Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone View Post
"I’m not trying to create some sort of competition between the old and those involved in specific areas of employment"

But that is exactly what you are doing. You cannot move people up a priority chain without moving others down it. That's "competition". In a real world with a finite supply and infinite demand for a product for every winner there is a loser.

At the moment you want to prioritise the elderly, the infirm, those in care, those with existing medical conditions, those working in the NHS and in the care sectors, those key workers you've identified - teachers, retail, transport, binmen etc, those alleged super spreaders aged, what, 12 to 23?

So who is left unprioritised? Sid and Doris Bonkers of Neasden (and accountants)

And when you now have a priority pool of 99% of the population, how do you prioritise within that group? Alphabetical order maybe? I don't know but it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it and eat it again.
As regards the youthful ‘super spreaders’ I long since accepted Ram59’s argument that as long as we don’t know if stopping them catching it also stops them spreading it then to prioritise the young would be futile.

Is there a ‘finite supply’? I thought we had enough for everyone and that time provided the greatest constraint. Couldn’t this be where the army is put to use. As I’ve said before teachers and supermarket staff will all be on one one site at the same time. Surely we can come up with some sort of mobile vaccination task force rather than just indulge in more hand wringing.

On a much needed positive note. The close family member who tested positive is much improved. Diagnosed on Friday, felt like sh*t on Saturday and Sunday, signs of improvement yesterday and further improvement today. Encouraging? Seriously hope so, although I have to add she is in her mid thirties.