CDC Notifies States, Large Cities To Prepare For Vaccine Distribution As Soon As Late October

[Colleen27]

Part of me (and maybe I’m not alone in this thought) wonders if all of the lockdowns and precautions of the past year have even mattered. Would the virus have just done what it wanted to do anyway. Are we just prolonging the inevitable and dragging it out instead of ripping the Bandaid off? Then the other part of me thinks, no of course we have helped prevent what could have been many many more deaths by distancing and masking.
I don’t know...just thinking out loud.

I've been wondering about that for months, as first we saw California spike despite tightest-in-the-nation rules and now we're seeing Texas continue to decline and Florida holding steady despite being wide-open while in Michigan we're spiking again with quite a few restrictions still in place (though not as many as over the winter). And the same pattern seems to be happening in Europe, where tighter lockdowns than anything we've done in the US haven't headed off a new wave of cases. I don't think a "pulling the band aid off" approach would have been better because of the consequences of strained health care systems, but I do question how much any of the lockdown measures really help with controlling the virus.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Part of me (and maybe I’m not alone in this thought) wonders if all of the lockdowns and precautions of the past year have even mattered. Would the virus have just done what it wanted to do anyway. Are we just prolonging the inevitable and dragging it out instead of ripping the Bandaid off? Then the other part of me thinks, no of course we have helped prevent what could have been many many more deaths by distancing and masking.
I don’t know...just thinking out loud.

Most people understood/understand that the lockdowns/stay at home orders were meant to give basically a break for various systems. They mattered, they do matter but the message usually was "if only we had done this as a whole country we'd be done in 6 weeks" (or whatever timeframe people decided to come up with out of thin air). That isn't really how I ever thought it would happen and it was always something that I didn't overhype the effects of a lockdown/stay at home order. I think the difference now is that we relied on those lockdowns/stay at home orders in the past which cannot stay the same now but some people do continue to think the main way to remove this virus is just perpetual lockdowns/stay at home orders without respects to anything else.

The virus will continue to do what it wants to do, the difference is what you do impacts things in different ways. I don't personally think the correct viewpoint (which I understand right/wrong don't come into play as much when we're talking about opinions) is to brush aside what precautions were done but rather I believe it's more effective to study which ones AND which method was done in various places had the more effect or less effect. I think it's a slippery slope when we think about ripping off the band aid because it's not something I want to play around with, I'd rather error on the side of some caution. If we did nothing at all, absolutely nothing our collective psyche may be different in how we view deaths, lingering effects of the virus, economic impacts and psychological impacts. Think how many people feel about the government stepping in and helping the business owners we don't view doing nothing as the right thing to do. Think how many people feel when their loved one dies because they didn't take the virus seriously at all how they usually implore others afterwards to take it seriously. And we def. have long lasting effects from those lockdowns/stay at homes and precautions no doubt about that. Mostly we just hope in hindsight that we did the right thing but doing nothing is not usually viewed as the right thing.

 

[jlwhitney]

I've been wondering about that for months, as first we saw California spike despite tightest-in-the-nation rules and now we're seeing Texas continue to decline and Florida holding steady despite being wide-open while in Michigan we're spiking again with quite a few restrictions still in place (though not as many as over the winter). And the same pattern seems to be happening in Europe, where tighter lockdowns than anything we've done in the US haven't headed off a new wave of cases. I don't think a "pulling the band aid off" approach would have been better because of the consequences of strained health care systems, but I do question how much any of the lockdown measures really help with controlling the virus.

I think its because the goal posts moved/changed. The original goal was to spread about the same amount of deaths over a longer period of time so the hopsitals wouldn't be slammed which then would caused no beds for other people with different needs. But at some point it shifted to any death or case from covid was one too many which caused tighter and tighter restrictions in some states that embraced that idea while others like Florida knew that wasn't possible so took the as long as hospitals could manage do what can to protect those at highest risk and keep the economy going as best as possible to hopefully avoid/lesson the fall out from a tanked economy. It is hard because both sides have pros and cons.

 

[huskies90]

Part of me (and maybe I’m not alone in this thought) wonders if all of the lockdowns and precautions of the past year have even mattered. Would the virus have just done what it wanted to do anyway. Are we just prolonging the inevitable and dragging it out instead of ripping the Bandaid off? Then the other part of me thinks, no of course we have helped prevent what could have been many many more deaths by distancing and masking.
I don’t know...just thinking out loud.

I actually think Florida has done it right. Everyone thinks it is the "Wild Wild West" just because the state is not closing and restricting. I live in Connecticut (highly restrictive state) but I just got back from spending most of the winter down in FL (I am working remotely so might as well be in warm weather). Everything is open and people are free to go out but that does not mean they are not wearing masks and being cautious and courteous to others. Every business is requiring masks and social distancing but the key is that everything is open 100%.

While I think the restrictions are being done with the best intentions, they don't work because people by nature are going to do what they as individuals are comfortable with. If they are comfortable gathering, they will. If the state restricts where they can gather they will do it in their homes. Conversely, if people do not feel safe, they won't go out regardless of whether the state allows it. And as others have pointed out, the FL numbers have not been any better or worse than states that have strict restrictions.

Frankly, it was nice being in FL where I could decide for myself what I felt comfortable doing and not have the state telling me what I can and cannot do. For example, I went to two MLB Spring Training games and felt 100% comfortable being at the games since they were outside. But in CT, no fans are allowed at any games. On the other hand, while restaurants were 100% open in FL, I did not feel comfortable eating inside so if there were no tables available outside, we went somewhere else.

 

[Joe in VA]

I've been wondering about that for months, as first we saw California spike despite tightest-in-the-nation rules and now we're seeing Texas continue to decline and Florida holding steady despite being wide-open while in Michigan we're spiking again with quite a few restrictions still in place (though not as many as over the winter). And the same pattern seems to be happening in Europe, where tighter lockdowns than anything we've done in the US haven't headed off a new wave of cases. I don't think a "pulling the band aid off" approach would have been better because of the consequences of strained health care systems, but I do question how much any of the lockdown measures really help with controlling the virus.

Your post made me take a look at Texas numbers. It's been three weeks as of today since the state removed all restrictions. On the day restrictions were removed they were averaging 5,840 cases a day, three weeks later that number has hit 2,699, a decrease of 54%!

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Your post made me take a look at Texas numbers. It's been three weeks as of today since the state removed all restrictions. On the day restrictions were removed they were averaging 5,840 cases a day, three weeks later that number has hit 2,699, a decrease of 54%!

I would caution against making too much of a look at that as far as state-mandated restrictions/mask mandates as of 3 weeks ago. The state removed the restrictions that didn't mean every place did or that people stopped wearing masks if they were before. What the discussion was before was restrictions in general or lockdown/stay at home orders. TX isn't just a free for all much like states that didn't have mask mandates didn't mean there wasn't places that did have them or places where stay at home orders occurred or places where occupancy or limits to gatherings occurred.

It's just if you're anti-restriction and you have people making arguments like you did above the implication is "no restrictions or mask mandate and lookie cases are actually lower" and that is just not proof of it.

 

[Joe in VA]

I would caution against making too much of a look at that as far as state-mandated restrictions/mask mandates as of 3 weeks ago. The state removed the restrictions that didn't mean every place did or that people stopped wearing masks if they were before. What the discussion was before was restrictions in general or lockdown/stay at home orders. TX isn't just a free for all much like states that didn't have mask mandates didn't mean there wasn't places that did have them or places where stay at home orders occurred or places where occupancy or limits to gatherings occurred.

It's just if you're anti-restriction and you have people making arguments like you did above the implication is "no restrictions or mask mandate and lookie cases are actually lower" and that is just not proof of it.

Agreed, plenty of businesses keep restrictions even when the government doesn't require them. It's an argument against the restrictions. Things change gradually and the restrictions generally are not what makes a difference. It's a shame because we get so caught up on the state response to this stuff, when in reality it is not what makes or breaks things.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Agreed, plenty of businesses keep restrictions even when the government doesn't require them. It's an argument against the restrictions. Things change gradually and the restrictions generally are not what makes a difference. It's a shame because we get so caught up on the state response to this stuff, when in reality it is not what makes or breaks things.

I think I tend to have a different outlook because where I live. I live in a state with a state-wide mask mandate but counties can opt out of. Also counties can enact restrictions on their own so long as they are equal or greater. In the fall the state itself did not have any occupancy restrictions, mass gatherings, etc but my metro re-activated those and then dropped them in Feb. The state next to me didn't have a state-wide mask mandate but the most populous (and generally hardest hit) areas did. Most of my metro split between two states have worked together throughout this having most of the same restrictions at the same times. And my county had a stay at home order before the state did and the pressure for a mask mandate actually came from a county and the city within it on the other side of the state line within my metro. They would have added a mask mandate anyways but the timing just lined up with my state enacting one, which again counties can opt in and out of as well as cities can opt in and out of.

So I suppose to me I only focus on parts of state-wide decisions rather than everything. Some people only look at something was state-wide but never look at what is done within the state.

I don't think I necessarily agree that the restrictions generally are not what makes a difference I more think what those restrictions were, where they were applied, when and how make more of a difference. For many months I talked about how different the rural areas of my state were in comparison to my metro. A stay at home order where the only restaurant in your town is forced to close down and you rarely have an influx of out of town much less out of state visitors (which would increase the chance of spread) is a lot different than being in a metro with over 2 million people and doing it when it was done well a lot of the state wasn't impacted til much later on.

I should say not all restrictions are bad ones. Eviction moratoriums were big ones (although landlords unfortunately didn't really get aid on their side), foreclosure moratoriums, price gouging protections, usage of State of Emergencies so aid comes from the Federal government, restrictions placed on businesses for protection of an employee when they were in quarantine due to covid and many more.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Watching the news is so depressing. Fauci and the CDC director both talking about a surge. Then, it's mentioned that over 2 million people are being vaccinated per day.
But we are still expecting a surge? I can see why based off of that some people don't know why they should get a vaccine. I'm glad to be fully vaccinated, but I logged on to Kroger pharmacy to see if there were available appointments and there were tons of appointments to be made, as soon as the next day. I wish we could give them to some of you on here that are struggling to find spots! We are in Phase 1C in my state, anyone 60 or older, anyone 16+ with any medical or behavioral health condition that the CDC reports are or might be at increased risk of severe illness and all essential workers. The numbers in my state have been dropping and yesterday we hit a positivity rate of 2.93% which is the lowest since 07/03.
What do you all make of the "surge talk"?

This is an obvious indicator that they need to move on to the next group. It makes no sense to have appointments going unfilled, while waiting for those who are eligible to decide, if they want to be vaccinated. The same thing happened here. We took DS to get his vaccine Friday. He was able to get an appointment within an hour of the time he started looking for one. When we pulled up to the mass vaccination site, we were one of four cars there. Workers were sitting around doing nothing. Florida finally opened up vaccines to 50+ yesterday. DH & I went at 8:30 yesterday morning. We were there an hour & 16 minutes. By the time we left, the line turning right was backed up to the major highway. There was another long line turning left into the park. Those people would have had a longer wait than we did. There are plenty of people wanting the vaccine. They're just waiting to finally be eligible.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This is an obvious indicator that they need to move on to the next group. It makes no sense to have appointments going unfilled, while waiting for those who are eligible to decide, if they want to be vaccinated. The same thing happened here. We took DS to get his vaccine Friday. He was able to get an appointment within an hour of the time he started looking for one. When we pulled up to the mass vaccination site, we were one of four cars there. Workers were sitting around doing nothing. Florida finally opened up vaccines to 50+ yesterday. DH & I went at 8:30 yesterday morning. We were there an hour & 16 minutes. By the time we left, the line turning right was backed up to the major highway. There was another long line turning left into the park. Those people would have had a longer wait than we did. There are plenty of people wanting the vaccine. They're just waiting to finally be eligible.

Like I said though it really depends on the vaccine situation in a state. Moving onto the next group when other parts of your state are struggling with supply may not be the best course of action like the person in TN where parts of the state could really use more vaccine.

Also I'm not sure if you saw the article I posted on the other thread in response to my earlier thoughts regarding adding more people to eligibility and issues with people finding appointments (which I posted here too) but the best answer isn't always to just open things up. That article was a good read though. FL was actually at the forefront: "A surprising new analysis found that states such as South Carolina and Florida that raced ahead of others to offer the vaccine to ever-larger groups of people have vaccinated smaller shares of their population than those that moved more slowly and methodically, such as Hawaii and Connecticut. The explanation, as experts see it, is that the rapid expansion of eligibility caused a surge in demand too big for some states to handle and led to serious disarray. Vaccine supplies proved insufficient or unpredictable, websites crashed and phone lines became jammed, spreading confusion, frustration and resignation among many people."

I think people get bogged down by the whole mantra of open things up, vaccine in arms. IMO it needs to be focused on is the efficiency in your distribution with the supply your state has because just opening up eligibility doesn't mean those who want it the most, those who are just hoping and praying they become eligible actually can get the vaccine. Demand is high in various places no one can doubt that but won't do much good for those places if the vaccine isn't there to meet it.

At the end of the day we sure are learning a lot about vaccinations and hopefully if/when boosters are needed we've chosen to listen to what we've learned.

 

[RamblingMad]

We have 7.2 million people in AZ. We are averaging around 40 thousand vaccinations a day, so it will take roughly 6 months to vaccinate everyone. Of course kids under 16 can’t get it.

1.8 million people have already received one dose. So whoever wants one should be able to get one by the summer.

Now, how many people are going to follow up with the second shot? If you only get the first Pfizer one, it’s about 60% good. This is around where the flu shot lands every year.

Hopefully we get a good percentage for second shot, and hopefully we don’t run out.

As for turn out, only 70% of our 65+ population got it. And only 42% of our 55+ population. We might not end up with enough people getting it.

 

[chad_1138]

Governor Halcomb just addressed the state (IN) one year to the day of his statewide address when we were entering things. Here are the highlights:

-Vaccinations open to 16+ starting March 31.

-Statewide mask mandate becomes a mask advisory starting April 5. Masks will still be required in government buildings. All other decisions as far as masks, gatherings, social distancing, etc... are left to local leaders and then businesses.

 

[Colleen27]

I think its because the goal posts moved/changed. The original goal was to spread about the same amount of deaths over a longer period of time so the hopsitals wouldn't be slammed which then would caused no beds for other people with different needs. But at some point it shifted to any death or case from covid was one too many which caused tighter and tighter restrictions in some states that embraced that idea while others like Florida knew that wasn't possible so took the as long as hospitals could manage do what can to protect those at highest risk and keep the economy going as best as possible to hopefully avoid/lesson the fall out from a tanked economy. It is hard because both sides have pros and cons.

That might explain the changing approach to restrictions in various places, but it doesn't explain why a place can have tight restrictions or even a lockdown while seeing cases continue to climb while another place can have no restrictions at all and see them continue to fall. That's the part that puzzles me, and has for quite a while now. California saw high enough cases to overload hospital systems across the entire southern part of the state at a time when they had the tightest restrictions in the country. Germany has been under lockdown since November, starting somewhat moderate but by December stricter than any that has been imposed in the States, and cases are climbing. We're a year into this and all we seem to have is ideological orthodoxy, not actual data-based evaluations on what measures have been most effective at limiting spread.

 

[RamblingMad]

That might explain the changing approach to restrictions in various places, but it doesn't explain why a place can have tight restrictions or even a lockdown while seeing cases continue to climb while another place can have no restrictions at all and see them continue to fall. That's the part that puzzles me, and has for quite a while now. California saw high enough cases to overload hospital systems across the entire southern part of the state at a time when they had the tightest restrictions in the country. Germany has been under lockdown since November, starting somewhat moderate but by December stricter than any that has been imposed in the States, and cases are climbing. We're a year into this and all we seem to have is ideological orthodoxy, not actual data-based evaluations on what measures have been most effective at limiting spread.

I think this article does a good job of summing of where we might end up and what we don’t know.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2

 

[jlwhitney]

That might explain the changing approach to restrictions in various places, but it doesn't explain why a place can have tight restrictions or even a lockdown while seeing cases continue to climb while another place can have no restrictions at all and see them continue to fall. That's the part that puzzles me, and has for quite a while now. California saw high enough cases to overload hospital systems across the entire southern part of the state at a time when they had the tightest restrictions in the country. Germany has been under lockdown since November, starting somewhat moderate but by December stricter than any that has been imposed in the States, and cases are climbing. We're a year into this and all we seem to have is ideological orthodoxy, not actual data-based evaluations on what measures have been most effective at limiting spread.

I think part is that the states/areas with looser restrictions simply have more people that have had covid without testing. More people are out and about in those areas so more likely to get it but the mentality of many in the looser states is also less likely to test and they just stayed home. I know between family and friends at least 10 that most likely had it but never tested since people they lived with got sick tested positive and then when the other members got sick they didn't bother testing since to them it wouldn't really matter. This is all a guess/observation from living in a very open/loose restrictions/no mask mandate area. I just really think parts of the country are closer to a herd immunity level (or a level that slows it down since I don't know we will ever have true herd immunity like we do with say measles) then other areas simply by what people have been doing.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

In a news story about my state: "Hundreds of doctor’s offices, clinics and other sites across the state of Kansas signed up to help vaccinate people. They haven’t been given vaccines yet because there just hasn’t been enough supply. Dr. Norman said that will change starting this week. “We are going to do a lot of additional providers alerting this week, because we expect 100,000 additional Johnson and Johnson doses to be ordered this week and to come in next week,” Norman said. The state plans to include medical practices, primary care, and specialty offices across Kansas that previously signed up to become vaccinators. As the offices receive doses of the vaccine, the locations will be added to the Kansas vaccine finder website. The tool is also offered in Español."

I sure hope J&J supply pans out.

In reverse of earlier discussions regarding rural and urban/city/metro this is where this expansion will greatly help out the rural communities. While it's quite limited in my area with respects to hospital systems it's still multiple ones available and just the one health system I have an appointment with has 15 locations to choose from across 3 counties. Rural places aren't going to have as much of those places activated and available to them and trust in their own doctor may encourage more people get it (though I mean that generally speaking to everyone not just rural areas). But this expansion will also help in my area too.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Like I said though it really depends on the vaccine situation in a state. Moving onto the next group when other parts of your state are struggling with supply may not be the best course of action like the person in TN where parts of the state could really use more vaccine.

In that case, areas that have a large number of unbooked appointments should be instructed to send that vaccine to areas in the state that have been underserved. If the powers that be refuse to do that, they should move to the next group in that area. Noone benefits from having vaccine setting around unused waiting for the current eligible group to decide, if they want to be vaccinated.

Also I'm not sure if you saw the article I posted on the other thread in response to my earlier thoughts regarding adding more people to eligibility and issues with people finding appointments (which I posted here too) but the best answer isn't always to just open things up. That article was a good read though. FL was actually at the forefront: "A surprising new analysis found that states such as South Carolina and Florida that raced ahead of others to offer the vaccine to ever-larger groups of people have vaccinated smaller shares of their population than those that moved more slowly and methodically, such as Hawaii and Connecticut. The explanation, as experts see it, is that the rapid expansion of eligibility caused a surge in demand too big for some states to handle and led to serious disarray. Vaccine supplies proved insufficient or unpredictable, websites crashed and phone lines became jammed, spreading confusion, frustration and resignation among many people."

I think people get bogged down by the whole mantra of open things up, vaccine in arms. IMO it needs to be focused on is the efficiency in your distribution with the supply your state has because just opening up eligibility doesn't mean those who want it the most, those who are just hoping and praying they become eligible actually can get the vaccine. Demand is high in various places no one can doubt that but won't do much good for those places if the vaccine isn't there to meet it.

At the end of the day we sure are learning a lot about vaccinations and hopefully if/when boosters are needed we've chosen to listen to what we've learned.

I missed that article, but the excerpt of the article that you posted isn't what I'm seeing. I would have agreed with that early on in Florida. Recently, I've seen a lot of vaccine availablity in most of the state. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, my DS was able to book a same day appointment within an hour of the time he checked. There were four other cars at a mass vaccination site. This was in South Florida where it's been harder to get an appointment than it has been in other parts of the state. Anyone in the current group at the time could have gotten an appointment, if they wanted one. It was obvious that it was time to move on.

I'm not speaking for all states. I was replying directly to the poster who said her Kroger had a lot of unused appts. It's clear that the majority of the vaccine they have should be sent elsewhere or they need to move to the next group. My reply to her had nothing to do with areas or states that don't have enough vaccine for one reason or another.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I was replying directly to the poster who said her Kroger had a lot of unused appts. It's clear that the majority of the vaccine they have should be sent elsewhere or they need to move to the next group. My reply to her had nothing to do with areas or states that don't have enough vaccine for one reason or another.

I was just replying to your original comment

This is an obvious indicator that they need to move on to the next group.

It just seems like the go to explanation people give is "time to open up eligibility". I think that's just because that's the message being sent out there that the issue is really you're just done with that group when appointments go unfilled and now you should move on and it's not that it can't be that but it's not only that either as a given. But def. I agree that opening up is something that should be looked at as well as sending it elsewhere.

It's possible agreements various places have put restrictions on it. I remember way back when a poster talked about how a hospital was prohibited from giving unused vaccine to other hospital systems in their area. Those restrictions, if they are in place, may not allow enough flexibility when they really should. Kroger may have excess vaccine but what about other places in someone's area like Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, etc. Can someone easily get an appointment in all the places in their area or is it just that people aren't going to a certain place for one reason or another.

As far as appointments I have no idea where that person is but it's possible they logged on at the right time when appointments were released, maybe Kroger got a lot of supply recently. I would say it's an issue if enough time has gone on to show a pattern (and maybe it is in their area).

I missed that article, but the excerpt of the article that you posted isn't what I'm seeing.

I think they were looking at states as a whole and the trend based on just how many people each time were becoming eligible with the vaccine supply the state had with how that affected the ability for people in opening up phases to get appointments. But as places get to the end of their phases open up more eligibility won't really be a discussion, it will be more of a perception of the rollout that will be looked at.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

I was just replying to your original comment

And I was only replying to the person I quoted & the situation at the Kroger in her area. I wasn't talking about the entire country.

It just seems like the go to explanation people give is "time to open up eligibility". I think that's just because that's the message being sent out there that the issue is really you're just done with that group when appointments go unfilled and now you should move on and it's not that it can't be that but it's not only that either as a given. But def. I agree that opening up is something that should be looked at as well as sending it elsewhere.

It's possible agreements various places have put restrictions on it. I remember way back when a poster talked about how a hospital was prohibited from giving unused vaccine to other hospital systems in their area. Those restrictions, if they are in place, may not allow enough flexibility when they really should. Kroger may have excess vaccine but what about other places in someone's area like Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, etc. Can someone easily get an appointment in all the places in their area or is it just that people aren't going to a certain place for one reason or another.

As far as appointments I have no idea where that person is but it's possible they logged on at the right time when appointments were released, maybe Kroger got a lot of supply recently. I would say it's an issue if enough time has gone on to show a pattern (and maybe it is in their area).

Respectfully, I don't think vaccine mismanagement is an excuse for letting vaccine set unused. If Kroger received more than they could use, it should have been sent to another location. I'll wait for the PP to respond to see, if it's a pattern in her area or she just logged on at the right time.

I think they were looking at states as a whole and the trend based on just how many people each time were becoming eligible with the vaccine supply the state had with how that affected the ability for people in opening up phases to get appointments. But as places get to the end of their phases open up more eligibility won't really be a discussion, it will be more of a perception of the rollout that will be looked at.

Admittedly, I still haven't read the article, but you mentioned Florida specifically. The excerpt you posted isn't what I'm seeing in Florida. I haven't been keeping up with what's going on in other states.

 

[godisney14]

New daily cases and the 7-day moving average have been inching back up for the past week-plus. Week-over-week today shows 10% increase in cases. Maybe a local min?

03-16: 53,634
03-23: 58,705

(data: Worldometers).