I'm sure the docs and medical folks will immediately correct me, but if they just need people to give shots then they could train damn near anyone. It's not like they try to hit a vein with this one, it's your standard upper shoulder shot.
Sure but can't you watch a lot of people at once if they're all masked up? They're about to hopefully open up a mass vaccination site at the Falcons stadium soon.
Not sure if the responses are to my Mother volunteering as that isn't what she was doing although she certainly could if needed. She had been just welcoming people and helping direct them to where they needed to go which is why we made her stop back in March since that is just too many people to come in random contact with. I would imagine her immune system is off the charts from working as a nurse for 35 years or so and she never really gets sick but I am glad she is going to be able to get her shot.
Yeah I was just expanding on that in general in terms of what I keep seeing as to why Georgia is so behind in vaccination rates.
we did a drive thru location today and they basically had a monitor for each lane of traffic + had you wait 15 minutes to make sure of no reaction, counted your time, then sent you on your way. They had a medic(s) on site in the event of an emergency. But I dont know how many or whatnot.
I'm getting my first shot tomorrow afternoon at exactly 1:35 pm. It's in a high school gymnasium which is right beside a hospital. Only the football stadium stands between the two. I am a school board employee
Miami is having to cancel vaccinations tomorrow and possibly through the weekend because of a shortage of vaccines.
And why don’t we just give the shots to people that can’t work from home/not work? DeSantis wouldn’t let my wife get one who sees 20+ patients a day. But someone retired gets one? I thought he only cared about the economy (not pandering to his older voting base).
Spoiler Florida’s Covid-19 Vaccines Draw Foreigners, Snowbirds The state allows vaccinating nonresidents, which rankles some; ‘it lowers the numbers of vaccines available to people here’ José de CórdobaJan. 14, 2021 5:30 am ET A drive-through vaccination site in Davie, Fla., on Jan. 4. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images Listen to this article 7 minutes This feature is powered by text-to-speech technology. Want to see it on more articles? Give your feedback below or email [email protected]. MIAMI—Visitors from Toronto to New York to Buenos Aires have long flocked to Florida for sun, surf and shopping. Now they are coming for the Covid-19 vaccine. Some of the arrivals are Americans or foreigners who own second homes in the state and reside here part-time. Others are making short-term visits, seizing the opportunity provided by Florida’s decision to make the vaccine available to people age 65 and older, including nonresidents. The practice, which some are calling vaccine tourism, has drawn fire from some officials and residents. Interest is up sharply from Canadians who are looking to travel to the U.S. for vaccinations, according to Momentum Jets, a private jet service provider in Toronto. “We’re getting requests now from clients that are willing to fly into Florida, if they have an appointment, and then fly home again on the same day,” said Janelle Brind, a company vice president. Costs for a charter flight range from $25,000 to $80,000 for a same-day round trip, she said. Martin Firestone, an insurance broker and president of Travel Secure Inc. in Toronto, said about 30% of his clientele of so-called snowbirds decided to travel to the southern U.S. in November despite the pandemic. He believes all of those clients have either received their first vaccine dose or are in the process of getting an appointment. “And they’re telling all their friends,” he said. For many in Latin America, Miami has long been their unofficial U.S. capital. Ana Rosenfeld, a 66-year-old lawyer in Buenos Aires, took advantage of a trip to visit her daughter and new grandson in Miami to get a vaccination. At a vaccination site in Tampa, she said she provided her passport as identification and proof of travel health insurance. Florida was one of the earliest states to offer vaccines to people age 65 and older. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images “I’ve gotten many calls from people asking me how I did it,” she said. “I don’t believe I’ve taken a vaccine from anybody…I didn’t come in premeditated fashion to get vaccinated.” Florida was one of the earliest states offering vaccines to people age 65 and older, the result of an executive order by Gov. Ron DeSantis on Dec. 23. The move, which came with little advance notice, led hospitals and local officials to scramble to set up vaccine appointment systems to handle the surge in demand. Websites frequently crash and phone lines are usually jammed. “It’s very unstable and very frustrating for the population,” said Dr. Mary Jo Trepka, an epidemiologist at Florida International University. “There are many worried people who want a vaccine and can’t get it.” Each medical facility and county receiving vaccine doses has created its own procedures to screen people seeking shots and to give them appointments. In its guidance to local officials, the state has specified that people who meet the current eligibility requirements, such as being 65 and older, can be vaccinated in Florida whether or not they are residents. Miami’s Jackson Health System said that while it makes every effort to verify Florida residency, it isn’t turning away people 65 and older who live part-time in Florida and part-time in another state or country. The Coronavirus Is Mutating. Here’s What We Know 0:00 / 6:21 The Coronavirus Is Mutating. Here’s What We Know As new coronavirus variants sweep across the world, scientists are racing to understand how dangerous they could be. WSJ explains. Illustration: Alex Kuzoian/WSJ “Regardless of where someone lives, if they are spending time in our community—on our beaches, in our restaurants, in our malls—they can be spreaders of this virus,” it said. Mr. DeSantis has made a distinction between people who own second homes in Florida and reside part-time in the state, and people who fly in and stay only briefly to get vaccinated. “If they have a residence and they’re not just kind of flying by night for a week or two, I’m totally fine with that,” he said last week. “That’s a little bit different than somebody that’s just doing tourism and trying to come here. So we’re discouraging people to come to Florida just to get a vaccine.” ‘We’re discouraging people to come to Florida just to get a vaccine,’ said Gov. Ron DeSantis, seen in Miami Gardens, Fla., on Jan. 6.Photo: Wilfredo Lee/Associated Press What the state can do to stop it, given the eligibility of nonresidents, is unclear. The Florida Department of Health will investigate any reported misuse of the vaccine, said Jason Mahon, interim communications director. “It is absolutely not permitted for someone to come into Florida for one day to receive the vaccine and leave the next,” he said. “We ask that all suspected incidents be reported to the appropriate county health department immediately.” Florida, and in particular Miami, is a financial, medical, business and tourism hub for wealthy Latin Americans from Mexico to Argentina. Many own apartments, do business or have relatives who live in the state. Yanina Latorre, a TV personality who competed in Argentina’s version of “Dancing with the Stars,” recently posted to her 1.5 million followers on Instagram how two fans helped her get a vaccine for her 80-year-old mother at Miami Gardens’s Hard Rock Stadium during their family vacation. “We are vaccinating Mom,” she shouts with joy as a medical technician plunges a needle into her mother’s arm. “I feel like crying!” Argentina has acquired some 300,000 doses of the Russian-made Sputnik vaccine that hasn’t been approved for use by people older than 60 years. Many in Argentina, however, have doubts about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The stories of the two Argentine women caused a furor after they made the local news in Miami. “I’m totally in disagreement with people from out of town coming and getting the vaccine before City of Miami residents,” said Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. “I will look into all legal options to prevent this from happening.” ‘At my age, time is running out for me, and that’s not fair,’ said Beth Emerson, a 76-year-old Miami Beach resident, pictured in 2017. Photo: Beth Emerson Ms. Latorre didn’t respond to a request for comment. Dr. Carlos Espinal, a Colombian-born public-health expert at FIU, said he receives about four calls a day from friends and relatives in Colombia asking how to get vaccinations in Miami. He tells them to wait for the rollout of Colombia’s vaccination program, expected in February. “It’s not a good idea to stimulate vaccine tourism,” he said. “It lowers the numbers of vaccines available to people here. It’s also unfair because only people who can afford to come here can get it.” SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS Should states add safeguards to prevent vaccine tourism? Why or why not? Join the conversation below. Some Florida residents are rankled by reports of people flying in from other states or countries to get vaccinated. “It’s disgusting,” said Beth Emerson, a 76-year-old Miami Beach resident. “It’s not fine with me if everyone is jumping in and I have to wait six months. At my age, time is running out for me, and that’s not fair.” Ms. Emerson said she has been trying unsuccessfully for about three weeks to get an appointment for a vaccine at a local hospital, calling repeatedly and leaving messages. So far, she hasn’t received a response. —Kim Mackrael, Silvina Frydlewsky and Luciana Magalhaes contributed to this article.
I have friends in Florida who think he is “following the science” with this. Note: they are not scientists.
It’s the people 65+ who are doing most of the dying. If all the people 65+ get vaccinated (which will not happen) total mortality should be reduced by an estimated 70% from the levels of 3/2020 through 12/2020. It wouldn’t impact morbidity because the age groups younger than that are driving spread. The mortality in those groups would continue at the current rate until they achieved high vaccination rates or herd immunity is achieved. (By the way, I’m bourbon posting and might regret this post tomorrow morning. However, at the moment I’m sure this is correct).
This is the oddest super-spreader event I've seen, and that's saying something considering my last post. "At least 44 staff members tested positive for the virus after a staff member wore an inflatable costume on Christmas to cheer up patients." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...d-covid-outbreak-california-hospital-n1252685
You’re going off of the “requirements”. The reality is the “healthcare worker” is an incredibly loose term. My wife vaccinated a receptionist at a dentist’s office who was 25ish, meanwhile my dad can’t find a single spot (my dad is 68).
The implementation is a separate matter, and is obviously flawed. The directive to prioritize olds is science based if the goal is to reduce mortality.
Sure, but saying to do that but doing another means that “following the science” is just talk. It’s classic desantis.
Oh, I agree with this. But conceptually FL is following the science when, on part, it prioritizes the vaccination of senior citizens.
The best way to reduce deaths is to reduce the spread of the disease. Targeting the individuals that are most likely to encounter the virus and ensuring they are vaccinated is the best way to slow/stop the spread and that saves lives.
(Which will not happen) is the most important thing you said. Risk of dying is probability of death with infection multiplied by risk of exposure. Not to mention all the high risk (due to age or otherwise) that won’t / can’t get vaccinated for good or bad reasons. Cutting off the chain of spread impacts risk of exposure, including for those at high risk in the 65+ category. This is what I mean when I said that just trying to vaccinate 65+ will not lead to the fewest deaths over all. That’s just not how it works in the real world and it’s what all the real epidemiologists are saying. These models of vaccinating front line healthcare workers and essential workers isnt just because we want to be nice to them. It’s because the models show that cutting off critical chains of transmission will lead to the fewest deaths overall.
That receptionist, if deemed essential, is a major risk vector for spreading it to a lot of people including those 65+. I’m not saying she is essential, but conceptually that’s the idea.
You were the one being absolute above. It’s a mix of both that optimizes fewest deaths. THAT is following the science.
I don’t disagree, I’m more trying to give the reality of here instead of what desantis just says in a press conference
I appreciate that. Where we are you can’t get it even if 65+, like at all unless in assisted living.. Not an option yet. I also disagree with whats hapenning here, but my guess is the assumption is that most 65+ that aren’t in assisted living can continue social distancing for a few more months and their risk of exposure (per my equation above) is low. My point about my friend (who owns a hair salon) is that she thinks DeSantis is following the science and is great. xec is illustrating why she thinks this is true. Reality is it’s much more complicated and smart people aren’t pulling it out of their butts.
The mortality data indicates that the absolute is credible here. Those 65+ citizens comprise 80% of the USA deaths. If you vaccinate them, you greatly reduce mortality. It doesn’t matter what the spread is in this scenario.
The confounding truth here is that FL can theoretically “follow the science” but if the implementation is greatly flawed it will not achieve the desired result.
I think FL is different than every other state due to our snowbird/retirement population so different reqs/guidelines here make sense
Untrue. They can’t die if they don’t get infected. And they can continue to stay home and social distance (every place has assisted living as first priority because they can’t social distance). And those 65+ citizens can’t all be vaccinated. 1. We don’t have enough vaccine yet, 2. Many of them won’t take the vaccine, 3. Some of them are immunocompromised, 4. Some of them have severe history of allergy and will be contraindicated. Again, the models aren’t being pulled from thin air. We aren’t vaccinated front line healthcare and essential workers becuse we want to be nice to them. It’s not about protecting them when we do it as some sort of reward for them being “heros”. It’s about protecting infection from reaching the more susceptible individuals.
Florida’s DeSantis has chosen, specifically, not to follow the science in favor of politically expedient sound bites that convince hair salon owners that just vaccinating olds is all we have to do and everyone else will be fine. It’s NOT how to minimize deaths. But it certainly sounds good.
ive praised Florida for their vaccine rollout. But deSantis isn’t following the science when he says to just vaccinate all the old people and we’re good. We don’t have enough vaccine yet to do that therefore it’s not the optimal approach and is certainly not following the science. But NY, Cali, PA etc aren’t doing any better with their vaccine rollout either. I believe many models didn’t account for 1. The lack of predictability of vaccine coming in from the Feds and 2. The sheer number of people refusing vaccination.
That’s why although 80% of the deaths are in those age groups, only 70% mortality reduction will result if those age groups are prioritized for vaccination. And, again, my support is based on the CONCEPT that they should be. Actual implementation is a separate consideration. Regarding the vaccination of front line health care workers, we vaccinate front line health care workers as a priority because it seems to make sense to a degree. The reality is that in Salt Lake City over 90% of the front line health care workers who have contracted Covid have done so from community exposure, not health care setting. There are virtually zero % instances here of infected front line health care workers infecting others. Prioritizing them is a “feel good”. My wife is one of them and, believe me, I can understand the POV. Your point #1 is valid, there isn’t enough vaccine. So, how do you use it? Do you give it to those most at risk of death? That makes sense to me. Your point #2 is also valid. Many won’t take the vaccine. In that case C’est La Vie. I think it is safe to recognize that similar percentages of the other age groups will also decline the vaccine. If there is not enough vaccine, then giving what is available to the younger cohorts is not going to help the 65+ citizens who would otherwise refuse to take the vaccine. They will eventually be exposed and the concurrent mortality rate will apply.
To add, everything I’m saying is much more true and imperative in the context of 50-70% more highly contagious strains of the virus.
Actual implementation is what drives the science saying to not strictly and solely prioritize vaccinating 65+ year olds. We model in the real world as best we can. I highly doubt that there are zero cases of healthcare worker to patient Covid transmission, or healthcare worker to healthcare worker. And we also ignore the overwhelmed hospital system factor - if doctors get Covid and are out for 14 days, who is to treat the sick patients with Covid or anything else? Doesn’t matter if the doctor got it in the community or otherwise, we need these healthcare workers staying healthy and working. That will prevent deaths as well - not just from Covid but from other things that cause death. It is not a “feel good”. It’s extremely valid. You’ve yet to acknowledge my simple equation. You can’t die if you’re not exposed. Prevent people from getting exposed as much as possible. 1 vaccine protects 1 person. Preventing a chain of transmission protects 100s if not 1000s of people. “They will eventually be exposed” is a terribly sad state of affairs, isn’t it? I hope it’s not to be true.
I’m literally shocked that you are taking the position that you’re taking. Please consider how much more complicated the world is than you’re making it. You quite literally can’t move to vaccinate all the 65+ year olds fast enough. You just can’t. We don’t even have enough vaccine for them all right now. Preventing transmission has the greatest impact on my formula for death RIGHT NOW.
Consider that there are 50M people in the US over 65. Come on.... even if that’s ALL you vaccinated it’s going to take 2 months to just do that and meanwhile by not preventing transmission of these newer highly contagious strains you are likely to see a lot more deaths than if you used the vaccine to vaccinate those 65+ that can’t social distance for a few more months until wave 2-3 of the vaccine rollout and those who are the nodes for transmission and the doctors and nurses and healthcare workers keeping patients alive that have Covid, cancer, heart attacks, and all the other things that kill us. They go down and we are in bigger trouble. i know I’m arguing here in the abstract. But every single epidemiologist model points to the same thing. You aren’t going to convince me that you and Ron DeSantis are right and all their models are wrong.
I agree that it is complicated. Think about this. If you can’t move fast enough to vaccinate the 65+ , it’s probably true that you can’t move fast enough to vaccinate the other age groups. The lack of available vaccine is key. If you use the available vaccine to vaccinate the younger cohorts you will make some impact, but not enough of a dent in transmission and the new cases rate. The old people will still be exposed. Many of them will die, as opposed to simply losing the sense of smell or suffering fatigue. But, if you use the available vaccine to vaccinate the 65+ ... the number of deaths will be greatly reduced. You may be literally shocked at the position I am taking (fwiw I have high respect for you and get your point. This dispute will not change that. Reasonable disputes are healthy). That’s ok. From my POV, if the goal is to reduce deaths, you vaccinate those with the highest risk of death. If there’s not enough vaccine to save all of them who want it, then giving that insufficient supply to other age groups isn’t going to save them either.
Please point me to the epidemiologist models that you are using to argue against vaccinating those at the highest risk of death.
from my POV, I must be doing a very poor job of communicating because I feel like this is something that you should get. And I don’t feel like you’re getting it. You are calling them “younger age groups”. Wrong. It’s targeting groups of people who are high vectors for transmission. That saves lots of older lives beyond just the ones who get vaccinated. Older people have been largely staying home and not interacting with others taking their risk of death to almost zero. You can’t die if you don’t catch it. This isn’t forever. This is until we make more vaccine. 2-4 more months. We aren’t trying to vaccinate all the other age groups. Moving fast enough to do that is a straw man argument. We can move fast enough to hit the people who may be responsible for infected 5-10 other people through the course of their essential job. You say this: “but not enough of a dent in transmission and the new cases rate”. What is that based on? Why wouldn’t it have a massive dent on transmission? I know you know how logarithmic growth works. Preventing 5 infections from vaccinating an essential worker vs vaccinating 1 elderly person who barely leaves their own home is going to result in perhaps 100-1000 fewer deaths overall than the 1 elderly shut in who was exposed by their food delivery driver (super low risk anyways!). Risk of exposure is key here and I’ve tried to explain it 5 different ways. Why vaccinate a 70 year old who has almost zero chance of being exposed in the next 3 months? Point being: your statement that “the old people will still be exposed” is wrong. We are talking 2-3 months until next cohort of vaccine is available. Giving the limited supply in balance to those who have the highest score on risk of death if infected and highest chance of exposure AND highest chance to transmit if infected is how you prevent the most deaths in the next 2-3 months. We aren’t talking about a long time. We are talking about a temporary stop gap and asking 65+ people to stay the fuck home a little longer to reduce their risk of being exposed. Again, just a little while longer.
Every states vaccination roll out is based on them. And they all have it wrong in your opinion. Again, risk of death is IFR * risk of being exposed. Not just IFR. You get this, yes? Being 65+ years old in and of itself does not mean you have the highest risk of death (using your words without the scary word death in bold and italics). It’s the highest risk of death age cohort IF INFECTED. Those last 2 words are incredibly important when modeling impact of vaccination on deaths. also, that’s another strawman. I am arguing exactly FOR vaccinating those at highest risk of death (this is why assisted living facilities go absolutely first: highest risk of death if infected and highest risk of being infected) and then next vaccinating those at highest risk of spreading infection. Age is not the proper proxy for highest risk of death. It’s highest IFR. That’s not the same as risk of death (given they are not yet infected) come on. Where am I arguing against vaccinating those at highest risk of death (if infected)? Where am I against anything close to that? Now I know you’re not understanding and I’m poorly communicating. I’m arguing here for a balanced approach to risk of death (including factoring in risk of exposure) and using vaccine to cut off chains of transmission that go logarithmic and reach high IFR * risk of exposure people before we can vaccinate them
We effectively wiped out smallpox and polio in the US through a ring vaccination strategy. This is something you can look up if you don’t know it. It’s about breaking chains of transmission. Not vaccinating just those at highest risk of death. It’s not a perfect corollary because vaccine quantity was not rate limiting but it’s a shining example of going after transmission rates rather than susceptibility to mortality.