There is certainly an argument to be made that the current DC vaccination registration web page discriminates against less computer savvy individuals, but there is no reasonable non biased argument that the portal access favors residents in one zip code or another.

If that were in fact the case, it could have been remedied by sign up kiosks in areas where there was unreliable access.

However, ISP penetration is just as pervasive on both sides of the river in DC. This is argument was simply made by people trying to woke and compassionate.

The same can be said for computer access and mobile phone access.

In fact the call center data shows far more phone call from West of the river, just like the computer logons, but again a statistician would say that should have been expected as there is a larger pool pf people west. Larger pool equals more phone calls equals more computer attempts equals more appointments made.

The huge question would have been if the opposite had occurred and the seniors from NW had decided not to register.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh's Chief of Staff mentioned the "secret" Ward 3 COVID vaccination points last week in an ANC meeting. I got the feeling that it was not so much that they were a secret, but the city was making information up to throw Ward 3 seniors off the scent. I mean there is really no way you could justify an entire Ward only have one vaccination point, so why not tell them that they had other "secret" inoculation points?

Look at the end of the day the last thing that you want to do is to mobilize a group of Ward 3 seniors. Too much education and time on their hands.

That's the gods honest truth.

I know ward 3 seniors and there is zero secret site. DC amped up vaccines in wards 7 and 8. NYC increased vaccine sites in specific areas to attempt to get more AA-Hispanic vaccinated. If anything cities are decreasing availability in higher SES quadrants , wards, or zip codes.

PP - well said. Ballsy but the truth. Love it!

Not sure why my spell checker took a perfectly correctly spelled septuagenarian and the spelled it with an e. Is that an alt spelling?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser should not be deciding - by zip code (primarily to ensure she gets votes next time out) - whose life matters more.

It does not seem ethical that a 80 year old is "worth" less than a healthy 65 year old - simply due to zip code.

That is what Bowser policies are all about. Next round of votes. (Just like excluding DC private school teachers from vaccinations - public teachers only (despite their refusal to actually work).

All about the vote!

ability to access the internet to secure an appointment should not determine your “worth” and ability to get a vaccine. The people with more savvy and resources were able to scoop up all the appointments. ward or zip-based eligibility evens that out. and also, there just more virus in those wards, and hence more risk if you live there. focusing there makes sense from an epidemiological perspective. exactly the same as focusing on nursing homes makes sense.

Ha! You have no idea what you are talking about and are allowing emotion to cloud your reasoning. You even feel good about incorrectly using a big word "epidemiological".

You are also a racist. Congratulations. But you probably already knew that.

The fact that you think there is no internet access east of the river, or that Ward 3 septegenarians are more savvy than Ward 8 septegenarians is RACIST.

Look DC Health has already admitted it. There is no medical reason for allocating vaccinations based on race or zip codes. But it makes the woke masses feel better so the City Council and Mayor over ruled their own health experts.

This is a feel good story only and we are watching it crash in a fantastic effort to steal defeat from the Jaws of victory.

The funny thing is that now we can start seeing that even the original bad plan was better than this ad hoc secret we don't need to tell anybody anything plan.

But put on your rose color glasses and feel better about yourself. That is all you wanted anyway. Not an effective health policy.

Anonymous wrote:Bowser should not be deciding - by zip code (primarily to ensure she gets votes next time out) - whose life matters more.

It does not seem ethical that a 80 year old is "worth" less than a healthy 65 year old - simply due to zip code.

That is what Bowser policies are all about. Next round of votes. (Just like excluding DC private school teachers from vaccinations - public teachers only (despite their refusal to actually work).

All about the vote!

ability to access the internet to secure an appointment should not determine your “worth” and ability to get a vaccine. The people with more savvy and resources were able to scoop up all the appointments. ward or zip-based eligibility evens that out. and also, there just more virus in those wards, and hence more risk if you live there. focusing there makes sense from an epidemiological perspective. exactly the same as focusing on nursing homes makes sense.

Bowser should not be deciding - by zip code (primarily to ensure she gets votes next time out) - whose life matters more.

It does not seem ethical that a 80 year old is "worth" less than a healthy 65 year old - simply due to zip code.

That is what Bowser policies are all about. Next round of votes. (Just like excluding DC private school teachers from vaccinations - public teachers only (despite their refusal to actually work).

All about the vote!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All vaccines appointments should be made through an (improved) website, telephone and/or customer service kiosk or roving mobile sign up units. Everyone should have the same access according to their category (65+, teacher, whatever). NOT according to zip code. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The reason they've been breaking some appointments out for only certain Zip codes is because residents of the Zip codes they're excluding from those slots have already taken a hugely disproportionate share of the vaccines. Seems like that would be a problem for any lawsuit to overcome. (As would the fact that only some spots are reserved for certain Zip codes, and the fact that what Zip code you live in is not a protected class.)

Also, PPP is ok with triaging by age or profession, but not by location - though its clear that living in a particular location makes you more vulnerable to the virus. The same yardstick is applied- those most vulnerable go first.

It's not the location that makes you vulnerable, it is your underlying health conditions and whether you live in a multi-generational household. All of this could be triaged for. Simply living in "Ward 8" doesn't make you more vulnerable.

This point is completely lost on the Mayor and our City Council. To them, living EoR means you are black and poor and disenfranchised.

There are certainly black and poor people EoR. Being black in itself, or poor doesn't make you more susceptible to Covid. Occupation, living situation, underlying health issues do. They should triage by category, not zip code. Living in a particular location does not make you 'more susceptible' to the virus. It's not like a covid sirrocco blows through Ward 3.

Sorry, "Ward 8"

Way to miss the point. A covid sirrocco in fact does blow through Ward 8, because that's where all the people with the most risk factors concentrate; and the greater concentration of risk means that covid will spread more rapidly. Your argument is like saying "we don't need to send firefighters to the massive fire in Ward 8 because everyon in Ward 3 has fireplaces too!

There are people with the SAME risk factors in other wards. Triage by risk factor, put out the fire. Simply living in Ward 8 is not a Covid Sirocco. The risk factors are.

OMG they ARE triageing by risk factors: age, nursing home status and zip code. They tried opening up the appointments to all comers, and most of them went to people in Ward 2 and 3. Setting aside some extra for certain zip codes makes sense if they're trying to reach more at risk seniors. It's not like the vaccines are going to waste over in ward 8; those are DC residents who are at high risk of contracting the virus, consuming more health care resources to fight it, and having worse outcomes than 65-year old Mrs. Legation Street.

ZIP CODE is not a "risk factor". OMG, what is wrong with your brain??

zip code is a proxy for risk factors. prioritizing vaccine by zip codes with the highest infection and death rate is good public health policy for a number of reasons.

Fully disagree. An old person with a heart condition in fancy ward 3 living with kids who work as, I dunno, a FED called into office and a teacher and have grandchildren in daycare is at exact same risk factor "boat" as their counterpart in Ward 8. SAME.

Sigh. The point is - public health policy tries to get the vaccine to the greatest area of need in the quickest time. Trying to put the entire city into order by many different metrics might not meet that goal. Targeting high-need zip codes could be one appropriate tactic.

Or high risk humans. Targeting zip codes completely loses the actual people involved. DC has had SINCE MARCH to.plan how to vaccinate the human being residents of the WHOLE CITY appropriately. So glad FEMA Ia taking over; no doubt will just be randomized.

YES, and the problem with the initial plan was that the wealthier wards sucked up all the appointments, thereby creating additional inequities and not getting the vaccine as deeply into at-risk populations in poorer wards. If the goal is to spread the vaccine around the entire city and not just the wealthy areas, zip code set asides might help. We're talking about just getting the SAME number of people vaccinated. Heaven forbid we make an effort to get MORE vaccine to black, brown or poor people.

What do you mean wealthy Wards "sucked" up more vaccine?

Doesn't the data say that the Wards with the highest numbers of eligeable vaccine population received the most inoculations?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All vaccines appointments should be made through an (improved) website, telephone and/or customer service kiosk or roving mobile sign up units. Everyone should have the same access according to their category (65+, teacher, whatever). NOT according to zip code. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The reason they've been breaking some appointments out for only certain Zip codes is because residents of the Zip codes they're excluding from those slots have already taken a hugely disproportionate share of the vaccines. Seems like that would be a problem for any lawsuit to overcome. (As would the fact that only some spots are reserved for certain Zip codes, and the fact that what Zip code you live in is not a protected class.)

Also, PPP is ok with triaging by age or profession, but not by location - though its clear that living in a particular location makes you more vulnerable to the virus. The same yardstick is applied- those most vulnerable go first.

It's not the location that makes you vulnerable, it is your underlying health conditions and whether you live in a multi-generational household. All of this could be triaged for. Simply living in "Ward 8" doesn't make you more vulnerable.

This point is completely lost on the Mayor and our City Council. To them, living EoR means you are black and poor and disenfranchised.

There are certainly black and poor people EoR. Being black in itself, or poor doesn't make you more susceptible to Covid. Occupation, living situation, underlying health issues do. They should triage by category, not zip code. Living in a particular location does not make you 'more susceptible' to the virus. It's not like a covid sirrocco blows through Ward 3.

Sorry, "Ward 8"

Way to miss the point. A covid sirrocco in fact does blow through Ward 8, because that's where all the people with the most risk factors concentrate; and the greater concentration of risk means that covid will spread more rapidly. Your argument is like saying "we don't need to send firefighters to the massive fire in Ward 8 because everyon in Ward 3 has fireplaces too!

There are people with the SAME risk factors in other wards. Triage by risk factor, put out the fire. Simply living in Ward 8 is not a Covid Sirocco. The risk factors are.

OMG they ARE triageing by risk factors: age, nursing home status and zip code. They tried opening up the appointments to all comers, and most of them went to people in Ward 2 and 3. Setting aside some extra for certain zip codes makes sense if they're trying to reach more at risk seniors. It's not like the vaccines are going to waste over in ward 8; those are DC residents who are at high risk of contracting the virus, consuming more health care resources to fight it, and having worse outcomes than 65-year old Mrs. Legation Street.

ZIP CODE is not a "risk factor". OMG, what is wrong with your brain??

zip code is a proxy for risk factors. prioritizing vaccine by zip codes with the highest infection and death rate is good public health policy for a number of reasons.

Fully disagree. An old person with a heart condition in fancy ward 3 living with kids who work as, I dunno, a FED called into office and a teacher and have grandchildren in daycare is at exact same risk factor "boat" as their counterpart in Ward 8. SAME.

Sigh. The point is - public health policy tries to get the vaccine to the greatest area of need in the quickest time. Trying to put the entire city into order by many different metrics might not meet that goal. Targeting high-need zip codes could be one appropriate tactic.

Or high risk humans. Targeting zip codes completely loses the actual people involved. DC has had SINCE MARCH to.plan how to vaccinate the human being residents of the WHOLE CITY appropriately. So glad FEMA Ia taking over; no doubt will just be randomized.

YES, and the problem with the initial plan was that the wealthier wards sucked up all the appointments, thereby creating additional inequities and not getting the vaccine as deeply into at-risk populations in poorer wards. If the goal is to spread the vaccine around the entire city and not just the wealthy areas, zip code set asides might help. We're talking about just getting the SAME number of people vaccinated. Heaven forbid we make an effort to get MORE vaccine to black, brown or poor people.

These hospital sites, including ones not in Wrd 3 like washington hospital center, arent just drawing from Ward 3. They are drawing from patient lists across the city. It's weird that this is allowed, but has nothing to do with Ward 3. There are no official ward 3 sites.
As to daycare workers, low pay, non unionized, exposed throughout this thing, serving the WHOLE city, explain agaim why you dont support them? Many ward 3 have signed the petition.

Horse hockey. These "secret" sites are a little too good because every other email on my neighborhood listserv, that includes Ward 3, is some senior bitching about how they can't get a vaccine. Now they are screaming bloody murder because someone dared to suggest that Mayor Bowser needs to honor her commitment to include daycare workers who have been going to work during the pandemic in the group with teachers. More competition for them to get the vaccine!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All vaccines appointments should be made through an (improved) website, telephone and/or customer service kiosk or roving mobile sign up units. Everyone should have the same access according to their category (65+, teacher, whatever). NOT according to zip code. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The reason they've been breaking some appointments out for only certain Zip codes is because residents of the Zip codes they're excluding from those slots have already taken a hugely disproportionate share of the vaccines. Seems like that would be a problem for any lawsuit to overcome. (As would the fact that only some spots are reserved for certain Zip codes, and the fact that what Zip code you live in is not a protected class.)

Also, PPP is ok with triaging by age or profession, but not by location - though its clear that living in a particular location makes you more vulnerable to the virus. The same yardstick is applied- those most vulnerable go first.

It's not the location that makes you vulnerable, it is your underlying health conditions and whether you live in a multi-generational household. All of this could be triaged for. Simply living in "Ward 8" doesn't make you more vulnerable.

This point is completely lost on the Mayor and our City Council. To them, living EoR means you are black and poor and disenfranchised.

There are certainly black and poor people EoR. Being black in itself, or poor doesn't make you more susceptible to Covid. Occupation, living situation, underlying health issues do. They should triage by category, not zip code. Living in a particular location does not make you 'more susceptible' to the virus. It's not like a covid sirrocco blows through Ward 3.

Sorry, "Ward 8"

Way to miss the point. A covid sirrocco in fact does blow through Ward 8, because that's where all the people with the most risk factors concentrate; and the greater concentration of risk means that covid will spread more rapidly. Your argument is like saying "we don't need to send firefighters to the massive fire in Ward 8 because everyon in Ward 3 has fireplaces too!

There are people with the SAME risk factors in other wards. Triage by risk factor, put out the fire. Simply living in Ward 8 is not a Covid Sirocco. The risk factors are.

OMG they ARE triageing by risk factors: age, nursing home status and zip code. They tried opening up the appointments to all comers, and most of them went to people in Ward 2 and 3. Setting aside some extra for certain zip codes makes sense if they're trying to reach more at risk seniors. It's not like the vaccines are going to waste over in ward 8; those are DC residents who are at high risk of contracting the virus, consuming more health care resources to fight it, and having worse outcomes than 65-year old Mrs. Legation Street.

ZIP CODE is not a "risk factor". OMG, what is wrong with your brain??

zip code is a proxy for risk factors. prioritizing vaccine by zip codes with the highest infection and death rate is good public health policy for a number of reasons.

Fully disagree. An old person with a heart condition in fancy ward 3 living with kids who work as, I dunno, a FED called into office and a teacher and have grandchildren in daycare is at exact same risk factor "boat" as their counterpart in Ward 8. SAME.

Sigh. The point is - public health policy tries to get the vaccine to the greatest area of need in the quickest time. Trying to put the entire city into order by many different metrics might not meet that goal. Targeting high-need zip codes could be one appropriate tactic.

Or high risk humans. Targeting zip codes completely loses the actual people involved. DC has had SINCE MARCH to.plan how to vaccinate the human being residents of the WHOLE CITY appropriately. So glad FEMA Ia taking over; no doubt will just be randomized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All vaccines appointments should be made through an (improved) website, telephone and/or customer service kiosk or roving mobile sign up units. Everyone should have the same access according to their category (65+, teacher, whatever). NOT according to zip code. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The reason they've been breaking some appointments out for only certain Zip codes is because residents of the Zip codes they're excluding from those slots have already taken a hugely disproportionate share of the vaccines. Seems like that would be a problem for any lawsuit to overcome. (As would the fact that only some spots are reserved for certain Zip codes, and the fact that what Zip code you live in is not a protected class.)

Also, PPP is ok with triaging by age or profession, but not by location - though its clear that living in a particular location makes you more vulnerable to the virus. The same yardstick is applied- those most vulnerable go first.

It's not the location that makes you vulnerable, it is your underlying health conditions and whether you live in a multi-generational household. All of this could be triaged for. Simply living in "Ward 8" doesn't make you more vulnerable.

This point is completely lost on the Mayor and our City Council. To them, living EoR means you are black and poor and disenfranchised.

There are certainly black and poor people EoR. Being black in itself, or poor doesn't make you more susceptible to Covid. Occupation, living situation, underlying health issues do. They should triage by category, not zip code. Living in a particular location does not make you 'more susceptible' to the virus. It's not like a covid sirrocco blows through Ward 3.

Sorry, "Ward 8"

Way to miss the point. A covid sirrocco in fact does blow through Ward 8, because that's where all the people with the most risk factors concentrate; and the greater concentration of risk means that covid will spread more rapidly. Your argument is like saying "we don't need to send firefighters to the massive fire in Ward 8 because everyon in Ward 3 has fireplaces too!

There are people with the SAME risk factors in other wards. Triage by risk factor, put out the fire. Simply living in Ward 8 is not a Covid Sirocco. The risk factors are.

OMG they ARE triageing by risk factors: age, nursing home status and zip code. They tried opening up the appointments to all comers, and most of them went to people in Ward 2 and 3. Setting aside some extra for certain zip codes makes sense if they're trying to reach more at risk seniors. It's not like the vaccines are going to waste over in ward 8; those are DC residents who are at high risk of contracting the virus, consuming more health care resources to fight it, and having worse outcomes than 65-year old Mrs. Legation Street.

ZIP CODE is not a "risk factor". OMG, what is wrong with your brain??

zip code is a proxy for risk factors. prioritizing vaccine by zip codes with the highest infection and death rate is good public health policy for a number of reasons.

Fully disagree. An old person with a heart condition in fancy ward 3 living with kids who work as, I dunno, a FED called into office and a teacher and have grandchildren in daycare is at exact same risk factor "boat" as their counterpart in Ward 8. SAME.

Sigh. The point is - public health policy tries to get the vaccine to the greatest area of need in the quickest time. Trying to put the entire city into order by many different metrics might not meet that goal. Targeting high-need zip codes could be one appropriate tactic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All vaccines appointments should be made through an (improved) website, telephone and/or customer service kiosk or roving mobile sign up units. Everyone should have the same access according to their category (65+, teacher, whatever). NOT according to zip code. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The reason they've been breaking some appointments out for only certain Zip codes is because residents of the Zip codes they're excluding from those slots have already taken a hugely disproportionate share of the vaccines. Seems like that would be a problem for any lawsuit to overcome. (As would the fact that only some spots are reserved for certain Zip codes, and the fact that what Zip code you live in is not a protected class.)

Also, PPP is ok with triaging by age or profession, but not by location - though its clear that living in a particular location makes you more vulnerable to the virus. The same yardstick is applied- those most vulnerable go first.

It's not the location that makes you vulnerable, it is your underlying health conditions and whether you live in a multi-generational household. All of this could be triaged for. Simply living in "Ward 8" doesn't make you more vulnerable.

This point is completely lost on the Mayor and our City Council. To them, living EoR means you are black and poor and disenfranchised.

There are certainly black and poor people EoR. Being black in itself, or poor doesn't make you more susceptible to Covid. Occupation, living situation, underlying health issues do. They should triage by category, not zip code. Living in a particular location does not make you 'more susceptible' to the virus. It's not like a covid sirrocco blows through Ward 3.

Sorry, "Ward 8"

Way to miss the point. A covid sirrocco in fact does blow through Ward 8, because that's where all the people with the most risk factors concentrate; and the greater concentration of risk means that covid will spread more rapidly. Your argument is like saying "we don't need to send firefighters to the massive fire in Ward 8 because everyon in Ward 3 has fireplaces too!

There are people with the SAME risk factors in other wards. Triage by risk factor, put out the fire. Simply living in Ward 8 is not a Covid Sirocco. The risk factors are.

OMG they ARE triageing by risk factors: age, nursing home status and zip code. They tried opening up the appointments to all comers, and most of them went to people in Ward 2 and 3. Setting aside some extra for certain zip codes makes sense if they're trying to reach more at risk seniors. It's not like the vaccines are going to waste over in ward 8; those are DC residents who are at high risk of contracting the virus, consuming more health care resources to fight it, and having worse outcomes than 65-year old Mrs. Legation Street.

ZIP CODE is not a "risk factor". OMG, what is wrong with your brain??

zip code is a proxy for risk factors. prioritizing vaccine by zip codes with the highest infection and death rate is good public health policy for a number of reasons.

Fully disagree. An old person with a heart condition in fancy ward 3 living with kids who work as, I dunno, a FED called into office and a teacher and have grandchildren in daycare is at exact same risk factor "boat" as their counterpart in Ward 8. SAME.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All vaccines appointments should be made through an (improved) website, telephone and/or customer service kiosk or roving mobile sign up units. Everyone should have the same access according to their category (65+, teacher, whatever). NOT according to zip code. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The reason they've been breaking some appointments out for only certain Zip codes is because residents of the Zip codes they're excluding from those slots have already taken a hugely disproportionate share of the vaccines. Seems like that would be a problem for any lawsuit to overcome. (As would the fact that only some spots are reserved for certain Zip codes, and the fact that what Zip code you live in is not a protected class.)

Also, PPP is ok with triaging by age or profession, but not by location - though its clear that living in a particular location makes you more vulnerable to the virus. The same yardstick is applied- those most vulnerable go first.

It's not the location that makes you vulnerable, it is your underlying health conditions and whether you live in a multi-generational household. All of this could be triaged for. Simply living in "Ward 8" doesn't make you more vulnerable.

This point is completely lost on the Mayor and our City Council. To them, living EoR means you are black and poor and disenfranchised.

There are certainly black and poor people EoR. Being black in itself, or poor doesn't make you more susceptible to Covid. Occupation, living situation, underlying health issues do. They should triage by category, not zip code. Living in a particular location does not make you 'more susceptible' to the virus. It's not like a covid sirrocco blows through Ward 3.

Sorry, "Ward 8"

Way to miss the point. A covid sirrocco in fact does blow through Ward 8, because that's where all the people with the most risk factors concentrate; and the greater concentration of risk means that covid will spread more rapidly. Your argument is like saying "we don't need to send firefighters to the massive fire in Ward 8 because everyon in Ward 3 has fireplaces too!

There are people with the SAME risk factors in other wards. Triage by risk factor, put out the fire. Simply living in Ward 8 is not a Covid Sirocco. The risk factors are.

OMG they ARE triageing by risk factors: age, nursing home status and zip code. They tried opening up the appointments to all comers, and most of them went to people in Ward 2 and 3. Setting aside some extra for certain zip codes makes sense if they're trying to reach more at risk seniors. It's not like the vaccines are going to waste over in ward 8; those are DC residents who are at high risk of contracting the virus, consuming more health care resources to fight it, and having worse outcomes than 65-year old Mrs. Legation Street.

ZIP CODE is not a "risk factor". OMG, what is wrong with your brain??

zip code is a proxy for risk factors. prioritizing vaccine by zip codes with the highest infection and death rate is good public health policy for a number of reasons.