The real answer is Astrazeneca. More than half of vaccinated people in the UK have been vaccinated with Astrazeneca… and they are concerned about the actual effectiveness of this vaccine, and possible variant outbreaks (there have been three instances of “surge testing” where they go door-to-door following an outbreak: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/surge-testing-for-new-coronavirus-covid-19-variants). According to Eric Topol (whose opinion is based on a few studies), Astrazeneca is not effective against B.1.3.5 (south-african variant).
Due to effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna, the US (and Israel) can afford to relax restrictions much more than their european counterparts.
I think you’re answering a different question from the one agc is asking. Unless I misunderstood, agc was asking why the UK isn’t yet vaccinating people younger than 45. Being able to relax restrictions more in the US wouldn’t explain that.
I think the actual answer is that the UK very promptly secured a pretty decent quantity of vaccines (mostly AstraZeneca), enough to vaccinate quite a lot of its population, but that while the US was slower it then got hold of more relative to population size, and now the US has more plentiful supply than the UK.
I didn’t word it very well, the original thought got lost along the way, thanks for pointing it out!
I meant to conclude that since the UK cannot afford to lift restrictions for vaccinated people then they follow the logical route of vaccinating by age cohorts: this will keep deaths as low as they can be.
However, in the US they are actually enabling vaccinated people to do stuff… which will boost the economy significantly, and they can afford to do so due to the degree mRNA vaccines seem to block transmission. So it makes sense to allow anyone that wants to be vaccinated to do that, instead of the inevitable slowdown caused by using an age restrictive criterion.
The real answer is Astrazeneca. More than half of vaccinated people in the UK have been vaccinated with Astrazeneca… and they are concerned about the actual effectiveness of this vaccine, and possible variant outbreaks (there have been three instances of “surge testing” where they go door-to-door following an outbreak: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/surge-testing-for-new-coronavirus-covid-19-variants). According to Eric Topol (whose opinion is based on a few studies), Astrazeneca is not effective against B.1.3.5 (south-african variant).
Due to effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna, the US (and Israel) can afford to relax restrictions much more than their european counterparts.
I think you’re answering a different question from the one agc is asking. Unless I misunderstood, agc was asking why the UK isn’t yet vaccinating people younger than 45. Being able to relax restrictions more in the US wouldn’t explain that.
I think the actual answer is that the UK very promptly secured a pretty decent quantity of vaccines (mostly AstraZeneca), enough to vaccinate quite a lot of its population, but that while the US was slower it then got hold of more relative to population size, and now the US has more plentiful supply than the UK.
I didn’t word it very well, the original thought got lost along the way, thanks for pointing it out!
I meant to conclude that since the UK cannot afford to lift restrictions for vaccinated people then they follow the logical route of vaccinating by age cohorts: this will keep deaths as low as they can be.
However, in the US they are actually enabling vaccinated people to do stuff… which will boost the economy significantly, and they can afford to do so due to the degree mRNA vaccines seem to block transmission. So it makes sense to allow anyone that wants to be vaccinated to do that, instead of the inevitable slowdown caused by using an age restrictive criterion.