I’m curious, if you don’t mind sharing, how covid changed your perception of risk in general, say from flu or other things you might catch. Like, before covid were you especially cautious in that regard? I’m also curious whether you’ve thought about a ballpark chance of survival if you were to be exposed to the virus.
And this, I think, is the strongest “fact based argument that immunizing front facing workers will save more lives than getting the elderly done first.”
People’s ability to stay safe by self-isolating isn’t an all-or-nothing thing—it’s more of a continuum—but for those at one end of the continuum, not getting the vaccine means they still can’t go out in public, as opposed to a matter of life and death like it is for those who have to go out in public.
I’ve never particularly worried about any contagious disease. I mean, I’ve had all the proper vaccines all my life, including annual flu shots since, oh, somewhere around 50. I’ve had only the usual childhood diseases (measles, german measles, chicken pox – I guess I got those before the vaccinations were a routine thing) and a handful of not very serious cases of flu – and a gazillion colds the year I volunteered at the children’s library. I would steer clear of close contact with people clearly in the throes of colds or flu, but I wasn’t obsessive about it or anything.
Covid is something entirely different for me. The descriptions of how people die from it, gasping for breathe – that is particularly horrible to me. And all the ‘long range’ aftermaths they’re finding out about. I think I’d much prefer to die quickly than spend years where just walking across a room can leave you desperately out of breathe.
As for what the actual odd for me are, I dunno. As I say, we are staying cocooned at home as much as possible, which is pretty much all the time for a retired couple. I’m careful about wearing a mask any time I go out, and hand washing and such. If I get it anyway… maybe a one out of ten chance of getting serious ill?
What side of the “old people can just stay home” opinion are you when people talk about opening businesses back up?
Here in Southern California at least, the order seems to be healthcare workers > 65+ crowd > essential workers. We are still in the 65+ stage and teachers aren’t even close to being up.
How are the two situations possibly comparable? If we tell the 65+ crowd to stay home while we “reopen the economy” then millions will die, because it is impossible to totally isolate the elderly for years and because COVID is still deadlier and more contagious than the flu.
On the other hand, if we prioritize disease vectors in vaccinations, the rest of society can actually function (unlike the “reopen everything” case) and we are only asking the elderly to isolate for a few extra months, not for years.
I just can’t imagine immunizing the vectors will save as many lives. Like I said, 65+ make up 70% of deaths.
And immunizing bus drivers and grocery clerks isn’t going to allow us to function much better. Those things are running already. Do you you think the front staff at Best Buy also get ahead of the line? Workers at the shoe factory?
I think there are logistical issues, as well. Vaccinating the elderly is just different–in some ways easier, because places like retirement communities and skilled nursing facilities are centralized and you can take the vaccine there. In other ways, harder, because they are less savvy about technology, so internet forms and things are barriers. Also, they can’t stand in line long. It seems to me that there is a constant tension in this roll-out to get enough people to vaccinate but not too many. So it’s quite possible to be able to handle X people who can’t do lines, can’t do tech and simultaneously be able to handle a different population that can wait in line. The bottleneck is not as simple as not enough shots.
My area is vaccinating 1B. My district is working with teachers who qualify for 1B for health reasons (which includes but is not limited to age) and has been able to coordinate vaccines for a lot of people. This seems like a pretty good compromise to me.
This. Giving an immunization to an 80-year-old protects one person. Giving an immunization to a 30-year-old healthcare worker statistically protects 50; giving it to a teacher protects 10. OK, I made those last two numbers up because I don’t think anyone has played 5-dimensional chess to calculate those numbers. But, this is still part of the “flatten the curve” strategy - keep people from contracting AND SPREADING the virus. Had we properly screened / vetted / etc. the long-term-care workers, we would have saved thousands of lives.
I agree, most of the elderly can self isolate. You can’t in a residential home, so they are getting vaccinated early. Teachers can’t isolate for in person learning. And in person learning is so important to our society long term.
I also think that you shouldn’t slice the population too small when you prioritize.
Should someone who is 55 with heart disease and obese be prioritized over someone who is 65 and in great shape (except for the aches and pains of age)? You get into the minutia of second guessing and you start to increase your administrative overhead and the confusion. Keep in simple. By fall, nearly everyone who wants a vaccine should have one - even with the Trump administration screw ups.
And age isn’t the only factor in death rates. Sumter County, Florida, home to a population that is half 65+ has a case fatality rate similar to that of Marion County, Illinois, with half the elderly demographic. My sister is a nurse in a county with a 2.5+ case fatality rate and only 15% of the population is over 65. And that’s part of the issue of trying to make these decisions. You could make a case that you ship the vaccine just to where the death rates are highest.
But what percentage of TRANSMISSIONS do they make up?
If you prevent 1 person with a 10% chance of dying from getting infected who will meet 10 people they can potentially infect, or you prevent 1 person with a 1% chance of dying who will meet 1,000 people they can potentially infect, what is better? Especially when you consider how each of the people that are exposed will meet their own potential chain of people to infect.
If production were higher, distribution more consistent, and administration better planned, the question of who receives the vaccine when would be less fraught.
But that was never really likely. The administration could have been better but I don’t think inventing a brand new vaccine and producing a global supply was ever going to be easy. It’s astounding we already have 3 or so working vaccines.
What if everyone except old people had less than .1% of dying while old people had a 3% chance of dying. How many people does the bus driver have to meet to make the math work?
30 times more, IE 1 socially distanced busload.
Eta: and vastly less if you consider the fact that these bus riding people are out and about in the world and will be meeting lots of other people too.
You have to account for both chance of dying if infected and chance of becoming infected.
Right but old people are dying right now. How much more can they isolate and how long until the ripple effect of immunizing the possible vectors reaches them? As I said in another thread, Israel is vaccinating as fast as any could hope for but their case numbers are still soaring up.
Let me put it this way: suppose we could fully vaccinate 20% of our population in the next month. Let’s say they decide to do the entire 65+ population. They make up 70% of deaths with efficacy of 90%, we’d lower the death rate to well under half. If we do front line workers first, what’s your guesstimate on how much and how quickly we’d lower the death rate?
But if you can only vaccinate the elderly at a rate that is 50% of the rate of vaccination of front line workers, that changes things once again. You are making all the horses spherical. There are more variables here than number of bodies and number of shots.
The obvious big reason to give teachers a higher priority on the list is to open, and keep open, schools. That means placing teachers ahead of other people of similar age.
One of the biggest obstacles to keeping schools open here was keeping adults in the building. Once too many staff are sent home due to potential exposure, the school has to close. A vaccinated staff will greatly reduce that reason for closing schools.
Vaccinating teachers as soon as possible is necessary so schools can open next fall. If things go very quickly, and teachers are all getting their first dose by the end of February, then teachers should have full protection by the end of April. That’s pretty close to the end of the current school year, but plenty of time for the next.
If teachers are just lumped in with the 16-59 with underlying conditions and 16+ groups (list below), then they may not be fully protected by the end of the summer. Of course that all depends on vaccination rates.
In Colorado the order is roughly: Front line health care, people in long term care facilities, other health care workers, emergency workers (firefighers, police, etc.), 70+, frontline essential workers (teachers, grocery, agriculture, transportation, etc.), frontline government workers, frontline journalists, 60-69, 16-59 with underlying conditions, not-yet covered essential workers, placebo recipients, 16+.
The state is currently working on the 70+ group, so teachers (and others) are up next.
The list is trying to balance those most in danger of getting infected with those who have the most risk of poor outcomes if they become infected. People can argue forever about it, or just pick something that’s good enough, and get started. The importance of the list is also very different if the state is vaccinating 60,000 people per week or 250,000 people per week.