The Canadian Guitar Forum banner

21 - 40 of 68 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
484 Posts
Yep, that's an ugly and wholly unnecessary reality.
Like I keep saying, if the immunization program is to stop spread, then the people you want to vaccinate first are those whose daily life and job obliges them to be around lots of people. Masks are great, but remember that the primary function of the non-N95 mask is about exhaling not inhaling. So we may be protected from mask-wearing grocery-store staff, but they're not necessarily protected from us.
They were also promised to be vaccinated early, but have been bumped by the government pandering to special interest groups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,447 Posts
They were also promised to be vaccinated early, but have been bumped by the government pandering to special interest groups.
Too many people - not enough vaccines. It's only natural as a matter of survival for people to push for the front of the line.

We do seem to be doing better than expected with vaccine deliveries right now - but there's a lot of things that can go wrong along the way - other countries pulling rank, production problems, etc.

It's all new - and it's all very much in demand.

I just booked my first shot this morning for 8 days from now. I'll tell you, I'm hoping I don't get sick in the next few weeks and I'm hoping that there's nothing that gets in the way of that little vial with my name on it. I'll rest a whole lot easier 2 weeks after I've been poked (y)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
484 Posts
Too many people - not enough vaccines. It's only natural as a matter of survival for people to push for the front of the line.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's a very callous thing to say to someone who's been put in harm's way for the duration of the pandemic and will continue to be because I'm not a member of a swing voting block. The government is supposed to be the referee, making sure selfish actors aren't rewarded. Instead, of stamping out the behaviour, they're encouraging it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,541 Posts
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's a very callous thing to say to someone who's been put in harm's way for the duration of the pandemic and will continue to be because I'm not a member of a swing voting block. The government is supposed to be the referee, making sure selfish actors aren't rewarded. Instead, of stamping out the behaviour, they're encouraging it.
I see an unbelievable number of requests in the media, from groups wanting to be first in line. So much of it is whiny and unsympathetic, it's sickening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Congratulations!

I'm looking forward to a similar event. They're still on the 65 years old or older demographic and there's no provision on our Health Board's web site to add medical background issues. I'll just have to wait a little longer.

My wife got AZ yesterday, I'm on the waitlist for AZ myself. I have a confirmation number, but not an actual date. I'm hoping by my birthday in mid-may.

No idea how I created a blank table in this post.


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
The setting of vaccination priorities has been one of the toughest calls for all governments, and understandably subject to the most criticism since NO group wants to get sick.

Governments have been attempting to identify "most deserving". The high fatality rate at long-term care facilities made the choice easy for them at first. And of course, staff working in ICU or with LTC residents, were easily flagged as necessary/"deserving" recipients. But after that, setting priority groups got a LOT harder. Were there unlimited supply of vaccine, and unlimited resources for distribution, it would have been a no-brainer.

As I've noted before, people tend to look at the immunization program through one of two lenses. One group tends to look at it in terms of personal protection. "I need MY shot because I'm in danger". This is part of what prompted the age-titration of vaccination (i./e., start with the oldest and work your way down to younger). But it also prompts the demand from those who might see vaccination as their economic-survival ticket, allowing them to return to earning a living.

The other perspective is the contagion-prevention lens, that focuses on contexts where contagion is more likely, and the people that work in them. The perspective there is what groups and contexts will reduce spread if I vaccinate there early on? After all, the less the spread, the more relaxed the rest of the populace can be about getting vaccinated yesterday.

For me, the poster child for this was/is first responders. Yes, they're younger, they're healthy, and they know what to look out for and how to protect themselves. But they also deal with different people all the time, in risky situations (you can't tell someone to extricate themselves from the car crash on their own, just so you don't touch them or come near their face) that they can't fully control or predict, and can't always manage the contact between the people in those situations, especially with snap judgments and fast action are required. For me, that group is at risk of both contracting and spreading, being unable to manage it in others. They're also a group we can't afford to be short-staffed on. Teachers kind of see themselves in that light, but public health officials rightly note that teachers will see the same kids, day in day out, in a manageable predictable context, not a different group every day.

The world of work is so complex and varied that I won't attempt to start ranking other groups. But the choices start to get problematic when we include groups like Rob/OkayPlayer, folks who stack shelves, folks who deliver food, drive Ubers and taxis, and buses. I would say "Governments should have thought of this beforehand", but the reality is that all they had was contracts and assurances from vaccine providers, and production delays buggered all plans anyone had.

Now, in the grand scheme of things if these folks get vaccinated 3 weeks before those folks move up in line, it doesn't really change very much. The people already vaccinated are still at risk until they develop immunity in response, so plenty of folks are not at any particular advantage to others. What matters is not so much who is in line ahead of who else, but rather the case counts. I don't expect that to placate very many.

In any event. I hope everybody who wants one gets their first poke by the end of May, and that people behave themselves and employers give them the wherewithall to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,447 Posts
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's a very callous thing to say to someone who's been put in harm's way for the duration of the pandemic and will continue to be because I'm not a member of a swing voting block. The government is supposed to be the referee, making sure selfish actors aren't rewarded. Instead, of stamping out the behaviour, they're encouraging it.
Sorry but just read a newspaper and you'll see it's true. Regardless, Why callous? It wasn't directed at you and, for what it's worth I'm classified as essential too and haven't gotten to stay at home one day. I see quite a few people and rely on a mask and a piece of plexiglass to keep me safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,950 Posts
For me, the poster child for this was/is first responders.

Here here. I agree.

I think the scheduling started out with good intent, and they got lost along the way, or wrenches were thrown into the gears.

Older folks in senior homes was a good place to start. The most vulnerable.

Of course equal priority to those working with them and those in high risk of coming into contact with cases. That would be medical front line workers, including first responders, the police, and teachers (given the reluctance to close, and keep closed, schools).

Right after that are people who are essential workers. Truck drivers, food processing employees, retail food/drug, public transport. Those that have to work in contact with the most people.

I'm not sure after that. Perhaps students if they are keeping the schools open. They are probably next in line based on the amount of contact with others on a regular basis.

I think the litmus test for priority would be the amount of possible contact with others is not a bad idea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
484 Posts
Sorry but just read a newspaper and you'll see it's true. Regardless, Why callous? It wasn't directed at you and, for what it's worth I'm classified as essential too and haven't gotten to stay at home one day. I see quite a few people and rely on a mask and a piece of plexiglass to keep me safe.
How else would you describe someone watching poor behaviour and just shrugging their shoulders in response?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
484 Posts
Here here. I agree.

I think the scheduling started out with good intent, and they got lost along the way, or wrenches were thrown into the gears.

Older folks in senior homes was a good place to start. The most vulnerable.

Of course equal priority to those working with them and those in high risk of coming into contact with cases. That would be medical front line workers, including first responders, the police, and teachers (given the reluctance to close, and keep closed, schools).

Right after that are people who are essential workers. Truck drivers, food processing employees, retail food/drug, public transport. Those that have to work in contact with the most people.

I'm not sure after that. Perhaps students if they are keeping the schools open. They are probably next in line based on the amount of contact with others on a regular basis.

I think the litmus test for priority would be the amount of possible contact with others is not a bad idea.
Your essential worker category by aggregate deals with infinitely more people than teachers do. That's a big part of the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,950 Posts
Your essential worker category by aggregate deals with infinitely more people than teachers do. That's a big part of the problem.
Like I alluded to, the more people you come into contact with, the higher on the list. The teachers would drop on the list if they could stay at home and teach online. They come into less contact with the walking petri dishes that way.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
484 Posts
Like I alluded to, the more people you come into contact with, the higher on the list. The teachers would drop on the list if they could stay at home and teach online. They come into less contact with the walking petri dishes that way.
Teachers see a set number of people, and its the same people day in and day out. That's not the case for everyone who's now behind them on the vaccination list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,292 Posts
Yes, things DO change. The U.S. is now advising it's citizens to NOT travel to Canada due to Covid risk.
Things must be good there. Full capacity crowds for MLB in Texas, no masks or social distancing.
I'm part of a group that could have got this vaccine a while ago. I'd be glad to sell my spot to some afraid rich person wanting to jump the queue.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,300 Posts
Congratulations!

I'm looking forward to a similar event. They're still on the 65 years old or older demographic and there's no provision on our Health Board's web site to add medical background issues. I'll just have to wait a little longer.

You should check again. They may have dropped it to 60 yesterday.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,678 Posts

You should check again. They may have dropped it to 60 yesterday.
Nope, I'm on the refresh button every few minutes. Still taking appointments for 65 and older.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #39 (Edited)
Here here. I agree.

I think the scheduling started out with good intent, and they got lost along the way, or wrenches were thrown into the gears.

Older folks in senior homes was a good place to start. The most vulnerable.

Of course equal priority to those working with them and those in high risk of coming into contact with cases. That would be medical front line workers, including first responders, the police, and teachers (given the reluctance to close, and keep closed, schools).

Right after that are people who are essential workers. Truck drivers, food processing employees, retail food/drug, public transport. Those that have to work in contact with the most people.

I'm not sure after that. Perhaps students if they are keeping the schools open. They are probably next in line based on the amount of contact with others on a regular basis.

I think the litmus test for priority would be the amount of possible contact with others is not a bad idea.
A less-than--optimally-successful campaign of fear was waged,partly by levels of government but also by newsmedia and social media, to get people to adopt the individual preventative behaviours over which they had control (mask, wash, spacing, staying in). All too often, people remain unpersuaded UNLESS you can appeal to their fears. But I suspect one of the unintended side-effects of that was that it shifted the focus for many from a calmer "How do we collectively and strategically manage contagion and keep it low?" to "I'm afraid I'm gonna get it and die, so VACCINATE ME!".

As an undergraduate, I became interested in many aspects of animal behaviour. One of the catalytic papers I read was by senior ethologist Thelma Rowell, who noted that so-called "pecking orders" or dominance hierarchies within social species only tend to occur when there is some highly-desired resource in limited supply, be it food, females in estrous, favorable sleeping places, etc. When there is more than enough to go around for everyone, competition and pecking order tends not to develop, even within species well-known for having them, since nobody has to fight for anything. I look at the very public debate over who should get vaccinated before or after who else through that lens.

Incidentally, the earlier effort to vaccinate remote Inuit and First Nation communities ahead of many others made perfect sense to me, from both a contagion-control and fiscal perspective. We know there are housing shortages in such places and crowding as a result, which drastically ups the risk. We also know that, for fly-in communities, it is easier and cheaper to fly in a public health nurse with vaccination supplies than it is to hastily fly out people on stretchers to an ICU hundreds of miles from where they live.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,447 Posts

You should check again. They may have dropped it to 60 yesterday.
Yeah, they never seemed to offer 65+ but went straight to 60+ yesterday morning. Pre-existing conditions have never come up as a qualifier AFAIK either. I'm 65, an essential worker who can't work from home, had cancer and have diabetes and kidney failure. None of that seems to matter - in the end it was just being 60+ that got me in the queue.
 
21 - 40 of 68 Posts
Top