3 ms·

Did everyone miss the main premise of the article, which is that the distribution should be focused on reducing the r0? Yes, there was some stuff about free mar

Did everyone miss the main premise of the article, which is that the distribution should be focused on reducing the r0? Yes, there was some stuff about free markets and such, but I think the main premise still has merit whether you're a socialist or a capitalist. Why is no one discussing this? Giving a significant allocation to retirees instead of essential staff is the more compassionate thing, but is it the best?

maxerickson 6y ago
That's not what we are doing! Healthcare workers are in the initial allocation in most states. There's been all sorts of news featuring doctors and nurses getting shots. Part of the reason is that it's easier to get healthcare workers near the freezers required to store the Pfizer vaccine, because many of those freezers are in hospitals.
- deelowe 6y ago
  Yes, I'm aware, but what about vaccinating restaurant, grocery, pharmacy, and meat packing workers?
  - Exmoor 6y ago
    Depending on the state, essential workers are near the front of the list as well. Those would likely include a subset of your list, but probably not restaurant workers.
    - deelowe 6y ago
      There are anecdotes, sure, but I haven't seen any plan that in anyway appears to be in the same tone as the author's premise here. That is, ideally the objective statement would start with something around lowering the r0.
dependsontheq 6y ago
There is no possible way to target superspreaders, a lot of spreading happens in work or private situations we can’t know in advance who will spread it there. And the possible age groups are too large so we will see no effect immediately with the limited supply of vaccine. Starting with the eldest and those who are most likely to die from COVID should bring mortality down in the next 16 weeks. And afterwards we can work on reaching herd immunity.
- Exmoor 6y ago
  To be frank, the people most likely to be super spreaders have mostly become infected by now and achieved natural immunity. 30+% of people in large portion of the country have likely been infected [0]. There are certainly some regions with much lower than average numbers that could theoretically still benefit from this strategy, but I agree that targeting would be very difficult and controversial. [0]https://covid19-projections.com/infections/map_county_total_infected https://covid19-projections.com/infections/map_county_total_...
justnotworthit 6y ago
Because many commenters on this thread are angered by claims of free market superiority over government plan.
sudosysgen 6y ago
It's incorrect. The point of the response isn't to minimize R, it's to minimize harm. If that means minimizing R, then it means minimizing R. Here it doesn't - modeling shows that harm is minimized by vaccinating vulnerable populations even if they spread the virus less.

maxerickson 6y ago

That's not what we are doing! Healthcare workers are in the initial allocation in most states. There's been all sorts of news featuring doctors and nurses getting shots. Part of the reason is that it's easier to get healthcare workers near the freezers required to store the Pfizer vaccine, because many of those freezers are in hospitals.

deelowe 6y ago
Yes, I'm aware, but what about vaccinating restaurant, grocery, pharmacy, and meat packing workers?
- Exmoor 6y ago
  Depending on the state, essential workers are near the front of the list as well. Those would likely include a subset of your list, but probably not restaurant workers.
  - deelowe 6y ago
    There are anecdotes, sure, but I haven't seen any plan that in anyway appears to be in the same tone as the author's premise here. That is, ideally the objective statement would start with something around lowering the r0.

dependsontheq 6y ago

There is no possible way to target superspreaders, a lot of spreading happens in work or private situations we can’t know in advance who will spread it there. And the possible age groups are too large so we will see no effect immediately with the limited supply of vaccine. Starting with the eldest and those who are most likely to die from COVID should bring mortality down in the next 16 weeks. And afterwards we can work on reaching herd immunity.

Exmoor 6y ago
To be frank, the people most likely to be super spreaders have mostly become infected by now and achieved natural immunity. 30+% of people in large portion of the country have likely been infected [0]. There are certainly some regions with much lower than average numbers that could theoretically still benefit from this strategy, but I agree that targeting would be very difficult and controversial. [0]https://covid19-projections.com/infections/map_county_total_infected https://covid19-projections.com/infections/map_county_total_...

justnotworthit 6y ago

Because many commenters on this thread are angered by claims of free market superiority over government plan.

sudosysgen 6y ago

It's incorrect. The point of the response isn't to minimize R, it's to minimize harm. If that means minimizing R, then it means minimizing R. Here it doesn't - modeling shows that harm is minimized by vaccinating vulnerable populations even if they spread the virus less.