Equity in vaccine distribution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

X a million.
These half-baked policies fly in the face of public health. More people will get sick and die because of them.

[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.

Yes, MD vaccinate MD residents who are DCPS teachers in DC. All you have to do is put the name of the school in the sign up. I live in MD. I don't know what the VA policy is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, since she is the one who's left holding the bag, it makes sense that she would prefer to distribute the burden more fairly. It would be ridiculous for her to try to impose residency restrictions on teachers and healthcare workers.

[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.

But D.C. is probably the only jurisdiction in the country where (a) every suburb is in another state and (b) by far most employees live in another state. Plus, there's probably less housing here that's affordable for health care workers, teachers, etc., than in other cities (because the area of the city is so small; we don't have the equivalent of a far-off neighborhood in Queens). The regional issues are more complicated here than anywhere else because of the nature of the political geography of the 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.

But D.C. is probably the only jurisdiction in the country where (a) every suburb is in another state and (b) by far most employees live in another state. Plus, there's probably less housing here that's affordable for health care workers, teachers, etc., than in other cities (because the area of the city is so small; we don't have the equivalent of a far-off neighborhood in Queens). The regional issues are more complicated here than anywhere else because of the nature of the political geography of the area.

It's complicated if you want it to be, I guess. Or you can talk to the other states and make actual agreements - not handshakes/assumptions.

The CDC has literally asked DC to stop trying to do their work for them, and focus on vaccinating our own residents. Which we finally are. If DC doesn't vaccinate DC residents, who will?

[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.

But D.C. is probably the only jurisdiction in the country where (a) every suburb is in another state and (b) by far most employees live in another state. Plus, there's probably less housing here that's affordable for health care workers, teachers, etc., than in other cities (because the area of the city is so small; we don't have the equivalent of a far-off neighborhood in Queens). The regional issues are more complicated here than anywhere else because of the nature of the political geography of the area.

It's complicated if you want it to be, I guess. Or you can talk to the other states and make actual agreements - not handshakes/assumptions.

The CDC has literally asked DC to stop trying to do their work for them, and focus on vaccinating our own residents. Which we finally are. If DC doesn't vaccinate DC residents, who will?

Source?

[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.

But D.C. is probably the only jurisdiction in the country where (a) every suburb is in another state and (b) by far most employees live in another state. Plus, there's probably less housing here that's affordable for health care workers, teachers, etc., than in other cities (because the area of the city is so small; we don't have the equivalent of a far-off neighborhood in Queens). The regional issues are more complicated here than anywhere else because of the nature of the political geography of the area.

It's complicated if you want it to be, I guess. Or you can talk to the other states and make actual agreements - not handshakes/assumptions.

The CDC has literally asked DC to stop trying to do their work for them, and focus on vaccinating our own residents. Which we finally are. If DC doesn't vaccinate DC residents, who will?

Source?

There have been ongoing conversations with CDC and DC officials in which CDC has doubled down that the vaccine they provide is based on population. No one source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But D.C. is probably the only jurisdiction in the country where (a) every suburb is in another state and (b) by far most employees live in another state. Plus, there's probably less housing here that's affordable for health care workers, teachers, etc., than in other cities (because the area of the city is so small; we don't have the equivalent of a far-off neighborhood in Queens). The regional issues are more complicated here than anywhere else because of the nature of the political geography of the area.

It's complicated if you want it to be, I guess. Or you can talk to the other states and make actual agreements - not handshakes/assumptions.

The CDC has[b] literally asked DC to stop trying to do their work for them, and focus on vaccinating our own residents.[/b] Which we finally are. If DC doesn't vaccinate DC residents, who will?

Source?

There have been ongoing conversations with CDC and DC officials in which CDC has doubled down that the vaccine they provide is based on population. No one source.

So they didn't literally say, "Stop vaccinating your workforce and focus on residents." More like, "we don't care if your entire workforce lives out of state, you are only getting vaccine based on population."? Because those two things are not the same.

[Anonymous]

And Bowser did not get the memo on how to figure out population key factor in vaccine allocation?

Huh. Incompetent and just plain dumb. Maybe she can form/compensate a committee on how to do the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Bowser did not get the memo on how to figure out population key factor in vaccine allocation?

Huh. Incompetent and just plain dumb. Maybe she can form/compensate a committee on how to do the math.

Look, Bowser was selected by DC business interests to be a caretaker mayor, during a period of comfortable economic growth and stability. No one expected her to have to deal with anything difficult or challenging. She was supposed to do this job for a couple of terms and get a sweet, sweet sinecure.

And then the pandemic happened, and she’s been standing there like a deer in headlights for a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But D.C. is probably the only jurisdiction in the country where (a) every suburb is in another state and (b) by far most employees live in another state. Plus, there's probably less housing here that's affordable for health care workers, teachers, etc., than in other cities (because the area of the city is so small; we don't have the equivalent of a far-off neighborhood in Queens). The regional issues are more complicated here than anywhere else because of the nature of the political geography of the area.

It's complicated if you want it to be, I guess. Or you can talk to the other states and make actual agreements - not handshakes/assumptions.

The CDC has[b] literally asked DC to stop trying to do their work for them, and focus on vaccinating our own residents.[/b] Which we finally are. If DC doesn't vaccinate DC residents, who will?

Source?

There have been ongoing conversations with CDC and DC officials in which CDC has doubled down that the vaccine they provide is based on population. No one source.

So they didn't literally say, "Stop vaccinating your workforce and focus on residents." More like, "we don't care if your entire workforce lives out of state, you are only getting vaccine based on population."? Because those two things are not the same.

They actually are the same, LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Bowser did not get the memo on how to figure out population key factor in vaccine allocation?

Huh. Incompetent and just plain dumb. Maybe she can form/compensate a committee on how to do the math.

Look, Bowser was selected by DC business interests to be a caretaker mayor, during a period of comfortable economic growth and stability. No one expected her to have to deal with anything difficult or challenging. She was supposed to do this job for a couple of terms and get a sweet, sweet sinecure.

And then the pandemic happened, and she’s been standing there like a deer in headlights for a year.

This sounds clever and all, but in the 2014 Democratic primary, there were definitely candidates who were friendlier to D.C. business interests (Jack Evans, Vincent Orange), plus a weakened-by-scandal incumbent who -- like most incumbent mayors -- was generally pro-growth, Vince Gray. And then David Catania ran in the general, who also was pretty friendly to D.C. business interests, as did Carol Schwartz, a former Republican.

The real smart cynical take, and one where I'd agree with you more, would be that D.C. business interests are happy with ANYONE capable of being elected mayor here. That's thanks partly to an electorate where a huge swath of otherwise high-information voters pay absolutely no attention to local politics because they don't care about the stakes in a game where the winner can never make it to Congress or the White House, and partly to the nature of urban politics these days, where growth and development are the most important goal for any executive in any city (not a whole lot of radical mayors out there in other big cities, are there?).

If you want to criticize Bowser, do it by all means, as there's plenty to criticize her for. But this claim that only she was palatable to the business community and that's why she's here is just not supported by the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Bowser did not get the memo on how to figure out population key factor in vaccine allocation?

Huh. Incompetent and just plain dumb. Maybe she can form/compensate a committee on how to do the math.

Look, Bowser was selected by DC business interests to be a caretaker mayor, during a period of comfortable economic growth and stability. No one expected her to have to deal with anything difficult or challenging. She was supposed to do this job for a couple of terms and get a sweet, sweet sinecure.

And then the pandemic happened, and she’s been standing there like a deer in headlights for a year.

This sounds clever and all, but in the 2014 Democratic primary, there were definitely candidates who were friendlier to D.C. business interests (Jack Evans, Vincent Orange), plus a weakened-by-scandal incumbent who -- like most incumbent mayors -- was generally pro-growth, Vince Gray. And then David Catania ran in the general, who also was pretty friendly to D.C. business interests, as did Carol Schwartz, a former Republican.

The real smart cynical take, and one where I'd agree with you more, would be that D.C. business interests are happy with ANYONE capable of being elected mayor here. That's thanks partly to an electorate where a huge swath of otherwise high-information voters pay absolutely no attention to local politics because they don't care about the stakes in a game where the winner can never make it to Congress or the White House, and partly to the nature of urban politics these days, where growth and development are the most important goal for any executive in any city (not a whole lot of radical mayors out there in other big cities, are there?).

If you want to criticize Bowser, do it by all means, as there's plenty to criticize her for. But this claim that only she was palatable to the business community and that's why she's here is just not supported by the facts.

I'd be fine with a Republican. My guess is their business interests would be development of businesses and entertainment venues (which the city can always use), not residential boondoggles. We need thoughtful residence development, but not boondoggles.

[Anonymous]

DC is slowly equitying itself into losing a lot of residents it really needs. You keep telling Ward 3 residents that they are last in line for vaccines, their kids are last in line for IPL, and the police may lose funding and a lot of families will head for the exits. Many already are. Having a short commute is obviously not the attraction it once was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC is slowly equitying itself into losing a lot of residents it really needs. You keep telling Ward 3 residents that they are last in line for vaccines, their kids are last in line for IPL, and the police may lose funding and a lot of families will head for the exits. Many already are. Having a short commute is obviously not the attraction it once was.

Well, since these are the same families whose workplaces mostly switched to WFH - and many are planning to stay hybrid/flexible work place as per yesterday's Post--they may value the "short commute" even less?