3 ms·

Seems like a bad misallocation. If they can only deliver a third of the vaccinations, someone else should be given the others to deliver. Either to the same gro

Seems like a bad misallocation. If they can only deliver a third of the vaccinations, someone else should be given the others to deliver. Either to the same group or whoever they can reach...

maxerickson 6y ago
Yeah, I don't know. They've only been active for ~1/2 of the vaccination period and have delivered almost 1/7 of the doses administered in Michigan. If the storage isn't problematic, I don't have an issue with them having some lead time. (giving a dose to a vulnerable person in a few days is pretty clearly more beneficial than giving it to a low risk person today; if the administration wasn't performing well vs the rest of the state or the interval were longer it'd be a more difficult consideration)
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Yeah, that makes sense. I would say that 3.5m is a LOT to have and not have given out. 3.5m people vaccinated, if 1% get covid, that's 35,000 cases. That's dead plus 350 dead plus 1750 hospitalisations (1 and 5% respectively). Probably a lot higher if its vulnerable people getting going without. I suppose we'd need a lot more data to confirm whether this understandably part of a ramp up or if its evidence of incompetent management...
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    It definitely is a lot to have and not have given out, but the overall ratio is something like 15 million doses administered out of 40 million distributed. (It's not clear if is really 40 million, but slow administration is a broad issue. And now there's a question of how much is going to be available each week; if the supply is X/week, it's going to be hard to convince people to build the capability to administer 2x/week)
- dTal 6y ago
  >giving a dose to a vulnerable person in a few days is pretty clearly more beneficial than giving it to a low risk person today That's not entirely clear to me, if the "low risk" person is in a position to be a superspreader. Vaccinating a supermarket checkout worker now, vs an elderly person (who gets delivery food and never meets anyone) in a few days, could easily save many more lives.

Seems like a bad misallocation. If they can only deliver a third of the vaccinations, someone else should be given the others to deliver. Either to the same group or whoever they can reach...

maxerickson 6y ago

Yeah, I don't know. They've only been active for ~1/2 of the vaccination period and have delivered almost 1/7 of the doses administered in Michigan. If the storage isn't problematic, I don't have an issue with them having some lead time. (giving a dose to a vulnerable person in a few days is pretty clearly more beneficial than giving it to a low risk person today; if the administration wasn't performing well vs the rest of the state or the interval were longer it'd be a more difficult consideration)

LatteLazy 6y ago
Yeah, that makes sense. I would say that 3.5m is a LOT to have and not have given out. 3.5m people vaccinated, if 1% get covid, that's 35,000 cases. That's dead plus 350 dead plus 1750 hospitalisations (1 and 5% respectively). Probably a lot higher if its vulnerable people getting going without. I suppose we'd need a lot more data to confirm whether this understandably part of a ramp up or if its evidence of incompetent management...
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It definitely is a lot to have and not have given out, but the overall ratio is something like 15 million doses administered out of 40 million distributed. (It's not clear if is really 40 million, but slow administration is a broad issue. And now there's a question of how much is going to be available each week; if the supply is X/week, it's going to be hard to convince people to build the capability to administer 2x/week)
dTal 6y ago
>giving a dose to a vulnerable person in a few days is pretty clearly more beneficial than giving it to a low risk person today That's not entirely clear to me, if the "low risk" person is in a position to be a superspreader. Vaccinating a supermarket checkout worker now, vs an elderly person (who gets delivery food and never meets anyone) in a few days, could easily save many more lives.