How recent is all of the above information? I belong to Kaiser in their Northern California region (which is separate from their Southern California region). For several months they’ve been sending me notices, discussing very apologetically the shortage of vaccines and promising me my shot just as soon as they can get the necessary supplies to hit down to my age group.
In mid-February they announced that their allocation has been upped to 20% of the available doses to correspond (sort-of) with their claimed membership of 25% of all California health care consumers . A week later I got my invitation. They are offering shots by appointment only, and appointments are given by invitation only. On March 1, I got my jab #1 (Moderna).
To be sure, this is in the northern San Joaquin Valley area, a Central Valley farming community. I had to drive about 40 miles to their facility. They were very well organized and efficient about it. My total wait time before getting the shot was about 5 minutes. Before leaving, each person getting jab #1 was also given an appointment for their #2.
So, if we are to believe their current information, they are now getting allocations a little more in line with their membership numbers, so the Kaiser logjam may be breaking loose.
Living in the Boston area, the number of people trying to get into Gillette/Fenway/Reggie Lewis has overwhelmed capacity, to the point that people are clicking for hours and hours hoping to win the appointment lottery (which is how I finally got my mom an appointment).
Worcester on the other hand has been somewhat slower to fill, and when they dumped a bunch of J&J appointments online tonight I got one on the first try. Now, it’s about 65 minutes from my house, but my point is, I have no qualms about traveling (as long as it’s in MA).
Hmm. My professional organization made an arrangement for vaccination slots at a clinic in the capital, a 4 hour cross-county drive for some of us. Was that unethical?
I think the biggest issue is what a mess politics had turned our national response into. One result is that local values of the ratio of supply to demand are extremely variable. So there are several issues to consider in deciding the ethics.
If the primary impact of traveling is to relieve what amounts to an artificial market dislocation, that is actually a positive moral good. I think it’s similar to us buying extra paper towels in the last couple months, given that they are now abundantly available again – if there’s another shortage, I’ll be using what I stored and not competing for a scarce resource, and may even give them to other people who can’t get what they need. Storing critical resources to span surplus to scarcity cycles, and effectively moving vaccine from an area with less shortage to an area with more, are both public services and goods.
If the primary impact is to use your wealth and ability to travel to propel yourself ahead of others less fortunate, then that’s unethical.
Of course, if you’re lying, or you’re cheating some rule that is not unethical itself, then that’s unethical.
If the primary impact is that you become a transmission vector yourself, that’s bad, but it’s also not under your strict control, so there’s some kind of probability calculus that has to enter into it.
To make life better for specific others and/or for society in general. Many people use large chunks of their wealth that way. Many others at least claim to be doing so. And most of the arguments I’ve seen for allowing some people to become much richer than others boil down to ‘society as a whole will become richer if it’s allowed.’
I find that using my wealth to gain privileged access to things has been the opposite of a problem. It’s pretty easy and pretty nice. The only problem is I wish I had more wealth.
There’s no problem with the principle. That’s the way a capitalist economy works, and we know it’s the only effective way to run an economy. But capitalism is perfectly compatible with a system where some things are deemed basic human rights, and are made available according to need. Basic healthcare is generally believed to be one of those things in (literally) every civilized country except the United States. And when there is a scarce healthcare resource such as we have here, it should certainly be allocated according to need. Jumping the line is not like paying for a slightly more luxurious hospital room.
I drove 40 minutes for my first vaccination and will be driving over an hour for the second on Tuesday but they are in the same county. When I was casting about for appointments the county seat east of here was actually closer but it specifically said, Residents of [county] only. Your address will be checked and you will be turned away if not a resident.
Makes sense as their population is 10% of the county I’m in and even a 5% surplus would be a tiny number.
I think it’s got something to do with the actual restrictions and something to do with actual distance.
I wound up getting vaccinated in my own county; but I was also on a waiting list in the next county over, and if they’d called me before I got the appointment, or if I’d only been able to get an appointment in that county, I’d have gone there. (It’s legal here to do so, and I’d given them my accurate address). The distance to the two sites from my house is almost exactly equal; the distance to some sites in my own county is considerably further. Some people have similar situations re a state line, and in those cases, if they’re eligible in both states and it’s legal to do so, I’d have no problem with their crossing that line instead of travelling much further to a site in their own state.
I think they were just leery about too many people coming over leaving nothing for the people for whom the shipment(s) were intended. My county did not have the same note on it’s site – we could most likely absorb the handful from the neighboring county.
Yes, that makes sense. In my case the two counties are both relatively low-population counties and one is unlikely to overwhelm the other; plus which the sign up in the adjacent county (at a small independent pharmacy) made it clear that they were going to prioritize local residents and their own customers first, so I wasn’t worried that they’d call me and unfairly exclude their own area – though I would also have taken an appointment in that same village at CVS, which wasn’t doing it that way.
After a long stretch in which each county had been getting something like 100 doses a week for the entire county, apparently there was suddenly a lot of vaccine available in both, at least for over 65’s – pharmacies here aren’t supposed to vaccinate anybody younger, even if they’ve got other reasons for priority, and the surge of availability seemed to only be through pharmacies.
It seems to me that traveling for a vaccine is a moral good. If there are long wait times, or you’re not able to make an appointment at all, in your area, that indicates that your area is underserved. And if it’s easier to get the vaccine in another area, that indicates that that area is overserved, at least relatively speaking. By traveling to get the vaccine, you’re helping to balance the load, and making it incrementally easier for others in your underserved area, including some who for one reason or another don’t have the option of traveling.
And I don’t think that this analysis is changed by borders.
Except that a whole lot of it right now comes down to the existence of your internet connection, the speed of your internet connection, and your ability to spend long hours every day at your computer doing this in particular. All of those things are related to income.
And some of them are also related to age. In the Chicago area, based on my mother-in-law’s experience, many of the ways to get signed up for a vaccine are only done online, and many senior citizens (who are still the priority target for the vaccines) either aren’t particularly conversant with using the internet, or aren’t online at all.
New Hampshire has 10 counties and for God only knows what reason until the past couple of weeks only had 13 vaccination sites statewide. I do not at all begrudge people crossing county lines.
If a vaccine is tagged for your state, I don’t think it matters where you get it. If you live in a less populous area, and travel to a more populous one, you are not taking a vaccine from someone-- in fact, if you get other than J&J, you may be getting a vaccine that otherwise would end up in the trash, since it can’t be re-frozen.
Where I am currently fence-sitting, is people who live in one state, and work in another when they work with a vulnerable population. Apparently, a number of healthcare workers who work with the elderly in Indiana, but live in Kentucky, got vaccinated at work, along with their co-workers. No one thought to ask whether workers were residents, but later, when someone at the state level, was reviewing paperwork, this popped up as a “problem.”
My first thought is that for every person working in IN but living in KY, there is someone who lives in IN, and works in another state, especially all the people who work in Chicago, and it will eventually balance out. IL has more to worry about, since so many people from IN and MI work in Chicago.
My second thought is, isn’t there some way to account for this, such as distributing vaccines by tax rolls instead of state residence?
. A week later I got my invitation. They are offering shots by appointment only, and appointments are given by invitation only. On March 1, I got my jab #1 (Moderna).