5 ms·

Why is Stanford in a position to choose allocations in the first place? I thought the government was going to handle allocations.

lambda_obrien 6y ago
They have a huge hospital and medical program.
jrochkind1 6y ago
The federal government has allocated to states, and pretty much left it up to the states how to allocate internally. With some vague sort of guidelines. Most states seem to be deciding to prioritize healthcare workers (especially those taking care of covid patients) either entirely or among other groups. So the way you do that is delivering to hospitals makes sense. CA presumably allocated a certain amount to Stanford Medicine, as a large hospital system. I don't know how CA decided what hospitals to give to in what amounts, but it certainly wouldn't shock me if political influence were part of it, why wouldn't it be, what sort of guidelines or transparency is there to stop it? There is not really any written procedure for how to decide which hospitals to get how much in most states, it's just... happening. Then Stanford was clearly left entirely on their own to decide how to allocate internally. This is far too important and too politically fraught (political in terms of POWER, in terms of distributing a resource for which demand far exceeds supply for something that can literally be life-and-death) -- to have left it up for everyone to just make up their own prioritization rules and medical ethics determinations on the fly, in a hetereogenous way. It means people will make terrible mistakes, and the powerful will take advantage to have their needs prioritized. It is ridiculous there aren't much more clear/specific guidelines, and in some cases enforceable policies/regulations, from the federal government. It's like nobody's driving the bus here
- davidf560 6y ago
  > It is ridiculous there aren't much more clear/specific guidelines, and in some cases enforceable policies/regulations, from the federal government. It's like nobody's driving the bus here. Why is this not California's fault? States were each permitted to establish their own procedures, which somewhat makes sense given the challenging distribution requirements of the Pfizer vaccine. Montana has significantly different challenges than Rhode Island in that sense. Most states that I know of have established clear guidelines saying who gets it and when - I assume California is the same. Seems like California is the governmental entity that failed to exercise proper oversight and/or requirements specification here.
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    At all levels, sure. Most states you know have established clear guidelines sayign who gets it and when? Including specifics on what medical staff within a hospital system would get it? Like not just "health care staff" or "first responders" (everyone in the Stanford Medicine system is that already right, this is about who within that group gets it). Please back that up by showing me such clear guidelines from a few states. It should be easy to find this, if indeed most states have done this, presumably in a very transparent way for something so important and contentious, right? I don't believe most states have. (It doesn't make it easier that the federal government told states how much they'd get them REDUCED it, and in general is only committing to telling states how much they'll get a week in advance).
    - davidf560 6y ago
      New York's plan: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/ny-unveils-draft-vaccine-distribution-plan-in-anticipation-of-drug-release/2675315/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/ny-unveils-draft... Phase 1 says "Healthcare workers in patient care settings" Tennessee's: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/novel-coronavirus/COVID-19_Vaccination_Plan.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/nov... Phase 1 says "hospital/free-standing emergency department staff with direct patient exposure and/or exposure to potentially infectious materials" Other states have similar wording. You'd really have to twist yourself into a knot to convince yourself that a work-from-home administrator falls into the categories specified above. Shame on any state who didn't include wording like that - there was nothing stopping them from putting some common-sense wording in their plans. Beyond the written rules, you'd also have to be a selfish idiot to think that just because you're related to a healthcare company that you should get it this week if you're working from home. If I were in that kind of role, shame would be enough to stop me but as we've seen the elite often have no shame. (edit) California's own plan [0] says Phase 1-A includes "paid and unpaid persons serving in healthcare settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients and infectious materials and are unable to work from home". So if Stanford was really vaccinating admins who are working from home, then it seems like they violated state guidelines and should be punished appropriately. [0] https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/COVID-19-Vaccination-Plan-California-Interim-Draft_V1.0.pdf https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20...
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  The CDC is creating literature assuming "Promoting Justice" and racial criteria are triage factors for vaccine distribution, sufficient to prioritize essential workers (listed examples are mostly government employees) over at-risk and elderly populations. Even though they admit their own models show that would result in slightly more deaths. With that in mind, perhaps decentralization is preferable. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-11/COVID-04-Dooling.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e3.htm
enigmo 6y ago
the hospital employs somewhere around 30k people. even if they had all 60k doses (two per person) they can't vaccinate everyone at the same time due to potential side effects, so a schedule is needed to avoid an entire department being sick at the same time. my wife works for the hospital but has been working from home most of the time since covid started. she's low on the priority list because of this, and rightfully so. her co-workers that are treating the (sometimes infected) patients should get access first, if they want it.

lambda_obrien 6y ago

They have a huge hospital and medical program.

jrochkind1 6y ago

The federal government has allocated to states, and pretty much left it up to the states how to allocate internally. With some vague sort of guidelines. Most states seem to be deciding to prioritize healthcare workers (especially those taking care of covid patients) either entirely or among other groups. So the way you do that is delivering to hospitals makes sense. CA presumably allocated a certain amount to Stanford Medicine, as a large hospital system. I don't know how CA decided what hospitals to give to in what amounts, but it certainly wouldn't shock me if political influence were part of it, why wouldn't it be, what sort of guidelines or transparency is there to stop it? There is not really any written procedure for how to decide which hospitals to get how much in most states, it's just... happening. Then Stanford was clearly left entirely on their own to decide how to allocate internally. This is far too important and too politically fraught (political in terms of POWER, in terms of distributing a resource for which demand far exceeds supply for something that can literally be life-and-death) -- to have left it up for everyone to just make up their own prioritization rules and medical ethics determinations on the fly, in a hetereogenous way. It means people will make terrible mistakes, and the powerful will take advantage to have their needs prioritized. It is ridiculous there aren't much more clear/specific guidelines, and in some cases enforceable policies/regulations, from the federal government. It's like nobody's driving the bus here

davidf560 6y ago
> It is ridiculous there aren't much more clear/specific guidelines, and in some cases enforceable policies/regulations, from the federal government. It's like nobody's driving the bus here. Why is this not California's fault? States were each permitted to establish their own procedures, which somewhat makes sense given the challenging distribution requirements of the Pfizer vaccine. Montana has significantly different challenges than Rhode Island in that sense. Most states that I know of have established clear guidelines saying who gets it and when - I assume California is the same. Seems like California is the governmental entity that failed to exercise proper oversight and/or requirements specification here.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  At all levels, sure. Most states you know have established clear guidelines sayign who gets it and when? Including specifics on what medical staff within a hospital system would get it? Like not just "health care staff" or "first responders" (everyone in the Stanford Medicine system is that already right, this is about who within that group gets it). Please back that up by showing me such clear guidelines from a few states. It should be easy to find this, if indeed most states have done this, presumably in a very transparent way for something so important and contentious, right? I don't believe most states have. (It doesn't make it easier that the federal government told states how much they'd get them REDUCED it, and in general is only committing to telling states how much they'll get a week in advance).
  - davidf560 6y ago
    New York's plan: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/ny-unveils-draft-vaccine-distribution-plan-in-anticipation-of-drug-release/2675315/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/ny-unveils-draft... Phase 1 says "Healthcare workers in patient care settings" Tennessee's: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/novel-coronavirus/COVID-19_Vaccination_Plan.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/nov... Phase 1 says "hospital/free-standing emergency department staff with direct patient exposure and/or exposure to potentially infectious materials" Other states have similar wording. You'd really have to twist yourself into a knot to convince yourself that a work-from-home administrator falls into the categories specified above. Shame on any state who didn't include wording like that - there was nothing stopping them from putting some common-sense wording in their plans. Beyond the written rules, you'd also have to be a selfish idiot to think that just because you're related to a healthcare company that you should get it this week if you're working from home. If I were in that kind of role, shame would be enough to stop me but as we've seen the elite often have no shame. (edit) California's own plan [0] says Phase 1-A includes "paid and unpaid persons serving in healthcare settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients and infectious materials and are unable to work from home". So if Stanford was really vaccinating admins who are working from home, then it seems like they violated state guidelines and should be punished appropriately. [0] https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/COVID-19-Vaccination-Plan-California-Interim-Draft_V1.0.pdf https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20...
drak0n1c 6y ago
The CDC is creating literature assuming "Promoting Justice" and racial criteria are triage factors for vaccine distribution, sufficient to prioritize essential workers (listed examples are mostly government employees) over at-risk and elderly populations. Even though they admit their own models show that would result in slightly more deaths. With that in mind, perhaps decentralization is preferable. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-11/COVID-04-Dooling.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e3.htm

enigmo 6y ago

the hospital employs somewhere around 30k people. even if they had all 60k doses (two per person) they can't vaccinate everyone at the same time due to potential side effects, so a schedule is needed to avoid an entire department being sick at the same time. my wife works for the hospital but has been working from home most of the time since covid started. she's low on the priority list because of this, and rightfully so. her co-workers that are treating the (sometimes infected) patients should get access first, if they want it.