Poll vaccine distribution priorities

[Skeptic Ginger]

After health care workers and very high risk individuals are mostly vaccinated, there are people advocating for the next essential occupations that should have priority. Others are looking to correct some inequities such as poor people who don't have access, be it because they don't have internet or they don't have a car to go to a drive-in mass vaccination site. Another group that essentially has a double whammy are agricultural workers and food processing workers.

All these groups deserve to be the next priority, but who should be first (next)? I only allowed one vote as difficult as is to decide because we are talking about priority. They are in no particular order in the poll.

ETA: Besides yourself. Or maybe go ahead and vote for 'other' because you think it is legit you are next in line. I can't blame anyone for that. I get it.

 

[Joe Random]

If we went by strict technicalities I could jump the line and claim a place with 'agricultural workers'. But since my real-world position has me sitting in a large office by myself, much removed from most of the rest of the people at my company I've not done that. Silly sodding me.

Would prefer to see health care workers (including pharmacists) then grocery workers, then other frontliners get theirs. Estimates say I'm going to have to wait until the fall, but that's what it is. The number of people I come into contact with on a regular basis means I should be one of the last people hit, but damn if 'back of the bus' doesn't feel like something hard to cope with these days.

Apparently by the time they're ready for me everyone else on the planet will have had their jabs. Ever wish your personal morality was more ... flexible?

Oh, and to get more detailed (assuming the med field has gotten theirs) : grocery workers, truckers (professionals talk logistics), food plant workers. Those are the underlying essentials. After that we can look at the largest spread vectors (prisons, etc.).

 

[Meadmaker]

I picked front line grocery workers, on the theory that they are at high risk. I don't know if that has actually been proven true in practice, but I would assume they are at high risk.

Moreover, if they are at high risk of getting the virus, it means they are also at high risk of transmitting the virus. That's the real calculation I would make. Where can a single vaccine dose have the most effect. Vaccinating those people who are most likely to spread the virus gives a second level of protection. So, maybe teachers. Maybe grocery workers. Vaccinate the people most likely to be infected and, more importantly, most likely to infect others.

 

[cullennz]

Admittedly we are in an enviable position (for now),

But would imagine it should be the countries customs people, medical worker people, older people, medically vulnerable people.

Once that is done

Front of house people in ALL facists. ie anything retail.

The rest.

 

[shemp]

Me.

 

[Orphia Nay]

There are some you overlooked here, in Australia's vaccine priority list:

https://www.health.gov.au/initiativ...inated-for-covid-19/who-will-get-the-vaccines

Here, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are in higher priority groups for their age than many other Australians, for example, due to underlying health risks etc.

Similarly, on a global scale, the World Health Organisation is trying to get richer countries to help poorer countries get vaccines earlier such as in South America.

 

[cullennz]

Forgot the US side.

The military first as well as the people tend to get all aggro for no reason, and may need to be called in.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I lack the data and resources to make an appropriate decision.

 

[Sherkeu]

I picked front line grocery workers, on the theory that they are at high risk. I don't know if that has actually been proven true in practice, but I would assume they are at high risk.

Moreover, if they are at high risk of getting the virus, it means they are also at high risk of transmitting the virus. That's the real calculation I would make. Where can a single vaccine dose have the most effect. Vaccinating those people who are most likely to spread the virus gives a second level of protection. So, maybe teachers. Maybe grocery workers. Vaccinate the people most likely to be infected and, more importantly, most likely to infect others.

Same. And I define grocery as any place offering essentials. So Target, Wal-Mart, CVS, 99 cent store, Dollar Store etc....also included. (and they offer food products or even full grocery depts too so many qualify as grocers even without the other essentials sold.)

Then...teachers. Only if their Union isnt going to waste the decision on delaying openings.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Me.

Yes, some people appear to be having trouble with this mental interference. Maybe I should have said, "besides yourself".

I edited a comment in about that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are some you overlooked here, in Australia's vaccine priority list:

https://www.health.gov.au/initiativ...inated-for-covid-19/who-will-get-the-vaccines

Here, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are in higher priority groups for their age than many other Australians, for example, due to underlying health risks etc.

Similarly, on a global scale, the World Health Organisation is trying to get richer countries to help poorer countries get vaccines earlier such as in South America.

You are absolutely right to want an option to vote for international groups. However that would be well beyond the focus of this poll. There are people here now in the US advocating for this group or that. That is what I had in mind to discuss.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Same. And I define grocery as any place offering essentials. So Target, Wal-Mart, CVS, 99 cent store, Dollar Store etc....also included. (and they offer food products or even full grocery depts too so many qualify as grocers even without the other essentials sold.)...

That makes sense. The definition to include any of these folks fits with the poll choice.

 

[TomB]

I don't think there's a single answer for who should get the vaccine first. I could make a case for restaurant workers, who also are not on the list (unless you count them as food processing workers). You know, the ones who feed all the health care workers at lunch time? (Possible through a drive thru window.)

There is also a lot of important research and scientific work going on in a wide variety of fields which requires people to work face to face. Similarly, there are critical functions related to things like the quality of drinking water, utilities etc. that are essential and cannot be done remotely.

I was sent notice that I was eligible this week due to my position. (I manage IT for a lab.) So I got my first dose (Pfizer) today. My stepson works for a blood bank and got his a couple weeks ago. He had a friend who had a reaction to the shot and was sick for a couple days, but nothing serious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think there's a single answer for who should get the vaccine first. I could make a case for restaurant workers, who also are not on the list (unless you count them as food processing workers). You know, the ones who feed all the health care workers at lunch time? (Possible through a drive thru window.)

There is also a lot of important research and scientific work going on in a wide variety of fields which requires people to work face to face. Similarly, there are critical functions related to things like the quality of drinking water, utilities etc. that are essential and cannot be done remotely.

I was sent notice that I was eligible this week due to my position. (I manage IT for a lab.) So I got my first dose (Pfizer) today. My stepson works for a blood bank and got his a couple weeks ago. He had a friend who had a reaction to the shot and was sick for a couple days, but nothing serious.

The reason for the poll is that as I hear people making a case for who should be next in line, I also can't decide. I wanted to know what other people here think.

You don't think there's a single answer, yet there is not enough vaccine for everyone.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

i would give priority in this order:
- those needed to make and distribute the vaccine
- those who are most likely to get infected and infect others as a consequence
- healthcare workers
- those with increased health risk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

i would give priority in this order:
- those needed to make and distribute the vaccine
- those who are most likely to get infected and infect others as a consequence
- healthcare workers
- those with increased health risk

The poll question is who should be next after the people on your list?

 

[angrysoba]

Peter Singer made an interesting argument, from what I can see, that when it comes to vaccination, those of certain ethnic statuses should be allowed to be vaccinated at a lower age than their white counterparts on a similar basis to how they may be screened for other illnesses:

If the US retains the current vaccination priorities, but adds the principle of equal treatment for people at an equal level of risk, policymakers will need to estimate at what age members of African-American, Latinx, and Native American communities run the same risk as 75-year-old white or Asian Americans, and then consider race and ethnicity in deciding who is eligible at what age. I do not have data indicating how much difference this would make, but it might mean that, say, an African-American 72-year-old man is eligible while a white 74-year-old man is not.

Some may object that this is a kind of reverse racism. It is not. In the absence of more individualized evidence, race is used as an indicator of risk from the virus. The guiding principle is not that members of different racial and ethnic groups should be vaccinated in numbers proportionate to their share in the community as a whole. That is not ethically significant. The goal is to save more lives, which should be our overriding concern.

Link

 

[Rolfe]

As things get more under control I'd consider doing mass vaccination drives geographically, starting with the cities where the prevalence is highest, to try to break community transmission in the problem areas.

 

[Puppycow]

Why is the elderly not an option? Or did you mean who's next after the elderly?

It could just go: First people over 80, then people over 75, then people over 70, and so on.

This wouldn't be the worst approach, and it's simple because the criteria are simple and easy to understand.

Teachers are important because we need to reopen the schools ASAP.

I can also see arguments for various other groups, such as grocery store workers.

Peter Singer made an interesting argument, from what I can see, that when it comes to vaccination, those of certain ethnic statuses should be allowed to be vaccinated at a lower age than their white counterparts on a similar basis to how they may be screened for other illnesses:

If the US retains the current vaccination priorities, but adds the principle of equal treatment for people at an equal level of risk, policymakers will need to estimate at what age members of African-American, Latinx, and Native American communities run the same risk as 75-year-old white or Asian Americans, and then consider race and ethnicity in deciding who is eligible at what age. I do not have data indicating how much difference this would make, but it might mean that, say, an African-American 72-year-old man is eligible while a white 74-year-old man is not.

Some may object that this is a kind of reverse racism. It is not. In the absence of more individualized evidence, race is used as an indicator of risk from the virus. The guiding principle is not that members of different racial and ethnic groups should be vaccinated in numbers proportionate to their share in the community as a whole. That is not ethically significant. The goal is to save more lives, which should be our overriding concern.

Link

If it will save more lives, I think it can be justified philosophically.
It's sort of like a pre-existing medical condition. If people with diabetes are at higher risk, and it's OK to prioritize people for that reason, then I would argue that it's also OK to come up with a formula that takes race into account if race is an independent variable that increases risk. Politically it's going to be risky to explicitly make race a criteria. But I would not object as long as it's given the appropriate amount of weight. It also shouldn't be so complicated that it slows the process down or is too difficult to administer in practice. A simple formula like just going by age is going to be easier to administer because it's an easy number to determine.

 

[Vixen]

I voted low income ethnic minority groups as it makes my heart bleed to see so many of these hard-working frontline workers - such as bus drivers, nurses, doctors and carers - having been struck down, sometimes leaving young children without a parent. As these deaths are not largely based on ethnicity - although it might be a factor in underlying conditions - then it is mostly to do with being in harsher social conditions and of not having the luxury to work from home and to self-isolate at will.

In the same group should be all low-income populations: the shop assistants who have to tolerate abuse and lack of mask-wearing, hospital porters, cab drivers, service technicians. OK so people like plumbers may not at all be low income but anyone who has to deal face front with the public to earn a living should be given priority.

Not Rupert Murdoch or the Prime Minister's dad.