COVID vaccine : Who would have the vaccine when it is... - NRAS


30,392 members36,532 posts

COVID vaccine


Who would have the vaccine when it is available to us

I would definitely have it

97 Replies

It was said on the radio that the first people to be offered the vaccination would be 'the vulnerable'. Who exactly they mean by 'the vulnerable' is yet to be ascertained

wishbone in reply to Gnarli

The powers that be still seem to be having problems working that out if the recent letters people have had are anything to go by. I see problems ahead if they can't sort it out soon.

Great news about the vaccine though! :-)

Gnarli in reply to wishbone

Seems to me that the powers that be aren't making a great fist of a lot of things

Bookworm55 in reply to Gnarli

This is the priority list published today....

Gnarli in reply to Bookworm55

Thank you. That's very useful

Do you mean would we have it as a personal decision? Or do you mean who will be the priority groups?

Answering the first question - I would.

Answering the second question, probably essential workers first - NHS staff, police, fire service, public service drivers, etc. Then those who are already listed for flu - easiest to get at those as there is already a mechanism for calling them. But they may decide to go by areas... who knows.

essexgirl in reply to oldtimer

Personal choice

Not for a while yet

I would be first in the que and put masks etc in bucket

Im sure i will be 3rd lot

1st lot is nhs over 80s etc and frontline

2nd lot is extremely vulnerable and sheilded

3rd lot lower risk and over 55

So some say

Lolabridge in reply to Ajay575

Sorry I don’t think you will be able to discard your masks so quickly as safety restrictions will continue for some time I heard on radio just a few minutes ago.

Ajay575 in reply to Lolabridge

☹ although i do disagree it is safety as i am of opinion it is doing the opposite and more harm as is lots of scientists. But hey ho i will have to wait untill march as it is law and am forced too ☹

Looks as if priority will be according to age.....

Over 85 and those in care homes. Over 80. Over 75. Over 70. Over 65 and so on....

Not an ideal method with many healthy let's say over 70's being less vunerable than those from younger age groups who are in poor health and so on down the line... The only reason I can see for going the age route and not to include how vunerable someone is, is that it's too complicated for the authorities to prioritise how vunerable each individual is according to their state of health. I think the confusion over who qualifies for shielding is more than an indication of that, both now and back when shielding was first introduced if the shielding letters people have had are anything to go by.

crashdoll in reply to wishbone

I didn’t know they were considering it by age. It does make sense given the risk of complications and death increases with age. That said, I hope they prioritise people - staff and patients/residents - in care homes (any age) and hospitals first though as they appear to be the cause of many outbreaks.

wishbone in reply to crashdoll

I heard Prof Van Tam announce it in today's government briefing. I'm pretty sure he said people in care homes along with the over 85s would be given top priority. I never heard him mention frontline workers such as nurses, care workers, etc, though I think they would be among the first in line.

I don't know about this, they've done clinical trials on healthy people, not people who take the serious drugs that we do. I'm wondering if we may some reaction to whatever is in the vaccine, it's been rushed through very quickly.

kalel in reply to Paula-C

This is exactly why I think people should do there own research before taking the vaccine. Everyone reacts to these things differently. My body has often reacted to meds badly and so for me I would never rush into doing any type of medical treatment especially without being aware of side effects. Just how I see things but after following a dr that has spoken about covid a lot my understanding is a virus can only survive in air for two years and even if half the population take a. Vaccine this and with herd immunity taking place. It should help recover from the pandemic quicker. Good luck everyone

Me - but only if my Rheumy recommends I should.


MadBunny in reply to Lolabridge

Same here.

I will be taking medical advice from hospital/doctor/this group before stepping forward. Easier to stay safe home and watch this space.....

According to what i read earlier, not suitable for people with compromised immune systems, thats me out then :P

Oh? I’ve not seen that. Where did you hear it please?

Read it on the online news sites, when they were saying who would get it first, yesterday morning.

Ok - I've not read anywhere that it isn't suitable for people with any immune disease?

Just heard someone on Radio 5 say the vaccine is not suitable for people taking immune suppressants. What a downer if true!

MadBunny in reply to wishbone

Yep. I don't want to have to spend the rest of my life under restrictions.And what about those who are working but on such meds????

wishbone in reply to MadBunny

Neither do I! Apparently they are not sure if the vaccine will stop people actually catching the virus thus still able to infect other people. So we can't even rely on a certain degree of herd immunity to help protect us if that is true, and I emphasise if true as there seems a lot of uncertainties with this vaccine. I didn't hear all of yesterdays government briefing so may have missed something, but I never heard anyone say that we need to read the small print before celebrating.

MadBunny in reply to wishbone

You're right - IF it's true. There's bound to be all sorts of rumours flying so until we hear it from the official sources eg my rheumy then I will take it all with a massive pinch of salt. Nothing is certain- yet.

wishbone in reply to MadBunny

I have a phone consultation with our new rheumatologist on thursday so will see what he has to say.

GinnyE in reply to wishbone

I’d be grateful if you could post what they say. I’m going to be so fed up if we can’t have the vaccine. I know we can’t have live vaccines, not sure if that’s because of RA or methotrexate. Hope you have a good appointment.

Ajay575 in reply to GinnyE

Hi this vaccine is not a live vaccine

GinnyE in reply to Ajay575

Well your source, an expert on the radio, sounds promising, so 🤞

Ajay575 in reply to GinnyE

Hope so

He also said better vaccines will follow

wishbone in reply to GinnyE

I can think of a stronger term than "fed up" for the way I feel! I'm not sure if it's immune suppressants or RA either, or what other health conditions prevent people having the vaccine. Going by the so called experts contradicting each other on the radio I'm not sure anyone knows. Anyway, I shall ask my "new" rheumatologist what he thinks and will get back to you. A timely appointment by the seem.

Yes do report back, dear Wish, if you have a chance to ask him but don’t let it stop you having your personal RA time with him. Good luck for your phone call. 😀

Haven't got much else to say to him as everything is rosy in the garden at the mo! rosy as can be that is! :-)

I’m glad to hear all is steady!

BBC had it on their new site - I just said to my OH that that was typical, the people who need it most can't have it. I wonder if it's a live vaccine?

I'm wondering that too, though you think they would have said something if it was a live vaccine...then again! Let's just hope the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine or one of the others currently being trialled will work for those of us on immune suppressants, which must be a helluva lot of people!

I agree .. there must surely be non live vaccines for the immuno-surpressed as there are a lot of people in that category.

Check this out

Thank you I saw this on the BBC but thanks for posting. We’ve all learned a lot since this thread thank goodness and vaccines started.

No, this one isn’t a live vaccine and I don’t think it works the same way other vaccines work.

I wonder why immunocompromised people may not be able to have it then. It being a live vaccine was the only reason I could think of.

I don’t know for sure but I have a feeling it works on your own autoimmune system, I don’t think it works like a regular vaccine but that’s just what I think I’ve heard - I could well be completely wrong.

I woukd maybe hold off a few months as well

not sure if live or not live but a good professor on radio said better vacines are on the way soon

MadBunny in reply to paulogribiz

I read it that and it worries me

Meeeee. I want to travel again and I suspect having proof of vaccination may be a requirement to enter some countries. Plus, travel insurance may have a clause added too. So I’ll be in that queue.

Hidden in reply to HappykindaGal

I'm worried about that. This is not a good thing in my opinion. That's coercion.

HappykindaGal in reply to Hidden

Not really. You can’t travel to some countries without either a yellow fever jab or a certificate of non vaccination. I imagine this will be similar

Hidden in reply to HappykindaGal

My big worry about this vaccine is that drug companies will be exempt from damages charges because it has been rushed out so quickly. Now this vaccine is going to be shoved out on a mass scale. I would want proof of short and long term problems. What happens if in three months time say, huge numbers of people experience serious harm? It happens. This is why drugs are removed from the market.

Also, this is not yellow fever or any of those other hideous tropical diseases we are talking about. This is a virus that although nasty to a few, is mild for most. I have the choice not to go to those countries after all.

What happens if people can't go to work unless they've had the shot? There has been some talk of this. No. I'd personally need to see more proof. Informed choice. The decision must ultimately be up to each person, and their families to have the vaccine after due consideration. I would worry about the elderly having it as they are already vulnerable, unless vigorously tested.

Just my views. I am NOT anti vaccines or drugs at all. I've taken many over the years. I will most likely take more (after weighing up the pros and cons). I have a sneaking suspicion this won't be rolled out any time soon anyway.

Mmrr in reply to Hidden


Cassiechat in reply to Hidden

I'm with you all the way, is this to be used to restrict the things we wish to do, if we don't have it. Read lots about the tests being used to DNA profile people. Is this truly a really serious infection, or are we all being used by the huge pharmaceutical companies, that are funded by billionaires, who are trying to control us all

Hidden in reply to Cassiechat

I've no idea. I do know that some pharmaceutical companies have been given indemnity against liability for these rushed vaccines. This bothers me greatly. Also not that happy that some members of parliament have conflicts of interest with regards to drug companies.

Ultimately I guess it's up to each person to do their own research and make an informed choice. It's not for me to suggest what other people choose to do with their bodies. For me personally, no thanks. This doesn't feel appropriate.

The Moderna vaccine trials were a bit worrying in terms of side effects. But we will see I guess.

Fruitandnutcase in reply to Hidden

Let’s just hope that if it is rushed and untested it doesn’t harm the front line health workers who get it first.

Hidden in reply to Fruitandnutcase

Indeed. Or the elderly!

Neonkittie17 in reply to Hidden

I agree with more proof re side effects but if may take several years just as many other meds have done so, for some of the side effects to materialise, so yes it is a risk to have the vaccine but a risk also not to. Which is the bigger risk? Dilemmas. As many of us have said, you have to weigh up pros and cons and then make the informed decision. If you have an RA med or any med that renders your immunity to being negligible, or you have a comorbidity that makes you doubly vulnerable, you’d be more likely to want the vaccination sooner rather than later. Do you hesitate and wait and watch, or try get some protection and go early? I’d say go fairly early but not immediately for myself. That is something only an individual can decide and shouldn’t be pushed into having it. I do see it happening that you only get to travel abroad if you have your “health passport“ in tact ... which includes the proof of Covid vaccination.

I do feel that saying the virus is “mild for most” is being too casual, when so many thousands of people have died of it. It’s certainly been more than “nasty to a few”. One family member got it low level and wasn’t really affected more than a week, and a married couple of friends didn’t know they’d got it until weeks later when he found he had antibodies after being tested when he told his doc he’d lost his sense of taste for several weeks. Same for her too. My brother in law was hospitalised and seriously unwell .. he was a fit 55 year old .. and isn’t right now, so if it’s mild to many I’m glad for them, but it wasn’t to my brother in law nor was it to the 40-some thousand who have lost their lives in this country alone. I do feel you and I are on a different page the way we see the effects of this virus and I won’t change my mind just as I’m sure you won’t change yours. This isn’t meant as an inflammatory remark I assure you, but I doubt we will feel the same about the severity of the virus and that’s the way it is.

Hidden in reply to Neonkittie17

That's fine. I have no problem with that. Agree it's up to individual, as I have been at pains to say. For me the risk of the vaccine is high. I don't like the indemnity to liability clause.

I think one way or another the truth will out.

Hidden in reply to Hidden

Sorry edited for clarification.

Neonkittie17 in reply to Hidden

I’m sure given time that a lot of things will unravel.

Neonkittie17 in reply to Hidden

For me the risk of no vaccine seems higher.

Exactly my thoughts too. x

The difference is that vaccine had years of clinical trials behind it before being brought out and experience being used on people with AI issues. It’s not an ok requirement if we are waiting another year+ to get it, which my Stanford university rheumie it telling me to (wait and see - none are being tested on people with AI and we don’t want another Shingrix vaccine debacle). IMHO.

So has the Oxford one. It’s based on the work they were already doing with MERS and SARS vaccines. The bonus this time was they had an unlimited funding pot to do intensive testing. It’s not an entirely new vaccine.

Hezekiah in reply to HanaleiBa

I've never heard of the "Shingrix vaccine debacle". Please can you supply further information, or links to further information.

Hi Happy, that’s what I said on my post with the Times vaccine article attachment. I think we will need to have a Covid vaccination for a health passport. (Also maybe for health insurance.) x

Definitely think for health insurance, mortgages companies have taken a massive hit and will do everything to protect their risk now.

I agree and it’s going to exclude a lot of people or make them pay huge amounts to be insured. 😑

This was mentioned on yesterday's government briefing :

wishbone in reply to kimmypoos

Thanks, that explains why current priority is age based and not on vunerability. You would think Prof Van Tam would have mentioned that in yesterdays briefing.

I heard on the BBC News that it would be NHS staff and ke

Keyworkers who would get it first, followed by the most vulnerable. Although I would like to be able to get the vaccine ASAP I would be nervous about it until it had been in general use for a few months. It will probably be a year before it gets to me anyway. Praying that it is safe and effective for everyone.

After care homes and nhs

It goes with ages down to age 50 and in the ages vulnerable and risk is mentioned also and it is a combination of age and vulnerability

Age 65 to 80 are first regardless of risk as their death rates are the highest

Then starts at age 65 with risks downwards to age 50

Im sure better vaccines will become available this one takes 5 weeks to work im sure i read and is a nightmare to store and delivery etc

I would take a chance with the vaccine, I got a text from Gov Scotland yesterday offering me vitamin D tablets, this must be the latest in helping fight Covid. They are posting them out in December. 🤷‍♀️

Hidden in reply to Lizard28

That's a good thing. Good you have been offered vitD.

MadBunny in reply to Lizard28

I heard were getting them in England too

I would definitely have the vaccine when offered but I am a little worried what they mean when they say it might not be suitable for people with compromised immune systems. There is a lot of difference between people undergoing chemotherapy and those taking methotrexate, for example. If it meant I could have the vaccine and it be effective, I would come off all rheumatoid drugs for a short period of time but would that work? I expect we shall learn in due course - where did I put my patience?

Ajay575 in reply to achyknitter

Hi im sure they said it is suitable for compromised immune system as it is not a live vaccine

Im sure better vaccines will become available as well

MadBunny in reply to Ajay575

I really hope so.

Ajay575 in reply to MadBunny

Was listening to an expert on radio an hour ago

Thats wot he said

Aldo a few anwers not available yet until it is rolled out

Still good news though and hopefully the other and better vaccines will come soon

MadBunny in reply to Ajay575

Well just have to wait and see. Early days yet.

I’d love to have it.

Will we be eligible with weakened immune systems?.

GP hasn't even offered a flu jab yet to myself or my 84 year old husband so absolutely no hope of getting a Covid jab. I got tired of listening to the various excuses why the surgery wasn't doing them from the 'very difficult' receptionist at GP so went to a pharmacy with no problem

essexgirl in reply to Tedx

Really Tedx that is so bad

Not for me until more information is available regarding side effects on those with compromised immune systems.

Neonkittie17 in reply to Mmrr

I think we will get more information for those on immunotherapy and also the reassurance from our rheumatologists. So many people will be concerned about side effects and will delay going and rightly so, but I still want to have a vaccination. x


Mmrr in reply to Neonkittie17

I would need more than reassurance from my rheumatologist before I accepted the vaccination. At present, all any rheumatologist will know is what they 'think' the outcome of vaccinating immunocompromised people might be.

Immunocompromised people have not been included in the efficacy / safety trails, so there is no science available at the moment.

Noone knows.

MissRona in reply to Mmrr

I completely agree. When I hear, "Consult your doctor" before taking this or that, it is assumed they know everything already. I have to hope that the people I see are willing to admit when they don't know all the facts yet. I don't have a dependable rheumatologist, so I am going to keep reading comments here to see what others have found out from theirs. I live in an extremely rural area of the U.S. and doctors are far and few between.

Yes, that is what Van Tam said. I've since heard they'll be prioritising the vunerable as well, but imagine that will be easier said than done. Seems like there's lot of uncertainties with this vaccine and not in favour of those who most need it unfortunately. Time will tell I suppose......

Well I’m sure there will be loads of speculation regarding any vaccine which finally hits the market. As I have a non existent immune system I wonder where that would put me on the list although currently I’m supposed to be sixth. I would definitely take my chances and be vaccinated given the chance, but I did ponder on the T-cell part of the equation as some are on anti tnf’s which target T cells, my question is which T cells are required for the vaccine to be effective? are they different to the ones which are targeted for inflammation and biologic drug treatments ? Also with my immune system being the way it is would I get an immune response that would cover me or would it be a waste of time and money in my case ? Well my answer is yep I’d have it.

Neonkittie17 in reply to Leics

Hi Leics, I can understand all of this and was reading about T cells and Covid vaccine a couple of days ago in The Lancet online. Will try find it for you, but didn’t give too many answers. Just asked questions. I was also thinking how do you pace it/plan it if you’ve had a longer term infusion such as mine (Rituximab)? I think we are naturally trying to pre-empt the information our rheumys will hopefully soon be able to tell us more about. Let’s hope it’s not too long before we are told more in relation to our R.A. x

Leics in reply to Neonkittie17

Yeah I suppose we are all going to have to ask immuno or rheumatology about the vaccine and when and if we are able to have it fingers crossed they have the answers lol.

Neonkittie17 in reply to Leics

I think they will tell us more as soon as they feel confident with the information they have to give to us. Still early days so they probably don’t want to give too much hope, maybe.

Thing is everyone has the flu jab every year without thinking twice , they change it every year to adjust to new variance

On a lighter note. Today Sky News was interviewing a scientist about the vaccine and a picture on his wall was a Chinese pagoda!!!!! Lol. Not taking vaccine until more proof it works. Also I have always understood viruses are not bacterial but self limiting and as with cold and flu which are viruses. Afterall they do not give antibiotics for viruses. So why vaccine.

But they give vaccines to stop the virus being as bad & save lives

essexgirl in reply to essexgirl

This is where you put in about you & it calculates when you will get your vaccine mine is 3/2/21

You may also like...