Re: People turning to nonsense
"P = Chance of getting the virus (very small) x Chance of getting a bad reaction (small) x Chance of dying (age related but extremely small for < 30's increasing to high for > 75's)"
What does this mean. You're conflating two outcomes, a bad reaction and dying. Yes, dying is a bad reaction but I think you're meaning a bad reaction short of death. These are two separate probabilities so you need a separate calculation for each.
"You still have a chance of passing it on but with 60's+ vaccinated, the younger population could continue largely unaffected."
There are a couple of issues with this sentence.
Firstly, If we have a vaccine which is 90% effective (the initial value for Pfizer) that would mean that between myself and SWMBO there would be a 20% chance that at least one of us would not be effectively protected. I don't find that particularly reassuring. I don't even find it reassuring that it's now improved to a 10% chance. From the 30,000 feet point of view that government has to take that seems good. From the ground level, individual point of view, not so good.
Secondly, although many of the younger generation would continue unaffected not all would be. Again, this might be a good thing unless you're one of those who finds themselves affected.
AFAICS the most effective thing about vaccination from an individual point of view is not the probability that it protects directly but the lowering of the probability of being exposed to infection by lowering the total number of infected individuals in the population. For this to happen it not only needs to protect against developing symptoms (which is what the trials have largely measured) but also to protect against asymptomatic infections which I think was tested by Oxford/Astro-Zeneca but not by the others. It worries me that HMG seems to be only talking about vaccination vulnerable groups(in descending order of vulnerability and carers and front-line NHS workers despite having ordered more than enough for the whole population.