Posted on by Californiacontrarian

And So It Begins


“Me! Me! Me!”

“Me first . . . please, please, please!”

Young children at a daycare setting championing to be first on the swing?

Possible quiz show contestants in the audience of The Price Is Right ?

Good guesses, but this is the repeated “mantra” of multiple groups as to where they should be in the prioritization of who should go to head of the vaccine line.

I have written about this before and now my prediction is coming to fruition. As would be expected each individual group has a “reason” why they should go up towards the top of the priority list. Think about it for a second – if someone who represents group A did not argue for the individuals of group A to get the vaccine first, and someone in group A died after getting the virus . . . bad news not only for the person who succumbed, but also bad news for that group A rep . . . err, for that group A ex-rep.

Months ago when I brought this potential quandary to attention, one of my sons-in-law suggested that there should be a Covid-vaccine lottery. My board of directors like the lottery idea, and said that perhaps the fairest way to prioritize who gets the vaccine first would be by a random selection based perhaps on the last number of one’s Social Security Number. Since everybody has a SSN everyone would have an equal chance 1 in 10 chance at being in the first group. 

At that time another of my consultant board of directors suggested that birthdates be used to prioritize in what order everyone should get the vaccine. This would be similar to the draft lottery back in the 60s. To a purely objective observer this sounds fair, but OMG the fallout would be over the top, because this would mean that a young child would have an equal chance compared to an eighty year old. A healthcare worker would have the same chance as a college student. And finally someone who was illegal and didn’t have a verifiable SSN or birth certificate would not be eligible for the lottery.

Today I read an article about the different groups who are saying, “Me first, me first.” Now granted all, or at least most, of these groups have their own reasons for prioritization . . . meat-packers, airline stewards and stewardesses, Uber/Lift drivers, garbage collectors, teachers, bus drivers, dentists, bank tellers, grocery store workers, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

I agree that healthcare workers should be first, but after that, for me prioritization becomes difficult. Fasten your seatbelts, as what I am going to say here is not P.C. . . . while I agree that those who work in these nursing homes should probably at the top of the healthcare priority list, why should the nursing home residents have priority? I realize that this group has a high mortality rate, but with a limited supply of the vaccine should an eighty-five year old with Alzheimer’s be vaccinated before a sixty year old obese diabetic who drives a bus?

The answer to this conundrum perhaps should involve a different prioritization protocol. Should the prioritization be based at all on economics? With a limited vaccine supply should prioritization be based more on economic recovery as opposed to mortality stats? Indeed an ethical enigma.

Another thing that I have not heard about: Should proof that an individual has not already had the virus be required before vaccination? After all if a significant number of individuals are asymptomatic when they have the infection, does it make any sense to vaccinate them? To me obviously not, but I have not heard this mentioned. Hmmm

45 Replies to “And So It Begins”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.