Problem is that at the snails pace they are already going it means people who are most “in society” will be the longest to wait for a vaccine. I understand vaccinating over 65s as a priority group: my parents are getting their vaccines based on this in Canada.
The argument against is that vaccinating people who are the most in front of society means you help break chains of transmission, which makes sense. In the wave of new variants as well that do pose higher risk to younger people, that is also something to consider.
-
-
I get that it’s difficult for laypeople to parse this stuff but there have been studies on risks that essential workers face and that it is useful to vaccinate them early on. I don’t have the time to look for them specifically atm but it’s not a new perspective.
-
Which you have to weigh up against the data from UK and Israel about the benefits of a fast, age-based roll-out. Like I said, both strategies are risk/reward based and the reward for the age-based plan (full vaccination much faster) appears more enticing for politicians.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
That's the problem though: there's two completely rational and entirely contradictory thought processes behind both plans. How on earth are we (or politicians) supposed to know which is better if even the immunologists can't agree? So you just need to gamble.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.