I guess I can see that rationale - even tho I don’t personally agree with it.
As a 60 yr old asthmatic, married to a 59 yr old w/ high blood pressure (neither of which are listed as risk factors), it seems odd that they would not go down to age 40-50 or so with NO health condtions, but instead, feel the need to give priority to vaccinating some 20-yr-old smoker.
I wouldn’t say a 20 year old, (Unless the data supports said 20 year old being at greater risk) but one 40 year old who smokes vs. one who doesn’t (and has no other risk factors), then yeah. But, get that stuff out quicker and some of these choices will be rendered moot.
Apologies if this should be added to the previous thread.
According to this, the risk of hospitalization/death increases substantially at age 50.
So I don’t understand the sense of opening it up to smokers of any age. At the very least, oughtn’t they specify some number of pack years?
Say I’m in my young 20s, and have been smoking 1 ppd for 5 years. Does that really result in increased risks compared to a 63 year old? What if that 63 yr old ALSO smoked 1ppd when in their 20s?
It seems to me that once you get into the weeds of specifying things like “priority for smokers, but only if they’ve smoked X amount for Y number of years,” you’ve made the process so much more complicated that it cancels out any value added. Plus, there’s no way to verify that people are telling the truth (which is a legitimate issue with prioritizing smokers, but if you’re going to go with anything other than prioritizing strictly by age, I think you probably have to accept that some people are going to game the system, and the really important thing to do is to get needles into arms as efficiently as possible).
Asthma wasn’t initially on the Phase 2 list here in MA, but was added after pressure from community leaders, even though the CDC dropped asthma to the “might be at risk” list.
Ironically, I qualify in two different ways for vaccination: asthma + obesity, and “accompanying senior to get vaccine” [which is a MA thing to get seniors vaccinated], but I haven’t signed up. I will eventually though in one of the next phases.
In Texas, the list of “conditions” is not exclusive: it just says that people with:
People 16 years of age and older with at least one chronic medical condition that puts
them at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19, such as > but not limited to:
• Cancer
• Chronic kidney disease
• COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
• Heart conditions, such as heart failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies
• Solid organ transplantation
• Obesity and severe obesity (body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher)
• Pregnancy
• Sickle cell disease
• Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bolding mine. So governments and organizations can decide what counts. So things like asthma, type 1 diabetes, smoking can get you on one county list, but not another.
As an ex-smoker, I think its fairly obvious if someone is a smoker. They stink. Their breath stinks, their hair stinks and their clothes stink. If they smoke in their car, all they would have to do is roll down their window for anyone to verify that they are smokers.
I smoked tobacco for 46 years and then quit cold turkey a month after I retired 2 years ago. I’d guess my lungs are in worse shape than a 20-something newby smoker, but going by the guidelines that 20-something should be in front of me because I’m no longer a tobacco smoker. Weird.
Good for you too! I’m glad you seem to be doing well after your stroke.
Every so often I’ll get a random “wow, I’d sure like a cigarette” thought, but it goes away fast.
I don’t mind if that 20-something goes before me because they are more at risk than I am because they are an active smoker, I just don’t understand why the damage you and I have done to our lungs over the years doesn’t count a little more.
And for anyone wondering, yes, I was stupid. I knew I was stupid when I started smoking, I knew all along that I shouldn’t be spending all that money to ruin my health. The stupid tax is mine to pay, and I’m not saying I should get any sort of special consideration because I am stupid.
I’ve had two fairly well off “friends” who hired a third party to schedule their appointments. They paid $250 each. The scheduler simply made up a couple of qualifying medical conditions for each of them. I don’t know if smoking was one of them.
They believe (one of them is a lawyer) that since they did not personally supply the false information they have done level of plausible deniability.
Apparently at the facility they are going to, there is no checking of any claims for medical conditions. They do ask for a photo ID (but you can submit a sworn affidavit if you don’t have it). If you are there on the basis of being a teacher or healthcare worker they ask for either a license (like a physical therapist license) or a work ID (like a school staff ID).
There’s already a lot of cheating going on based on just anecdotes of people outing themselves. As usual the ones doing the cheating justify it by claiming (believing?) that everyone is cheating.
I don’t know how it is going in the UK or Netherlands but based on what I’ve heard it seems like there GPs are the ones making most of the appointments. In the US a large segment of the population does not have a PCP and if they do, the PCPs don’t have access to vaccines or appointments.
Boy, I dunno. The requirements/process are so confusing and IMO irrational - that I have a hard time distinguishing between aggressively interpreting the rules and “cheating.”
What I’m seeing is a lot of people somewhat generously interpreting their occupation, or their medical condition. To take the condition which is the topic of this thread - what makes one a smoker? How many cigs in what period of time how recently? Tho I haven’t known any non-smokers to claim a smoker, I’m not sure I would think that much different than deciding one’s largely asymptomatic asthma, hypertension, etc fits within the requirements of cardiac/pulmonary diseases/conditions.
Maybe it is due to my age (60), but I do perceive some degree of unfairness in giving priority to folk aged > 64, and then just dropping it to everyone w/ med conditions, as opposed to down to age 60, 55, 50…
If one scrupulously defines things most narrowly, they may perceive they are unreasonably penalizing themself. The whole deal of requiring appts only on-line, and the benefits for someone aggressively seeking out distant or end-of-day sites IMO makes some personal interpretation justifiable. How long ought one patiently place their lives on hold and wait?
We move in different circles. I know people who have bribed the counselors at their kids’ private high school to promote their kid to the right college (they believe that certain colleges have an agreement to take one or two students from the school and the school hints that they do).
Another family hired the son of a town official at a no-show job to get a zoning variance for their McMansion.
Yet another flew the police chief and his family on a private jet for reasons that I won’t get into.