I know that you are pro vaccine and are advocating jumping the booster line.
I am highlighting that your justification for this deception is that the message has been botched and it is reasonable to assume that those in charge don’t have your best interest in mind.
That feeds into the paranoia and fears of the other extreme side that doesn’t trust the vaccine to begin with.
You may be on polar opposite sides in terms of conclusions as to how to act but your justifications based on cynicism are similar.
I think it is ironic that you are enforcing one set of rules but disregarding another although I understand and appreciate your justification
That would ONLY be true if folks are fibbing by claiming that the 3rd jab is really their first. But it seems that most folks are just fibbing about being eligible, i.e., immunocompromised or doctor’s recommendtaition, for a 3rd jab. Such cases do not mess up any vax rates by states. (CDC gets all of its vax info from the states.)
I got my Pfizer booster yesterday. I am 66 so I qualify. I had to search to find availability. Rite Aid pharmacy was out. CVS pharmacy was out. I found the booster at a local independent pharmacy. The pharmacist told me he thinks some vaccine may be being held back for a big vaccination program for the schools.
Interesting. My wife and I got our boosters last weekend and had absolutely trouble finding open spots. In fact, basically every pharmacy in our area had numerous same day openings. We live in the NY Metro area. I wonder if availability varies by region. In any event, in my area at least, I don’t consider what I did jumping the line because there is no line.
Also, I don’t understand how me getting a booster muddies the waters about how many people are vaccinated. I told the pharmacist it was my third shot and he wrote it in as such on my CDC Vaccination Record Card. I assume the pharmacist entered it in as my third shot on whatever tracking system they use for government records.
There is no line for boosters, so your ethical criticism is misplaced.
Of far greater concern to all of us should be why the vaccine rollout was such a disaster to begin with. My healthy teens were vaxxed in NC ( college student priority) and NJ ( student journalist, seriously) before my 72 year old brother in Maryland could get a shot. That does not inspire confidence in the system.
It was a disaster because each state made its own rules. If the federal government had laid down the rules, it would have been better, but the backlash would have been huge. That’s the way it works in this country.
I am not judging or criticizing but I am curious. How do you reconcile your institutional cynicism with punishing a person who is vaccine hesitant, when that resistance is based on your shared view that the authorities have not instilled confidence and or do not have their best interest in mind?
I have a great deal of confidence in the vaccines, their safety, efficacy, and the importance of having a fully vaccinated public health, regardless of the bureaucratic bumbling of the CDC.
Moreover, I should clarify that my assessment of the agencies’ incompetence is limited to a public health emergency, like a pandemic. For routine matters their shortcomings are less Important
The US has already been experiencing a decline in trust (in government, business, and otherwise). COVID-19 and the (government and other) reactions to it exposed that lack of societal trust while increasing it.
The US is already one of the most unequal of the rich countries, and the inequality is increasingly seen as not being the result of personal merit and achievement (another indicator of low trust). So neglecting any equity considerations in vaccine distribution would have lowered trust levels.
A sign of, and predictable result of, how the US is a low trust society. “Rules for thee, not for me” is not surprising when people do not trust the rules or any stated reasoning behind them, regardless of whether or not the rules and their stated reasoning are actually sound. Of course, any increased tendency to act that way (corruption, cheating, abuse of power or privilege) worsens trust in a vicious cycle.
I really do think a simple age based rollout would make much more sense and correlate with the greatest risk factor, age. I think it would have been perceived as fair. The use of zip codes and certain job titles ( other than the initial HCW/ first responder) just complicated things unnecessarily and led to the kind of posturing people are complaining about.
And even from the beginning, HCW was broadened to include anyone working for a healthcare system in any capacity (even if remote), and in some cases families. People with licenses, even if they were retired and not working, even if they had no intention of seeing patients in person, were allowed to the front of the line. So that set the stage for the next mad rush to have certain groups shoved to the head of the line.
Yes, I was very disappointed in how broadly HCW applied their priority, and it likely led to other groups doing so as well.
Let’s not forget famous celebrities, sports stars and actors who obtained shots early as well ( just like they had access to tests when no one else did)
Gender and race were also strong risk factors. Age alone means that minority men at generally higher risk go behind White women of slightly higher age. Would that have been perceived as “fair”?
It was in other countries. We are not the only racially diverse nation.
So much time was wasted figuring out the different categories in each state. So divisive.
Vaccination supply limitations were the limit on quickness. Cheapness may not have differed by that much based on prioritization. Given the shortage, no method of rationing would have been seen as “fair” by everyone. In an already divided and untrusting society, most people thought that “fair” was what moved themselves ahead in the queue.
I don’t think so. I haven’t heard the same concerns about fairness in Europe, which was largely age based. Most people would have understood and I think accepted age based rationing. Clear cut, harder to evade.
Instead we have a system that rewarded 19 year old journalists over 72 year olds. Yes, I realize different states but that increased the perception of unfairness.
Young people with certain conditions need to be included with the older folks, and they have been.
There IS a line for vaccines, in the sense that some are not yet eiligible.
I am nervous waiting because I think it is going to get harder to get a third jab. So yeah, when you go before many people are eligible (when it was only the immunocompromised) there will be a lot of supply. But not necessarily now.
I am getting emails from hospitals and from the state (MA) so it is another large scale sign up from what I can see.
Those of you who have “jumped the line” didn’t have to schedule in advance or worry about supply and I hope that is true for the rest of us.
I am done with this thread, sticking with Inside Medicine.