Ohio announced some “beyond the current 65 and up” age brackets today but it was a much slower roll - and I don’t think any dates attached? First 60 and up, then 55 and up, then 50
And up…
Perhaps Ohio does not want to set dates because they are not sure enough about vaccine supply to be able to meet any date that they set now.
1 Like
that’s neither here nor there as my mom was fond of saying.
The (science!) death rates by age are clear:
Plus, there are plenty of essential workers, however defined, in each age group. For example, lotsa teachers 55-65…
I just saw a very sad post in my local Facebook page. A 78 year old man said he finally got an appointment after waiting since January. Today, he drove 3 hours in NJ in a snowstorm (should have only been 2 1/2 but the weather made it longer). He showed up with his confirmation email with a qr code and everything. When he got there, they said his appointment was in March and sent him home. What heartless person at a vaccination center does that, why didn’t they just vaccinate the poor guy while he was there! On a snowy day, I am sure they would have some extra doses from cancellations.
1 Like
In CT there will be dedicated clinics in March specifically for educators and professional childcare workers.
Gender and race also matter:
http://www.predictcovidrisk.com/
Relative to 65-69/F/W without other conditions, the added risk of death from COVID-19:
- +18.9% 70-74/F/W
- +55.6% 75-79/F/W
- +59.3% 65-69/F/B
- +69.0% 65-69/F/A
- +71.6% 65-69/F/H
- +80.1% 80-84/F/W
- +84.8% 65-69/M/W
- +103.3% 85+/F/W
- +191.7% 65-69/M/B
- +208.9% 65-69/M/A
- +213.6% 65-69/M/H
That suggests that, at least in the older age ranges, prioritization by age risk can allow men to add 15 years to their ages, and can allow minorities to add 10 years to their ages if it were to be made reflective of risks associated with other demographic characteristics that are easily determined.
But that would probably not be popular with most of the posters in this forum section.
1 Like
sure, let’s assume those numbers are reasonable approximations. But now you are back to slicing and dicing. Just…not…practical (as the Governor’s have figured out).
Speed is of the essence. That said, why not setup more vax places in urban core areas, and not 25 miles out of town with no public transportation available (looking at you Massachusetts.).
As the saying goes, don’t let the perfect (health plan) get in the way of the good.
As an aside, I’m sure all the older healthy marathoners on cc have family members with chronic conditions, so your point if off base, IMO.
1 Like
Age prioritization is slicing and dicing. Would a free-for-all be faster or better?
Age is easily verified and clearly defined. It is a logical way to simplify the process. I do understand that some people may not have an id with age on it, but the vast majority of people do. What we need is the vast majority of people vaccinated quickly.
5 Likes
So is gender.
Ah, but gender isn’t actually so easily defined! A person can select their gender, but not their age.
I am just saying that sometimes simple is better. This whole vaccination process seems like it might benefit from some simplification.
4 Likes
I don’t have a crystal ball so I have no idea if the timeline will change based on availability or not.
Yes there will be. School districts will be hopefully able to set up clinics to vaccinate their staffs…I’m guessing like they do with the flu shots.
This will take the edge off for the many educators who are in the classroom daily…and worry.
My kid’s type 1 diabetes is easy to identify. She just has to lift her shirt and they can see her pump and her CGM devices, inserted.
I have written every official and newspaper I could, to advocate for the inclusion of type 1’s. Her state was going to do strictly age-based, but changed their minds. (Type 1 is still not listed with type 2 as high risk, which is absurd; type 1 is more serious and autoimmune.)
faster, maybe, better, no. But you knew that.
The thing about age brackets is the obvious death rates. (Again, the science!) Not sure why starting with the most at-risk age groups is such a hard concept to grasp. Is it the ‘best’ way (however defined), of course not. But it is simple and it is efficient – two criteria that any ‘best’ way are likely not.
The faster we get to 70%+ vax rate (or whatever the current thy of herd is), the better off everyone is.
3 Likes
Giving men +15 years on their ages would more closely align priority with COVID-19 risk levels (see #967) while not adding significant complexity. Would you consider that to be a bad thing?
In NY state both diabetes types are on the list whereas in NJ only type 2.
since I was almost a biostat major, the math is the math; so, no, not necessarily bad (science). But, the US long ago decided that Unisex tables were the way to go for things like SS and Medicare rates, and RMD tables, so adding years onto a guy’s vax priority is a (political) non-starter.
1 Like
In PA it just says diabetes.
My friend who has a medical condition that made him eligible for vaccination in NJ got vaccinated today. He said they didn’t ask for any medical verification. They just asked him what kind of condition he had.
2 Likes