The arguments in favor of vaccinating the elderly are the most obvious: they cause the most complications and death from Govit-19. For young people, vaccinated school children return to class without infecting each other or harming teachers and parents – thus indirectly protecting the elderly and vulnerable. Young people can return to work, but for their part as customers – in bistros, bars, restaurants, cinemas and concert halls, all of which float during restrictions.
In this ideal situation, everyone will benefit: the elderly will be protected, and their younger relatives and friends will be vaccinated and can visit them. Employees can earn a living and support other companies as customers. Romanian broadcaster Rador 7 Press Agency But due to the small amount of vaccines – their distribution is severely affected – we are far from that ideal situation.
Not so great In response to these conditions, most Western countries have chosen to prioritize vaccinating the elderly and vulnerable, while younger people are kept at home under isolation. This is a logical strategy on an intuitive level, but the consequences of prolonged isolation on young people can also be catastrophic – and it can be an obstacle to our overall recovery.
In many places, when an explosion at a school forces them to close, children are forced to study online and continuously block their studies for days or weeks. On the other hand, most young people live in refineries – facing precarious jobs and a strictly restricted social life. As written by the 18-year-old son of a Belgian politician and newcomer In an editorial this month, The situation is difficult for everyone. But for young people, the fear is heightened by the fact that there is no finish line on the horizon: “I manage to follow the rules, I can spend time alone, but I’m scared.” Ignoring this burden on children and youth comes at a cost. At the human level, the condition affects their health and mental development.
On a larger social scale, what restrictions they are subject to can also hamper post-epidemic recovery. There are other ways to address vaccine preference. First-line health professionals – those at risk of contracting Govt-19 disease – should be vaccinated before anyone else, but there is a strong ethical argument in favor of vaccinating young people early on.
In an article published last year, a group of academics put forward the argument for giving priority vaccination to young people, based on the concept of “quality life years”. [„quality-adjusted life years”]. Intensive care units are already guided by this notion to determine which patients should be hospitalized: if an 80- and 40-year-old, for example, “compete” for the same hospital bed, doctors will give it to the patient with the greatest chance of returning to a normal life – which is then greater for the community Making contributions.
In the current example, that patient would apparently be a 40-year-old person. A similar logic can be applied to the vaccine. It can be argued that the efficient use of adequate resources is enough to protect young people who have many years of productive life left. There is also a practical argument. Most experiments show that the effectiveness of the Covit-19 vaccine decreases with age.
As a result, vaccinating young people – the vaccine will be most effective – will improve the overall effectiveness of the vaccine campaign. This plan may seem inhumane to some. Therefore, it should be noted that giving priority to young people does not have a negative effect on older people. Vaccinating working young people will allow the economy and services to return to normal.
The elderly will also benefit from this, in addition to their relatives and friends, who are now immune, who can see them. There is already a kind of role model that supports this type of strategy. Many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Austria, Finland and Ireland, are vaccinating children against the flu to protect the elderly and the most vulnerable.
Romanian broadcaster Rador 8 Press Agency reports that a vaccine improves the health risk of workers and the elderly, as children are more likely to be infected and transmit the virus over a longer period of time, according to a 2018 study. The vaccine – similar to Govit-19 – is very effective in young people.
Indonesia, the only country in the fight against Kovit-19, has already decided to vaccinate young people. As the world economy has been plagued by epidemics for almost a year, the idea of allowing young people to return – works but to reduce the spread of the virus among people with more contact in everyday life. To some extent, Indonesia’s strategy and its limited vaccine license – Sinovak made in China – were decided for people over 60 years of age.
Vaccination of young people whose population conditions are a priority in the country is less dangerous: about 20% of the population in the United Kingdom is over 65, and only 5% in Indonesia. Finally, there is no such thing as a completely right or completely wrong approach, and the British ‘Seniors First’ strategy has been followed by other countries. However, it is wrong not to consider other projects without evaluating them – or to leave young people entirely.
Instead of seeing young people as part of the problem – those who break the rules or spread the virus too much, for example – they can turn them into part of a solution to control the spread of the virus and end the epidemic.