4 ms·
Alaska will be first state in U.S. to offer Covid-19 vaccines to all adults
- PhaedrusV 6y agoTitle misspelled "both adults"
- Turing_Machine 6y agoBuried deep in the article: 16- and 17-year-olds are also eligible, although they're limited to the Pfizer vaccine (the other two are only currently approved for 18+).
- Black101 6y agoIs it because they were allocated the same number of vaccines as every other states, regardless of population....
- belltaco 6y ago>Alaska’s state-sponsored distribution effort has seen a major boost from its tribal health care partners, which have been allotted separate shipments of vaccine through a unique partnership with the federal government — aimed at recognizing both tribes’ sovereign status and COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on Alaska Native people.
- Armisael16 6y agoThey weren’t, because that isn’t how vaccines are being allocated in the US. Please do even the most minimally basic of research before slinging accusations.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Black101 6y agosomething is screwed up somewhere?
- Black101 6y agohttps://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/10/975692487/alabama-official-on-vaccine-rollout-how-can-this-disparity-exist-in-this-country https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
- nabeards 6y agoAlthough not a state, this is true in the US Virgin Islands as well.
- vorpalhex 6y agoWith the J&J vaccine and most states having >15% of the population with at least one dose, we really should just be distributing to anyone and everyone as fast as possible.
- jghn 6y agoAt least in my state the sorts of gross inefficiencies believe to be caused by the binning just aren’t true. There were some early wrinkles but were now rate limited by the total number of doses. So while frustrating for folks such as myself it still makes sense to prioritize based on need
- abhorrence 6y agoI would argue that most states aren't prioritizing based on need. They're prioritizing based on risk if covid is caught, where they ought to be prioritizing primarily on risk of catching covid (with perhaps some secondary prioritization for risk if caught). Under such a scheme, we'd have vaccinated anyone who has a hard time isolating, e.g. grocery store workers, nursing home residents and staff, prisoners. Instead most states are first vaccinating retirees who can easily avoid infection.
- jghn 6y agoSure, depends on how one chooses to define need as you point out. I don’t disagree, there are a lot of factors going into prioritization and I don’t agree with all of the decisions but at the end of the day, and at least in my state, the notion that this is slowing things down is simply untrue
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- whb07 6y agoWatch the people in power still say once 70%+ of population is vaccinated or has been exposed : “But you need to social distance” “But you still need to wear 3 masks, as 3 is obviously better than 2” “But there are new strains that you’re not protected against”