I understand why cities and states are desperate to get BIPOC vaccinated--on average, they have more exposure AND more comorbidities, and vaccination rates lag.
In DC, people in affluent and whiter wards are getting almost all the appointments. Mom lives in Ward 5, one of the Wards that is struggling, and when I took her to get her shot at a nearby Safeway, everyone there was a white woman who didn't live near that safeway. Except us.
Moreover, it was clear from the way that they spoke to us that they assumed we, too, had just surfed in from Ward 1, rather than taking the appointment closest to Mom.
Though it does explain how we got an appointment relatively easily.
DC is mulling reserving some appointments for the underserved wards (may already have done so, for all I know), and I don't blame them.
I'm thrilled Mom got her shot, but most of the older residents in those wards are more likely than her to be in multi-generational housing with frontline workers, and not be able to afford grocery delivery. It is urgent to get them vaccines.
I'd like to see us do it with something less kludgy, like sending signup workers door-to-door in underserved wards--but I get why governments are resorting to bad, and in the case of Oregon, unconstitutional, ad-hoc proxies.
It's nice if you have two UMC kids who are working remotely and can drop everything to get you an appointment the moment new slots open up, but the other people actually need the vaccine more, on average, and we need to do a better job of getting them access.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(Yes, I am tweeting this. Enjoy the delicious irony. No, really, sit with it for a moment. Roll around, until your skin tingles from its mildly caustic properties.)
(I am now on a Twitter campaign to get major institutions, including my employer, to tell employees to get off Twitter. I don't expect it to work. But a girl's gotta try.)
I want to call out this particular point in my larger tweetstorm, because it sorta maps onto a dumb talking point from the left: "The government can borrow and spend any amount we want. American *can't* have a Greek-style debt crisis, because we borrow in our own currency!"
My right-wing followers, of course, understand why this won't fly: America borrowing in dollars, and under US law rather than some neutral third country, is not a law of nature. People with money could easily decide it was too risky to make us dollar-denominated loans.
(Or at least, at any price we'd want to pay.)
What would make them decide this? The fastest way would be for America to borrow a metric crap ton of money, and then default or let inflation eat away the value of our loans so we're repaying pennies on the dollar in real terms.
So I've been saying Trump is dangerous basically since the beginning. Not because I thought he was going to cancel elections and become a dictator; I didn't think he had the competence, or American institutions the vulnerability, for that.
Spent some time in the ER this weekend for what looked like it might be a detached retina and thankfully was not. It has become clear to me that a lot of health care workers aren't exactly against getting vaccinated; they just want to be vaccinated two months from now.
My solution to this is to say "You're getting priority because you're essential. If you don't take it, you will be the absolute last person in line to get it, and you get no sick pay if you test+. It's your right, I'm not going to argue, decide right now."
America does not have time to mess around while all the nation's health care workers try to be almost, but not quite, at the front of the line. Use it or give it to someone who's happy to take the risk. (It me!)
And also, frankly, in the responses to the column that preceded it, which discussed the CDC's "Let some old people die in the name of equity" vaccination strategy.
Back to the column at hand, which was about the people I follow who called covid-19 as a big problem AHEAD of the big mid-March shift in the upper-middle-class professional consensus. What sort of people were they?
Many people have had this thought, none of them have been able to produce strong empirical evidence for it. If this effect were really compelling, America wouldn't have a more dynamic economy than Europe, but it does, despite a pretty bad regulatory and tax architecture.
There were a lot of predictions that Obamacare would goose the rate of entrepreneurship, and the theory is the same: by derisking a startup, it should make it easier to form one. Didn't show up in the numbers: bls.gov/bdm/entreprene…
On the margin might this produce a small effect? Maybe. But there could also be countervailing effects; for example, the higher taxes necessary to pay for a large welfare state might reduce the potential return to entrepreneurship, making people less interested in it.