[Colin2B (OP)]

Are we in reality taking part in a large-scale field trial of the Oxford vaccine?

Update is that they are going to increase rollout to 2m/week and only give 1st dose until 12th week.
Problem at the moment is that vaccine supply may be limited by availability of glass vials. Also, initial protection of the Oxford vaccine is quoted as 30% which isn’t enough to justify a return to normal.

These quotes are relevant:
“In order to interrupt transmission, mathematical modelling indicates that we would need to vaccinate a large proportion of the population with a vaccine which is highly effective at preventing infection (transmission). At the start of the vaccination programme, good evidence on the effects of vaccination on transmission will not be available” - Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

“As the first phase of the programme is rolled out in the UK, additional data will become available on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. These data will provide the basis for consideration of vaccination in groups that are at lower risk of mortality from COVID-19. The Committee is currently of the view that the key focus for the second phase of vaccination could be on further preventing hospitalisation.”

The vaccine provides some protection 22 days after the first dose, there is no data on whether these vaccines have any effect on transmission. The vaccine should give some protection from getting ill and then ending up hospitalised, but it's possible that you could still carry the virus and be contagious to others. So those who get the vaccine should still be wearing masks and practicing physical distancing.

So, the first priority appears to be to reduce deaths rather than try to prevent transmission - which is not guaranteed at the moment. It does seem that there are a lot of unknowns that will be answered during the rollout, but are the vulnerable the test subjects, and the rest of the population the control?

[alancalverd]

So, the first priority appears to be to reduce deaths rather than try to prevent transmission -

Indeed, that is the government's first priority because deaths = headlines. Nobody cares about infections because they only damage the economy and ruin people's lives. You can improve people's lives and the economy by removing restrictions on movement and assembly, then (incorrectly) blame the infected for not wearing their masks. If you vaccinate the elderly, maybe the electorate will forget that you  murdered the first 20,000 old folk by intentionally discharging infectious patients into nursing homes before you had paid your friends for the PPE that they never delivered.

What surprises me is the absence of lawyers assembling a class action against the government. If they won't admit to incompetence, one must assume malice.

[Bored chemist]

What surprises me is the absence of lawyers assembling a class action against the government.

I had assumed that there was a disclaimer.

But, if ignoring the (probably) small risk from the vaccine gets me a vaccination before you do, I'm happy to call you a fool.
I want that jab.

[Petrochemicals]

It strikes me that this approach will make peoples immunity to more like children. Skeptic as I am about most of these corona measures, I do believe still children are still the biggest vectors, even though they may not exhibit for long or severely on the whole. As was seen in September cases rose in line with the return to school, 2 children each in different year groups mixing with 20 or 30 other children, thus their families, the entire school system is connected. Social bubble hear social bubble there and hey presto everyone has corona, at least students are isolated by nature on the whole. It might be why face masks show no discernable difference in corona occourence between the idiotic  UK ( because now we are being pushed into tiers yet children go to school) and Sweden where face masks are not required.

[alancalverd]

What surprises me is the absence of lawyers assembling a class action against the government.

I had assumed that there was a disclaimer.

But, if ignoring the (probably) small risk from the vaccine gets me a vaccination before you do, I'm happy to call you a fool.
I want that jab.

Not about vaccination, but about the deliberate infection of nursing homes and the criminal negligence of taking 11 months (so far) to respond rationally to a simple epidemic.