The New York Times has a fun little tool to estimate when you might be eligible to get the vaccine. When I put in my info they put me at 97/100. It’s going to be a loooooong wait.
3 Likes
Since each state will outline their specific protocols and priority lists, how will this work for those, who have residency in two states, such as “snow birds”? If they are out of their home-state residency, will they need to wait until they return, or still be covered where they happen to reside at the time? Homeless population with no residency? Students who are considered residents of their college location, but happen to be home with parents during Covid? etc…
Regarding vaccine distribution priorities:
Recommendations from ACIP:
Recommendations from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine:
Links to state plans:
It is likely that, instead of coming up with detailed residency rules like for in-state tuition at state universities, they will just consider where people currently are at the moment.
So the snowbirds, homeless persons, residential college students, etc. will likely be treated as residents of the states that they currently are physically present in for the purpose of vaccine allocation. For example, travel nurses will probably be offered vaccine when the location that they currently nursing in has vaccines available for health care workers, because it makes little sense to require them to make two round trips back to their home states to get the two doses of vaccine.
Cool tool - but to me it points out the need to consider lifestyle factors & risks as well as the questions asked on the form. At age 66, it has me about halfway through the line (with 225,000 people in my county ahead of me) – but I am ahead of essential workers, teachers, homeless people, prisoners.) I live alone and work from home. Most of the stuff I need, like groceries, gets delivered.
So yes, my age puts me at higher risk, but I am at very low risk of exposure or spreading. I sure would like to get the vaccine so I could contemplate going to an airport, getting on a plane, and visiting my adult kids in other states. But why should I get vaccinated ahead of the teachers and the people who work daily shifts at the grocery store that I hardly ever patronize these days?
I suppose that part of the problem is that we don’t know yet whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection or transmission – so in that sense it makes sense to prioritize the people who are most likely to get the sickest, since that is the one metric where we are pretty confident that the vaccine works. But I still think individual risk of exposure should factor in.
If I admit I’m obese (no other risk factors) I move from 90 to 30.
Perhaps they could ask whether you work in an indoor shared space most of the time or some such, and whether you live with someone who has a high risk of bringing the virus home (e.g. you live with a health care worker in the COVID-19 ward…).
But they probably do not want to make the criteria too complicated or intricate to avoid getting bogged down into determining cases that affect relatively small numbers of people.
They also probably do not want to go into hot-button identity politics by recognizing that men and non-white people have a higher risk of death from COVID-19 and using that as part of the prioritization.
I heard (reliable source) that the vaccine database will be universal and accessible whether you go to a clinic, get it at work, or whatever. So if you get your first shot in your home state but then head to your second home in Florida and need your second shot you will be able to just walk in a CVS or whatever and they will be able to look you up and see when/where you got the first shot and know if you are due your second shot and administer it.
I was having a chat with few friends on Zoom and some were complaining about having to wait in line to get a Covid test. One friend said, “Just to get your doctor to write you a prescription for you to say you are having a surgery next day, you could just walk in front of the line and get your result next day.”
Hmm, wonder how many people are going to have high risk condition now.
Do you suppose the tactic is to try to get fewer people in the lines? Otherwise, I’m stymied. (Please keep the specific politics of any party out.)
Continuing on with my brain’s wandering from that article, I’ve heard more than one person argue that Covid “helps” the gov’t by reducing the number of social security checks they need to send out. It goes along with the folks who say I shouldn’t worry because it “only” takes old people out.
They infuriate me BTW. But I’m wondering if that line of reasoning is part of why they want to sow doubt and promote a cure that didn’t hold up to tests. The folks I hear from can’t be the only ones who think the way they do.
Two related items from my lad’s medical emails this morning:
Nearly 55% Of New York City Firefighters Say They Won’t Get Vaccinated For COVID-19, Union Study Shows
Newsweek (12/6, Garrett) reports, “Over half of New York City firefighters said they will not get vaccinated for COVID-19 despite the second wave of cases in the city.” Almost “55 percent of 2,053 firefighters responded ‘no’ when asked, ‘will you get the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer when the department makes it available? according to a recent union study.” The study results “came nearly two weeks after the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) announced it won’t make the vaccine mandatory for its members, even as the city sees a surge of COVID-19 cases.”
and
Blood test may be able to predict COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, study suggests
The New York Times (12/4, Zimmer) reported, “A new study in monkeys suggests that a blood test could predict the effectiveness of a [COVID-19] vaccine – and perhaps speed up the clinical trials needed to get a working vaccine to billions of people around the world.” This “study, published on Friday in Nature, reveals telltale blood markers that predict whether a monkey’s immune system is prepared to wipe out incoming coronaviruses.”
Deleted
Agree. I really hope they are organized for this distribution to take that into account. For example, I bet at least 30% of healthcare workers will say no. Will my state have a list of the next phase of people scheduled up and ready to go (elderly with co-morbidities) ? I hope so. They should assume from the beginning they are not going to inoculate everyone in the group.
Hopefully it doesn’t go like the horrific failed testing rollout still going on in this country where you wait for hours to get a test, and then DAYS for results- basically rendering them useless…this is in a state that is supposedly well run. Where are our antigen tests? Where are the Yale kits that made results faster? For shame…it’s like we are in a third world country.
3 Likes
I don’t really get how states will know how to move on to the next group. How much time do they allow between phases? I guess they know about how many people are in each group but I agree with @suzyQ7 and hope they give those people a certain number of days to get the vaccine but then move on. Maybe they’ll just wait to see if lines are long or if there are vaccines just sitting and not a huge demand and then they’ll move on to next group.
I’m also curious about colleges. If they mandate the vaccine, how will they make sure kids can get it if they are out of state? Will they have any batches themselves? What if, for some reason, S19 can’t get one here in time but Maine has plenty? Will states allow people whose permanent address is out of state to get a vaccine?
Many healthcare workers will have no choice - either have a medical reason not to get the vaccine or lose their job. This is true now with the annual flu vaccine for many hospital workers.
@Creekland do we know more about the “questions and responses” behind the 55%? Like might they be saying “no I won’t take the vaccine first - others need it before me” ?
I’m not going to worry about who won’t get it. If half the people do get it, a portion of the other half will likely follow as “follow the leader” "keep up with the Jones " is what humans do.
1 Like
Not necessarily…companies are seemingly treading carefully re: requiring the vaccines because the approvals (if they happen) will be for Emergency Use (EUA), not normal FDA approval. There is not much legal precedent requiring drugs/vaccines that are approved via EUA, so it changes the nature of the decision.
1 Like
@abasket I don’t see any reasons given. I suspect if any have already had it they don’t consider themselves front line contenders for the vaccine either.
I’m with you and many others. If folks choose not to get the vax, so be it. I know many around here who say they won’t, even plenty who should risk-wise. Once everyone has had a chance, resume life.
Personally, I will be looking at the data to see if it works beyond the study (esp since the NYT “toy” says we’re near the end of the line). I’m not really concerned about safety. I’m holding my breath that it holds up to all it’s supposed to be - esp if it gives years of protection rather than months.
I’m also breathing a sigh of relief that FIL plans to get the vax. With his political beliefs and independence, H and I were concerned about whose advice he would follow. At 92 and with heart issues plus just one lung, unless he has the genetics to be asymptomatic, he’s a poster child for who wouldn’t do well should he catch it.
On a different note, have people seen where health care systems are going to require the vax? Med school lad says they seem to be highly recommending it, but not requiring it. His data points are likely limited to where he works and where he’s been interviewing at. He plans to get it when it’s his turn.
1 Like
Previously, at a lot of health care facilities, either you got a flu shot, or if you opted out, you wore a mask. There was some concern this year that because every is wearing a mask anyway, more people might opt out of the flu shot.