them to the age brackets that do get immunity and by doing so protect the elderly.

[Dustyrose33]

1 hour ago, TigerBright19 said:

Everyone will probably have a mark on their body which will show they have been vaccinated and this mark will allow them to be permitted into shops, terminals, and workplaces etc.

 

Maybe automatic doors will be triggered only with shoppers who carry the mark?  This will guarantee that only vaccinated citizens can enter.

 

 

 

I'm not sure a majority wold agree to getting a mark, for fear of associating it with a mark of a sinister meaning.

[spartan max2]

4 minutes ago, Setton said:

Remember, not everyone needs to be vaccinated for the virus to die out.

I think (off the top of my head) about 60% of the population needs to be immune. If a lot of older people don't get immunity from the vaccine, that's just wasted doses. You can give them to the age brackets that do get immunity and by doing so protect the elderly.

And even if enough people don't have the vaccine to reach here immunity , more people having the vaccine still significantly would slow the virus down and make it less prominent by having less host to reproduce in and spread too.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

6 minutes ago, Dustyrose33 said:

I have the same hope as you and others that this virus will end and never return.   However, now Fauci says he doesn't think it will ever be eradicated.   That's not to say that will be true though.   His opinion is that the virus would one day be sustained in small outbreaks and kept at low level.

With so many news and statements issued about this whole issue i find it hard to believe anyone. Just try to stay clean from risky situations, as i see it it's all we can and should do until someone figures this out. Hopefully before people start trying out all sorts of vaccines in search for safety.

Fear is very strong motivation tool, there wont be lack of test specimens with all this media hype.

 

[TigerBright19]

To put it all in context.  Was the paranoia and global lockdown really necessary?

 

 

 

.....and the majority of the cases are mild.  This pandemic would not even make the news in the old days.

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by TigerBright19

[acute]

6 hours ago, Dustyrose33 said:

Who Gets Vaccinated First

Me, followed by......

Ah, who cares.

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, acute said:

Ah, who cares.

Karens... 

~

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

To put it all in context.  Was the paranoia and global lockdown really necessary?

 

Just curious, TB, where did you get your education on drawing pie charts... or did you just copy this from somewhere and gullibly assume it to be correct and relevant?

Because if we assume those numbers are correct (as a starting point), your skinny little single pixel line should be about 1.7x wider (should be rounded to 2 or 'smoothed', give the pixellation issue.)  That's a 70% error.  "Impressive..."

And you do realise, don't you, that the graph for YOUR LOCATION will look a little different, as will mine?  Why not post that?  (After you've learnt how to do it properly).

And then how about you give an age distribution range that shows the actual danger of getting infected?  Because, as you should know (but probably don't) these complex issues are not a simple case of absolute risk at any given moment.  That's just stupidly simplistic.

[bee]

10 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

Everyone will probably have a mark on their body which will show they have been vaccinated and this mark will allow them to be permitted into shops, terminals, and workplaces etc.

 

Maybe automatic doors will be triggered only with shoppers who carry the mark?  This will guarantee that only vaccinated citizens can enter.

 

 

 

this kind of thing could easily be on the cards... integrated with a vaccination programme ....
 

random link (tottnews) about the Quantum Dot

sample of quotes from article... re the Quantum Dot Tattoo...
 

A recent December 2019 study published in Science Translational Medicine describes the development of ‘quantum dot tags’ that fluoresce with information as part of a vaccine injection.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By codelivering a vaccine, the pattern of particles in the skin could serve as an on-person vaccination record.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, ‘Hey, we have a real problem — knowing who’s vaccinated’.

They said, ‘We go on vaccination campaigns where people get into Hummers, drive to a rural village, set up a tent and start immunizing people, but they don’t always know who’s been immunized before and what vaccines are still needed.” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The ‘ID2020 Summit’ was held at the United Nations headquarters in New York in June 2017. Microsoft and Accenture attended, as well as ‘humanitarian’ groups including the World Food Programme and the UN Refugee Agency.

The meeting discussed creating digital identification for every person on the planet. One that is tied to fingerprints, birth certificates, medical records, education, travel, bank accounts and more.

 

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

14 hours ago, Dustyrose33 said:

I was reading an article about who would get priority in being vaccinated and ran across this near the end of the article:

If the first vaccine that’s available produces less of an immune response in older adults, that could change the priority consideration for older adults.

 

And I'm thinking what the H does that mean, that just because the immune response was lower in some older people, that all people 65 or older are all lumped together and pushed to the side?   Are they saying people in the 65+ age bracket are gonna die anyway, so that's tough if the virus gets them?  Gee thanks a frickin lot US government.    Som' beaches.

Well all I can say is Republicans do not need to get a Vaccination, they are still claiming this Pandemic is hoax. I personally think the countries Republicans should only receive Hydroxychloroquine, according to President Trump that's all you need, he says it works as a preventative medication and it will save your life if your infected, so what else do they need, I mean the President would never lie to his followers!!!

[Grim Reaper 6]

9 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

And even if enough people don't have the vaccine to reach here immunity , more people having the vaccine still significantly would slow the virus down and make it less prominent by having less host to reproduce in and spread too.

Herd immunity doesnt work for COVID19, so that is not the answer.

https://www.healthline.com/health/herd-immunity