Equity in vaccine distribution

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage


According to the NYT vaccine tracker - of doses delivered only 68% have been used - ranking DC 9th from the bottom of all states and territories.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage


According to the NYT vaccine tracker - of doses delivered only 68% have been used - ranking DC 9th from the bottom of all states and territories.

Again. This includes doses to the VA and other federal entities, so it's not accurate. This has been specifically and publicly addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

With 80,000 healthcare workers in DC, most of whom live in other jurisdictions, it's not a failure of leadership. Period. It's a rock and hard place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

With 80,000 healthcare workers in DC, most of whom live in other jurisdictions, it's not a failure of leadership. Period. It's a rock and hard place.

I guess that my question about this is this:

If healthcare workers were top priority in every jurisdiction in every state and territory, why could the MD and VA healthcare workers who work in DC not have been vaccinated in their home states, where the Fed had sent their shots to based on their populations?

[Anonymous]

With the new preregistration system, DC could really adjust the parameters of who is selected for vaccines as they wish. With 95% of the deaths in DC being from people 50 and over, wouldn’t it make sense to open it up to those over 50 before the last tier of the general public? Or have a priority group for those over 50 when it is open to all? They could still prioritize zip codes. There are many 60yo people patiently waiting that ideally would be vaccinated before June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

With 80,000 healthcare workers in DC, most of whom live in other jurisdictions, it's not a failure of leadership. Period. It's a rock and hard place.

I guess that my question about this is this:

If healthcare workers were top priority in every jurisdiction in every state and territory, why could the MD and VA healthcare workers who work in DC not have been vaccinated in their home states, where the Fed had sent their shots to based on their populations?

Because the guidance was for everyone to be vaccinated at the facilities where they work. Sibley vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. Suburban Hospital vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. There is literally no other good way to do it. Can you imagine if Suburban had its doses ready and started asking nurses what state they live in before giving them the shot?

DC specifically requested extra vaccine to cover our disproportionately out-of-state workforce, but this was denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With the new preregistration system, DC could really adjust the parameters of who is selected for vaccines as they wish. With 95% of the deaths in DC being from people 50 and over, wouldn’t it make sense to open it up to those over 50 before the last tier of the general public? Or have a priority group for those over 50 when it is open to all? They could still prioritize zip codes. There are many 60yo people patiently waiting that ideally would be vaccinated before June.

I would support this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

With 80,000 healthcare workers in DC, most of whom live in other jurisdictions, it's not a failure of leadership. Period. It's a rock and hard place.

I guess that my question about this is this:

If healthcare workers were top priority in every jurisdiction in every state and territory, why could the MD and VA healthcare workers who work in DC not have been vaccinated in their home states, where the Fed had sent their shots to based on their populations?

Because the guidance was for everyone to be vaccinated at the facilities where they work. Sibley vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. Suburban Hospital vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. There is literally no other good way to do it. Can you imagine if Suburban had its doses ready and started asking nurses what state they live in before giving them the shot?

DC specifically requested extra vaccine to cover our disproportionately out-of-state workforce, but this was denied.

It is funny. No other cross state work force has complained about this. They all just worked it out. In the DC area we love to think that this is unique to us in DC. New Hampshire and Massachusetts just worked it out. The issue that they are having there is over taxes on unemployment benefits. In those two states you get taxed in the state that you earn the income in and now with the work from home, New Hampshire wants to start collecting the taxes on unemployment that was paid in New Hampshire and from WFH people staying in NH. Obviously Massachusetts wants to continue collecting those taxes. But they got the vaccine issues squared away without involving the Fed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

With 80,000 healthcare workers in DC, most of whom live in other jurisdictions, it's not a failure of leadership. Period. It's a rock and hard place.

I guess that my question about this is this:

If healthcare workers were top priority in every jurisdiction in every state and territory, why could the MD and VA healthcare workers who work in DC not have been vaccinated in their home states, where the Fed had sent their shots to based on their populations?

Because the guidance was for everyone to be vaccinated at the facilities where they work. Sibley vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. Suburban Hospital vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. There is literally no other good way to do it. Can you imagine if Suburban had its doses ready and started asking nurses what state they live in before giving them the shot?

DC specifically requested extra vaccine to cover our disproportionately out-of-state workforce, but this was denied.

It is funny. No other cross state work force has complained about this. They all just worked it out. In the DC area we love to think that this is unique to us in DC. New Hampshire and Massachusetts just worked it out. The issue that they are having there is over taxes on unemployment benefits. In those two states you get taxed in the state that you earn the income in and now with the work from home, New Hampshire wants to start collecting the taxes on unemployment that was paid in New Hampshire and from WFH people staying in NH. Obviously Massachusetts wants to continue collecting those taxes. But they got the vaccine issues squared away without involving the Fed.

How did they resolve it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

With 80,000 healthcare workers in DC, most of whom live in other jurisdictions, it's not a failure of leadership. Period. It's a rock and hard place.

I guess that my question about this is this:

If healthcare workers were top priority in every jurisdiction in every state and territory, why could the MD and VA healthcare workers who work in DC not have been vaccinated in their home states, where the Fed had sent their shots to based on their populations?

Because the guidance was for everyone to be vaccinated at the facilities where they work. Sibley vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. Suburban Hospital vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. There is literally no other good way to do it. Can you imagine if Suburban had its doses ready and started asking nurses what state they live in before giving them the shot?

DC specifically requested extra vaccine to cover our disproportionately out-of-state workforce, but this was denied.

It is funny. No other cross state work force has complained about this. They all just worked it out. In the DC area we love to think that this is unique to us in DC. New Hampshire and Massachusetts just worked it out. The issue that they are having there is over taxes on unemployment benefits. In those two states you get taxed in the state that you earn the income in and now with the work from home, New Hampshire wants to start collecting the taxes on unemployment that was paid in New Hampshire and from WFH people staying in NH. Obviously Massachusetts wants to continue collecting those taxes. But they got the vaccine issues squared away without involving the Fed.

How did they resolve it? DC also asked MD and VA for extra doses (above the 16K given in the beginning), and MD and VA said no, too.

[Anonymous]

The more hurdles are put in place, the worse the distribution will be. In places where equity has trumped efficiency (DC, MoCo, PGC), vaccine distribution is terrible. What these politicians fail to see is that this is not a normal fairness problem, because once someone gets the two (or one) shot(s), they are out of the demand pool. Therefore, the fastest way to get to herd immunity is to let the people who want it more take it first, and while that is happening, lay in the infrastructure to reach more reluctant / harder-to-reach communities. This will maximize herd immunity and minimize the chances for variants to spread. Instead, to virtue-signal to their bases, politicians in DC / MD (and the insufferable WaPo Metro section) just keep writing about equity and setting up more and more barriers to getting the shot, while our doses sit unused and the people who want the vaccine throw up their hands. This is a shameful failure of leadership but tracks with the current DEI obsession generally in our area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

With 80,000 healthcare workers in DC, most of whom live in other jurisdictions, it's not a failure of leadership. Period. It's a rock and hard place.

I guess that my question about this is this:

If healthcare workers were top priority in every jurisdiction in every state and territory, why could the MD and VA healthcare workers who work in DC not have been vaccinated in their home states, where the Fed had sent their shots to based on their populations?

Because the guidance was for everyone to be vaccinated at the facilities where they work. Sibley vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. Suburban Hospital vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. There is literally no other good way to do it. Can you imagine if Suburban had its doses ready and started asking nurses what state they live in before giving them the shot?

DC specifically requested extra vaccine to cover our disproportionately out-of-state workforce, but this was denied.

It is funny. No other cross state work force has complained about this. They all just worked it out. In the DC area we love to think that this is unique to us in DC. New Hampshire and Massachusetts just worked it out. The issue that they are having there is over taxes on unemployment benefits. In those two states you get taxed in the state that you earn the income in and now with the work from home, New Hampshire wants to start collecting the taxes on unemployment that was paid in New Hampshire and from WFH people staying in NH. Obviously Massachusetts wants to continue collecting those taxes. But they got the vaccine issues squared away without involving the Fed.

How did they resolve it? DC also asked MD and VA for extra doses (above the 16K given in the beginning), and MD and VA said no, too.

Both MD and VA have come back and said that they believed the 16K doses which were sent to DC were to cover the initial "emergency" and that subsequent immunization should have been conducted within home jurisdictions. Whether we believe that or not, that is how they interpreted the initial 8K doses from each state to DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

With 80,000 healthcare workers in DC, most of whom live in other jurisdictions, it's not a failure of leadership. Period. It's a rock and hard place.

I guess that my question about this is this:

If healthcare workers were top priority in every jurisdiction in every state and territory, why could the MD and VA healthcare workers who work in DC not have been vaccinated in their home states, where the Fed had sent their shots to based on their populations?

Because the guidance was for everyone to be vaccinated at the facilities where they work. Sibley vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. Suburban Hospital vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. There is literally no other good way to do it. Can you imagine if Suburban had its doses ready and started asking nurses what state they live in before giving them the shot?

DC specifically requested extra vaccine to cover our disproportionately out-of-state workforce, but this was denied.

It is funny. No other cross state work force has complained about this. They all just worked it out. In the DC area we love to think that this is unique to us in DC. New Hampshire and Massachusetts just worked it out. The issue that they are having there is over taxes on unemployment benefits. In those two states you get taxed in the state that you earn the income in and now with the work from home, New Hampshire wants to start collecting the taxes on unemployment that was paid in New Hampshire and from WFH people staying in NH. Obviously Massachusetts wants to continue collecting those taxes. But they got the vaccine issues squared away without involving the Fed.

How did they resolve it? DC also asked MD and VA for extra doses (above the 16K given in the beginning), and MD and VA said no, too.

Both MD and VA have come back and said that they believed the 16K doses which were sent to DC were to cover the initial "emergency" and that subsequent immunization should have been conducted within home jurisdictions. Whether we believe that or not, that is how they interpreted the initial 8K doses from each state to DC.

All three jurisdictions agreed that essential workers would be vaccinate where they worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and only 19% of DC residents have one shot - 6th from last.

This is a failure of leadership. Period.

With 80,000 healthcare workers in DC, most of whom live in other jurisdictions, it's not a failure of leadership. Period. It's a rock and hard place.

I guess that my question about this is this:

If healthcare workers were top priority in every jurisdiction in every state and territory, why could the MD and VA healthcare workers who work in DC not have been vaccinated in their home states, where the Fed had sent their shots to based on their populations?

Because the guidance was for everyone to be vaccinated at the facilities where they work. Sibley vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. Suburban Hospital vaccinated all of its workers, regardless of where they live. There is literally no other good way to do it. Can you imagine if Suburban had its doses ready and started asking nurses what state they live in before giving them the shot?

DC specifically requested extra vaccine to cover our disproportionately out-of-state workforce, but this was denied.

It is funny. No other cross state work force has complained about this. They all just worked it out. In the DC area we love to think that this is unique to us in DC. New Hampshire and Massachusetts just worked it out. The issue that they are having there is over taxes on unemployment benefits. In those two states you get taxed in the state that you earn the income in and now with the work from home, New Hampshire wants to start collecting the taxes on unemployment that was paid in New Hampshire and from WFH people staying in NH. Obviously Massachusetts wants to continue collecting those taxes. But they got the vaccine issues squared away without involving the Fed.

How did they resolve it? DC also asked MD and VA for extra doses (above the 16K given in the beginning), and MD and VA said no, too.

Both MD and VA have come back and said that they believed the 16K doses which were sent to DC were to cover the initial "emergency" and that subsequent immunization should have been conducted within home jurisdictions. Whether we believe that or not, that is how they interpreted the initial 8K doses from each state to DC.

All three jurisdictions agreed that essential workers would be vaccinate where they worked.

You can say this. But the fact of the matter is that the three jurisdictions came to an agreement. That agreement was 8K from each state to DC to vaccinate workers where they worked. It would appear, whether you believe it or not, that both MD and VA believe that agreement was only for the initial emergency over the first two weeks of vaccinating essential personnel. Both of those states then believed that they would be able to accommodate healthcare workers etc after the initial push. Of the people at the meeting, on Bowser was under the impression that this agreement was fluid and additional vaccine beyond the terms of the agreement would be forthcoming.