Who should be next in line for the vaccine? Anyone who declares themselves in need

Given all the disappointments, disasters and mistakes over the past year, Britain now has the unexpected luxury of debating who to vaccinate next in its world-leading programme.

It could easily have been very different, and it makes a welcome change, to say the least. Those in the most vulnerable groups should soon have been offered the vital first jab, and many lives have already been saved. As the Queen pointed out in her recent Zoom call with some of the frontline medical staff on the programme, the point of vaccination is to protect others as much as oneself.

The priority groups are safer than they were and safer than their counterparts in most of the world because of this great success story. The question now is whether the next wave of doses should be administered on the basis of age, or whether those in higher risk occupations, such as teachers and police officers, should take some priority. The case for doing so is compelling.

It is primarily a matter of confidence and following the precautionary principle. The deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, has answered critics of the purely age-based rollout by pointing to data suggesting teachers have a lower infection rate than the population as a whole, adjusting for age. Yet those figures could be even lower. The risks in schools are obvious, especially for those school staff who come into close contact with older adolescents.

With the priority on reopening schools very shortly, teachers and other staff will be much more reassured and willing to go to work if they have had a vaccine (though it is already too late for a first dose now to have full effect by the 8 March target date).

Much the same arguments apply to others in the front line, such as emergency workers and those in public transport subjected to abuse including spitting by a minority of malicious people they have the misfortune to meet. Again, it is a matter of building confidence and exercising an abundance of caution for those we ask to put their lives on the line.

It is also a simple matter of equity. It does not feel fair that a 40-year old living alone and voluntarily working from home should have the same place in the queue as a teacher of the same age in a sixth form college, or a bus driver on a busy route as passengers return to public transport.

The only substantive argument is that the need for speed is paramount, and adding in occupational categories slows things down. There is obviously some truth in that, but even if it were the case, it is difficult to see what harm would come from the archetypal home worker having to wait a few more days for their jab.

A one-week “blitz” on teachers, school staffs and emergency workers, say, would bolster confidence in the system. Later on, another week or two could be set aside for many more postal workers, delivery drivers, public-facing supermarket staff, those in hospitality and taxi drivers to also be covered, and with minimal detriment to the health of anyone else under the age of 50.

Self-declaration with some easily ratified proof of identity and occupation would be all that would be required. Many could simply turn up in their uniforms. It is eminently practical, and the country would also be doing right by some groups who’ve suffered most from the pandemic.