What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?
-
You know what? Millions of people will get vaccinated. There is going to be a tiny percentage that probably should have waited longer, letting others go ahead of them.
I suspect the number is too small to even worry about.
Much ado about nothing...
-
It really isn’t. The CDC plan, even as revised is highly political. 10s of millions mis-prioritized relative to a purely science-driven plan. That includes many - perhaps most - healthcare workers.
-
If we only approved the astra Zeneca vaccine this would quickly become a moot point.
I know all the talk before the election was to delay until it was safe. I suppose the FDA took that heart.
Interesting how the focus still isn’t on quicker approval even in the week of the super virulent strain.
Approve the vaccines and we will have more vaccines then we know what to do with. And stop the politics and look at the answer staring you in the face.
-
translation: "Don't be political and criticize the CDC. Criticize the FDA instead"
-
@loki said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
the super
virulentcontagious strainI've not seen anything to indicate that the new strain is more deadly, just more easily transmitted.
Did I get that wrong?
Can the CDC mandate how the states distribute the vaccine?
My read is, no they can't mandate. They can suggest. Some states are rolling the vaccine out on a different set of priorities, like New York is doing.
-
@loki said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
@nobodyssock said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
@aqua-letifer said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
oh the hypocrisy runs deep with this one. Lol!
You need to keep up. We dealt with this one a while ago.
Forgive me. I dont frequent this place as much as others . I might miss a thread or two.
-
@nobodyssock said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
@loki said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
@nobodyssock said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
@aqua-letifer said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
oh the hypocrisy runs deep with this one. Lol!
You need to keep up. We dealt with this one a while ago.
Forgive me. I dont frequent this place as much as others . I might miss a thread or two.
Well it is a total miss characterization. Do you check for accuracy or just re-spray?
-
A friend in her late 30s and works as a physical rehab assistant just announced she is scheduled for hers next week. That’s a little annoying.
-
Healthcare first, FTW!
-
@lufins-dad said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
A friend in her late 30s and works as a physical rehab assistant just announced she is scheduled for hers next week. That’s a little annoying.
Maybe that’s because she needs to work with many elderlies?
-
So the CDC just yesterday did a last minute about face and added 65+ and immunocompromised to the 1b list.
But in practice it's too late. At least in NY and likely other places.
THey've had the scheduling system open for the essential worker category for a while now so every 18 year old grocery store employee (yeah, really) has already reserved a spot, while the earliest their 74 year old grandmothers on chemotherapy can get an appointment if they go online today is (literally) April.
-
That’s wrong, and to the extent there’s any truth to it, it’s only because we’ve already wasted millions on people at low risk.
But sure, if we increase the capacity we can reduce the cost of this tragic mistake.
-
@george-k
What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:I disagree with her on many things, but she's always struck me as being a reasonable person:
Tulsi Gabbard was my preferred Democrat candidate in the nomination race. I found her stances on various issues quite agreeable.
-
@jon-nyc said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
That’s wrong, and to the extent there’s any truth to it, it’s only because we’ve already wasted millions on people at low risk.
But sure, if we increase the capacity we can reduce the cost of this tragic mistake.
What percent have been vaccinated already? It seems so low that the impact wouldn’t be that great.
I have no clue why who got vaccinated was decided but I assume it wasn’t political as in partisan.
-
It wasn't political as in partisan, it was political as in 'who deserves it', rather than based purely on risk. Part of that was driven by a desire for 'equity' (newspeak for discrimination) but part of it was just (IMO) an expression of guilt by those who could avoid the risk to those who couldn't.
-
I don't know.
