Vaccine distribution - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Vaccine distribution (/thread-20889.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Vaccine distribution (/thread-20889.html)
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 12-20-2020
(12-20-2020, 08:59 PM)chrisk Wrote:(12-20-2020, 03:39 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-20-2020, 11:39 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-17-2020, 08:53 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: For those interested, 24 hours later only side effects are slight sore arm and a mild headache last night that resolved with a tylenol. Supposedly the 2nd dose you can get more side effects since the immune system is already primed from the first one.
For the second dose, I booked an appointment three weeks after the first one, but I could've scheduled up to 4 weeks later and they said it shouldn't be an issue.
Good to hear your experience (at least for the first dose) wasn't too bad.
On the priority list, there's a fair bit of debate as to whether it is better to vaccinate the people at highest risk for death or the people at highest risk for transmission. The logic for vaccinating the former is that by doing so you cut the morbidity and mortality of the virus the fastest. The logic for vaccinating the latter is that if you cut down transmissions it prevents not only the vaccinated from getting COVID-19, but also the the unvaccinated, by removing vectors for transmission. While this makes sense in theory, in practice it is hard to figure out who the transmission vectors are going to be reliably, so I think it makes the most sense just to vaccinate the highest risk people, at least early.
BC
Haven’t read much on the debate. Tough call. When they were talking about this, my thought was that it makes more sense to vaccinate those with highest transmission rate first. Logically that seems the best way to slow the spread. But I wonder how much ICU rates played into this. I suspect that it is the elderly and those with comorbidities that are mostly ending up in the ICUs. If so, that provides another reason for vaccinating those with the higher morbidity rates first.
There are more than 30 million aged 65-74. Putting them in the 3rd group makes the 2nd group more manageable and gets the most essential front-line workers vaccinated sooner. That should help with the reopening of the schools.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one (at least secondary school in Palo Alto . . . ).
Interestingly, Mercury ran a front page article saying schools remain pretty unaffected by Covid outbreaks. Oh well.
Hopefully in next pandemic - if it has similar profile - we will get our $hit together about priorities.
RE: Vaccine distribution - BostonCard - 12-20-2020
Good piece about the differences in school reopenings between the US and Europe.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/why-british-kids-are-school-american-kids-arent/617438/
Quote:The American death toll will rightly be cited as the main indictment of the U.S. government’s handling of the pandemic. But what has happened in schools is an astonishing public-policy failure of its own.
BC
RE: lex24 - M T - 12-21-2020
(12-20-2020, 08:59 PM)chrisk Wrote: There are more than 30 million aged 65-74. Putting them in the 3rd group makes the 2nd group more manageable and gets the most essential front-line workers vaccinated sooner. That should help with the reopening of the schools."frontline essential workers" They are using a name that makes you think of EMTs & police, but they do not define them. By the time they do, will it include Uber drivers and parking enforcement officers? Deli clerks & car oil changers? The Walmart greeter? Your paper delivery person? The make-up salespeople at Macy's?
Who is going to define them? Who is going to enforce this? Will an employer be given chits to hand out? (Who do you think will get the chits once the company is given them?) You can bet the people giving the shots won't be in a position to enforce it. ("Can I see your job description, please?" "Why, I'm the CFO of a car-repair chain and have business meetings every day.")
Vaccine delivery to teachers in 1b: OWS isn't predicting 50M first doses distributed until end of January, but 1a+1b = 73M. So, first doses can't be assumed until mid February at the best, with full vaccination by mid-March. Guaranteed vaccination in June would serve to make the teachers vaccinated for the fall semester, even for those that start in August. But, note that NO K-10 CHILDREN are scheduled for any vaccination before the fall semester. So, there is no protection for the children in schools in the fall. It will take months for such trials, and all vaccine manufacturing through June is already spoken for.
Moving the 30 million 65-74 population makes the 3rd group a completely unmanageable 129M people, for which there is only 77M approved & purchased COVID vaccine courses through end of June. So, at this point, this committee has NO recommendation for the set of people to get the vaccinations now approved & purchased. It only recommended a smaller subset, that had already been expected to be in the group vaccinated.
The only explanation I can think of is that 1c will get split into 1c and 1d. 1d will get split into 1d and 1e.
If they'd said, "We've estimated the amount of vaccine through mid-February, and are prioritizing for the allotments for 2 months. In January, we will re-prioritize 1c for February/March allotments," then it would make sense, but they didn't.
I don't agree with their current priorities as a means to reducing deaths or even cases. I can only imagine new surprises the next time as more people that thought they would get the vaccine before late summer are told No!
Full disclosure: I am in the group that got bumped out of near certainty of getting the vaccine into the lottery(?) group.
RE: lex24 - Farm93 - 12-21-2020
(12-21-2020, 05:18 AM)M T Wrote:For those not yet aware it should be clear really soon. WARP Speed was about getting the vaccine authorized for use and shipping it out the door.(12-20-2020, 08:59 PM)chrisk Wrote: There are more than 30 million aged 65-74. Putting them in the 3rd group makes the 2nd group more manageable and gets the most essential front-line workers vaccinated sooner. That should help with the reopening of the schools."frontline essential workers" They are using a name that makes you think of EMTs & police, but they do not define them. By the time they do, will it include Uber drivers and parking enforcement officers? Deli clerks & car oil changers? The Walmart greeter? Your paper delivery person? The make-up salespeople at Macy's?
Who is going to define them? Who is going to enforce this? Will an employer be given chits to hand out? (Who do you think will get the chits once the company is given them?) You can bet the people giving the shots won't be in a position to enforce it. ("Can I see your job description, please?" "Why, I'm the CFO of a car-repair chain and have business meetings every day.")
Vaccine delivery to teachers in 1b: OWS isn't predicting 50M first doses distributed until end of January, but 1a+1b = 73M. So, first doses can't be assumed until mid February at the best, with full vaccination by mid-March. Guaranteed vaccination in June would serve to make the teachers vaccinated for the fall semester, even for those that start in August. But, note that NO K-10 CHILDREN are scheduled for any vaccination before the fall semester. So, there is no protection for the children in schools in the fall. It will take months for such trials, and all vaccine manufacturing through June is already spoken for.
Moving the 30 million 65-74 population makes the 3rd group a completely unmanageable 129M people, for which there is only 77M approved & purchased COVID vaccine courses through end of June. So, at this point, this committee has NO recommendation for the set of people to get the vaccinations now approved & purchased. It only recommended a smaller subset, that had already been expected to be in the group vaccinated.
The only explanation I can think of is that 1c will get split into 1c and 1d. 1d will get split into 1d and 1e.
If they'd said, "We've estimated the amount of vaccine through mid-February, and are prioritizing for the allotments for 2 months. In January, we will re-prioritize 1c for February/March allotments," then it would make sense, but they didn't.
I don't agree with their current priorities as a means to reducing deaths or even cases. I can only imagine new surprises the next time as more people that thought they would get the vaccine before late summer are told No!
Full disclosure: I am in the group that got bumped out of near certainty of getting the vaccine into the lottery(?) group.
The who/where/how type elements were not in that project.
The states, and then the healthcare providers, get to determine a lot of the other elements.
As the allocation does seem to be a state matter, it seems most of us will be looking to Newsom and a team of state government and health care administrators to determine the sequence. As many in that group will also be trying to control the COVID case growth, hospitalization and death rates, I expect the vaccine distribution will not be optimal.
My household has a touch of everything. We have an 80 year old, 2 people in the 45-60 group, a 17 year-old, and a 15 year-old. My expectation is that the 80 year old will get something in February, me and my spouse will be in Q2, the 17 year-old will be in early Q3 as he is college bound, and my 15 year-old might very well turn 16 before any vaccine is approved for <16 yo. Therefore he would be vaccinated in early Q4. Until we hit those rough windows I am not going to stress over the allocations.
I am confident NCAA D1 athletes, movie stars, and the wealthiest 1,000 Americans will all get the vaccine before me. I would not be shocked if that group gets a vaccine before my 80 year-old mother-in-law. The little snafu at the Stanford Medical Center will happen over and over again.
With millions of vaccines to distribute, and precious little planning, there will be hundreds of stories that could become frustrating for many still in line. Seems likely to me that POTUS45 understood the actual sorting of the people in the vaccination line was a political loser and that most state officials will discover that soon.
So this could get a bit ugly, as no one will want to own placing 70-79 year-olds into the Q2 allocations given the near certain result that thousands of those 70 somethings will then die of COVID in Q1.
RE: Vaccine distribution - M T - 12-22-2020
Farm93, I certainly hope your 80+yo gets the vaccine in mid/late-January, not Feb. (And, by the way, the CDC division is at 75+. It is the 65-75s that got moved out to the overloaded group).
1B or not 1B, that is the question.
Texas has posted a listing of how many Moderna and Pfizer doses are going to which pharmacies for week 2. About 1100 administration sites listed. The big question I have is who is going to police who gets those doses. Texas (pop. 27.4M, estimated 1.9M in group 1a) is expecting 620K doses (160K P, 460K M) in the 2nd week after getting 224,250 in the first week (so expected total of 844,950 or 44.5% of group 1a; or 3083 doses per 100K). As of Monday (today), Texas's phase 1B will be 65+ and 16-64 with a risk due to comorbidity. I note this does not include "frontline essential workers" as opposed to CDC's 75+ and "frontline essential workers". Florida's governor also has indicated a preference for health-risk prioritization rather than the CDC committee's proposed guidelines.
The best I could find for California (pop 40M) are pre-receipt numbers for the first week broken down only by 6 regions (and, not in the news releases of the CDPH), and an estimate posted December 10 (672K Moderna "in the next few weeks"). OWS acknowledge that less vaccine was shipped in the first week (estimates have ranged from 30-40% less than originally expected). I'm not sure whether 2nd shipments in the week caught up on that.
Some localities have given their numbers, even if California and the US are not releasing them.
SCC actually received 5850 Pfizer on Dec. 15 and 11,700 Pfizer on Dec. 17. SCC continues to estimate 39,300 Moderna on December 22. As of the night of 12/21, SCC does not indicate that any Moderna has arrived nor does SCC have any estimate posted for a 2nd week of Pfizer deliveries.
California's phase 1a priorities are here. Generally, I have not seen numbers of how many people are in what categories other than nationally in the CDC presentation.
Roughly, I figure group 1a will be covered by mid-January, and doses will be given to group 1b, whatever that group turns out to be.
Come February 2, the groundhog had better be wearing a mask, and dive right back down to hide AT LEAST another 6 weeks if he/she is older or has comorbidities.
RE: Vaccine distribution - Farm93 - 12-22-2020
MT
Earlier would be helpful, but I am not counting on it.
The distribution plans appear to include a lot of best case scenarios. I will count of some inefficiencies and biases creeping into the process rather than get up in arms each time some CEO or an elected official magically is the first in town to get the vaccine.
If I can get vaccinated prior to the 2021 Stanford Football season I will be happy.
I really hoped to go to Europe for a family vacation in the summer of 2021, but I long ago ditched that as a realistic plan.
RE: Vaccine distribution - dabigv13 - 12-22-2020
Quote:It is the 65-75s that got moved out to the overloaded group).
Actually it was the 75+ people who got moved up from 1c to 1b, and the bulk of essential workers who got moved down to 1c from 1b.
Before Sunday's update, 1b was all essential workers, and after them was 1c, 65+.
RE: Vaccine distribution - M T - 12-22-2020
(12-22-2020, 08:39 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:Depends upon when you look at it... You're right for December 1.Quote:It is the 65-75s that got moved out to the overloaded group).
Actually it was the 75+ people who got moved up from 1c to 1b, and the bulk of essential workers who got moved down to 1c from 1b.
Before Sunday's update, 1b was all essential workers, and after them was 1c, 65+.
But in September, 1b was "Essential Workers; High Risk (all ages); 65+"
(Speaking of non-elected people wielding a lot of influence....)
RE: Vaccine distribution - M T - 12-23-2020
Odd... We heard on Saturday that the Moderna vaccine was shipping. We saw pictures of trucks leaving the warehouse on Sunday. We've been told that they are using FedEx and UPS. San Jose has a large airport, with two other large airports within an hour's drive.
Here it is Wednesday. I see nothing at SCC PHD vaccine page to indicate vaccine has arrived. (I don't find Stanford's dashboard.) The Mercury News has nothing about the vaccine arriving. What's up, or not up????
(A link for LA County vaccine dashboard)
-----------
I am also concerned that SCC has not said anything about giving vaccines to LTCF residents. As I pointed out previously, it appears that they have directed all their supply to the hospitals. 23K was expected by Stanford yesterday (and Stanford indicated nothing about vaccinating anyone but the people that work/volunteer at their hospital). The total vaccine allocated to SCC in the first 2 weeks is essentially equivalent to the 23K HCP at Stanford and the 40K total at the other hospitals. I can't imagine any reason one hospital would get 100% of their HCP and the others wouldn't.
But, the state's guidance gives equal priority to LTCF residents as to the hospital staff (drivers, cleaning staff, etc) and paramedics. What does SCC say about vaccinations to LTCF? So far nothing. Look at SCC's vaccine plan submission to the state on Dec. 8, in response to question 3B
"Have you established any point of dispensing (POD) agreements to potentially vaccinate Phase 1a populations? List entities with whom you have agreements and who they’ve agreed to vaccinate."
The county responds
"We plan on establishing POD agreements with all of the acute care hospitals, including multi-county entities, to ensure that all county residents in the Phase 1a population will be able to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
...If there is still a gap in the Phase 1a population after the hospital systems reach their capacity to vaccinate, PHDwill provide any additional needed vaccinations. [Local Health Department] will be responsible also as vaccine administrator for SNF staff as well as for small Community Clinic staff."
It is as if SCC did not read the state's guidance on Phase 1a population that includes LTCF (not just SNF) residents. They seem to have missed:
"Residents of skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, and similar long-term care settings for older or medically vulnerable individuals."
SCC does not mention assisted living facilities and similar long-term care settings. SCC does not mention residents in who they intend to vaccinate.
RE: Vaccine distribution - chrisk - 12-23-2020
SCC began vaccinating 210+ LTCF workers per day beginning 12/17. I assume it makes sense to vaccinate all the workers first, since they are likely spreading COVID more than the residents.
RE: Vaccine distribution - M T - 12-23-2020
It struck me that while I support Fauci, Azar, Biden, etc. getting a COVID vaccine, they are outside of the CDC Phase 1a guidelines.
What about our US Senators, US Representatives, governors, state senators & reps, our county commissioners, mayors, fire & police chiefs, planning commission, and dog catchers?
What about the business leaders, the actors, the pundits, the authors, the scientists, the athletes, the musicians, the political donors, etc., etc.? What is the process by which some of them will be receiving vaccines outside of the guidelines?
For instance, to pick one famous person but not intending to pick on him, Bill Gates. What is it worth to him to get the vaccine? At age 65, I'd guess he is in group 1C, so not likely to get any chance at a vaccine until mid-February at the earliest with 129M other people in the same group 1C. So, if done by lottery, he'd be somewhere between mid-February to the end of July by present vaccine commitments, or mid-to-late April on average. (A younger famous person, say Zuckerberg, unless he has comorbidities will be in group 2 with no vaccine yet purchased for them, with no production capacity until August.)
Will the politicians or health departments or medical facilities hand out vaccine as political favors? Will there be any investigations with criminal consequences possible of these hand-outs? I can imagine there will be doctors that will sign off someone with 120/70 BP as having high blood pressure by simply getting a single high BP reading. Maybe they will advertise as openly as the doctors that signed lots of prescriptions for marijuana.
Within companies, will the same thing happen? Because (say) Safeway is a grocery chain, it will probably be allowed to identify people that are even in group 1B. Will some such company's CEO put a friend, relative, or even him/herself on the list for group 1b? What will be a consequence that will stop them?
RE: Vaccine distribution - BostonCard - 12-23-2020
[tweet]https://twitter.com/xkcdComic/status/1341870585597464577?s=20[/tweet]
cc the humor thread as well.
BC
RE: Vaccine distribution - teejers1 - 12-23-2020
(12-23-2020, 12:03 PM)M T Wrote: Odd... We heard on Saturday that the Moderna vaccine was shipping. We saw pictures of trucks leaving the warehouse on Sunday. We've been told that they are using FedEx and UPS. San Jose has a large airport, with two other large airports within an hour's drive.
Here it is Wednesday. I see nothing at SCC PHD vaccine page to indicate vaccine has arrived. (I don't find Stanford's dashboard.) The Mercury News has nothing about the vaccine arriving. What's up, or not up????
(A link for LA County vaccine dashboard)
-----------
I am also concerned that SCC has not said anything about giving vaccines to LTCF residents. As I pointed out previously, it appears that they have directed all their supply to the hospitals. 23K was expected by Stanford yesterday (and Stanford indicated nothing about vaccinating anyone but the people that work/volunteer at their hospital). The total vaccine allocated to SCC in the first 2 weeks is essentially equivalent to the 23K HCP at Stanford and the 40K total at the other hospitals. I can't imagine any reason one hospital would get 100% of their HCP and the others wouldn't.
But, the state's guidance gives equal priority to LTCF residents as to the hospital staff (drivers, cleaning staff, etc) and paramedics. What does SCC say about vaccinations to LTCF? So far nothing. Look at SCC's vaccine plan submission to the state on Dec. 8, in response to question 3B
"Have you established any point of dispensing (POD) agreements to potentially vaccinate Phase 1a populations? List entities with whom you have agreements and who they’ve agreed to vaccinate."
The county responds
"We plan on establishing POD agreements with all of the acute care hospitals, including multi-county entities, to ensure that all county residents in the Phase 1a population will be able to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
...If there is still a gap in the Phase 1a population after the hospital systems reach their capacity to vaccinate, PHDwill provide any additional needed vaccinations. [Local Health Department] will be responsible also as vaccine administrator for SNF staff as well as for small Community Clinic staff."
It is as if SCC did not read the state's guidance on Phase 1a population that includes LTCF (not just SNF) residents. They seem to have missed:
"Residents of skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, and similar long-term care settings for older or medically vulnerable individuals."
SCC does not mention assisted living facilities and similar long-term care settings. SCC does not mention residents in who they intend to vaccinate.
I believe my older brother/trustee received notice that vaccinations at my mom's facility will not occur for another 2 weeks. No clue what happened - originally told they'd be starting by now.
RE: Vaccine distribution - BostonCard - 12-23-2020
I think the national security apparatus (broadly speaking) are essential workers. I have no issue with the current (and incoming administration) or congress being vaccinated. Imagine if a COVID-19 relief bill can't be passed because Congress can't get quorum because of an outbreak. PLus, politicians of both parties getting publicly vaccinated will be good for instilling confidence in the vaccine. How far down the chain that should go depends on how critical an office is for public safety. So, probably ok if the dogcatcher is in the lower priority list.
I am not surprised that there are some stories coming about of people getting vaccine out of turn. For example:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1341880735464972289?s=20[/tweet]
These stories are bad on the individual level, but hopefully will be few and far enough between that they will not be a major issue on a systemic level.
BC
RE: Vaccine distribution - dabigv13 - 12-23-2020
100 million more Pfizer doses, 70m coming before end of June and 30m before end of July.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/23/pfizer-biontech-supply-coronavirus-vaccine-450216
Good news. Could have probably had it earlier if our government was smarter about investing a few billion dollars for redundancy, but better than nothing. Combined with Moderna's 200m doses of vaccine and the previous order of 100m Pfizer doses, we have 200 million people we can vaccinate with FDA approved, 95% effective vaccine, hopefully by the end of July. IF they can all be administered promptly, the pandemic will probably be over by then in the US, when combined with the number of people who will have acquired immunity through infection.
Now, that is a big if. We will come nowhere close to the administration plan of 20m vaccinated by December. CDC said we passed 1m today, Dec 23rd.
And we're only vaccinating the lowest hanging fruit so far, hospitals administering to the people who normally work in their buildings. I am somewhat skeptical about how CVS is going to vaccinate a bunch of LTCFs. Seems pretty cockamamie to me.
‐---------
BTW, I have heard retired nurses in CA are being asked to come work, and as a means of enticement they will get a covid shot right away. Hopefully some nurses take them up, we could use their help, especially ICU nurses. My clinic nurses, ones who have not seen an inpatient since nursing school, are likely going to be called in for hospital duty soon. On a daily basis I am seeing just wild stuff in a 21st century American hospital.
RE: Vaccine distribution - Goose - 12-23-2020
(12-23-2020, 07:55 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: And we're only vaccinating the lowest hanging fruit so far, hospitals administering to the people who normally work in their buildings. I am somewhat skeptical about how CVS is going to vaccinate a bunch of LTCFs. Seems pretty cockamamie to me.It seemed that way to me too, initially. However, after looking at how many vaccinations CVS does as part of their normal business, it makes lots more sense. Also, FWIW the same vaccination at CVS costs much less (from my experience) than the same thing from Sutter Health. It may be that CVS isn't good, but it also may be they are the best we have. Remember when the schools would vaccinate 500 students in 4 hours?
RE: Vaccine distribution - M T - 12-24-2020
(12-23-2020, 07:55 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I am somewhat skeptical about how CVS is going to vaccinate a bunch of LTCFs. Seems pretty cockamamie to me.California seems not (yet?) to be part of this particular program, but several states are:
Pharmacy Partnership for Long-term Care (LTC) Program
The write-up gives some idea of how it will work.
The 210 STAFF a day for 30 days seems pretty ridiculously wasteful of time (where time = lives) to me. The SCC vaccination plan did not include any provision for giving vaccine to residents, but if I had to guess, they health department plans to do it all themselves. S l o o w l y .
Neither the SCC vaccine site nor SCC Twitter nor the Mercury News indicates any 2nd week vaccines have arrived.
Neither does LA County. (Btw, LAC announced the arrival of their first vaccine 2 days earlier than SCC. Yet, they showed <5000 shots administered 3 days later, out of 82,000 doses.)
Fresno got some Moderna, but some had temperature irregularities.
A couple of Bay Area counties got some.
The Governor indicated on Monday that 110,000 Moderna doses (1/6 of the expected amount) for California was being delivered that day.
More bad news? SCC has removed the "Date of Arrival" for the vaccine. The page speaks of "will receive" so it no longer identifies doses received. Apparently SCC "will receive" in the second round 50% (8775) of the Pfizer we received in the first week (17,550). (So, the anticipated 2M to be shipped by OWS looks to be more like 1.45M.). Stanford said they were expecting to get 4900 of the Pfizer in Monday (before the apparently later shipments).
SCC "will receive" 39,300 Moderna.
Time=lives
RE: Vaccine distribution - M T - 12-26-2020
It was 8 days ago that the Moderna vaccine was approved. I am unable to find any indication that it has arrived in Santa Clara County or Los Angeles County.
SCC's twitter feed and web pages do not indicate any arrival. The Mercury News doesn't indicate any arrival.
LA County seems to have removed the link to their vaccine dashboard from the page on the vaccine. I don't see the link at the their COVID Surveillance Dashboard The dashboard hasn't been updated in 9 days. Their latest (Dec. 21) press release on the vaccine speaks of anticipating the arrival of 165K doses (116,600 Moderna; 48,750 Pfizer).
WHY ISN'T THE MEDIA ASKING WHERE IT IS?
When I look at Google News, I see no questions asked. When I look at the Mercury News, I see no questions asked.
If the government is shipping it, the county health departments should be working as hard as possible to get it into those at risk of DYING.
LA County suffered 427 deaths from Dec. 21 to Dec 24. Obviously those deaths wouldn't be prevented by the vaccine, but future deaths could have been. If 10M people are having 100 deaths a day, how many excess deaths do we expect to die in SCC, in California, in the US by a 1-day delay in getting the vaccine into arms? by 7 days?
On 12/23, OWS indicated they allocated 7.9M doses of vaccine (not just Pfizer, as mis-reported in print on that web page) of which 7.8 was to be shipped by 12/24. On the 3rd week (last partial week in Dec.), they are planning to allocate 4.67M doses (2.67M P, 2M M), for a total of 15.47M in December to early January (vs 20M they were hoping for).
So, if it was 2.9M shipped the first week and 7.8M shipped by 12/24, that should be 10.7M shipped by 12/24.
As of the morning of 12/26, the CDC claims that 9.5M doses have been shipped and 1.9M have been vaccinated. (4.6M shipped by 12/21 was the only previous posting).
[sarcasm]What's 0.8M more or less?[/sarcasm]
Maybe it is the case that LA and SCC are the last counties in the US to receive any. Or maybe "shipped" means "we took it from the manufacturer", despite the fact that CDC labels the data as "distributed" but the fine print says "recorded as shipped".
RE: Vaccine distribution - dabigv13 - 12-26-2020
I know of a HCW in San Diego who received Moderna vaccine last week. I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in the county online resources. Probably not updated well.
RE: Vaccine distribution - M T - 12-26-2020
(12-26-2020, 05:24 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I know of a HCW in San Diego who received Moderna vaccine last week. I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in the county online resources. Probably not updated well.If you truly meant "last week", that must have been in an ongoing trial. The EUA was 8 days ago, with first shipments arriving 5 days ago.
If you meant "this week", yes, some places indicated they got vaccine as early as Monday. Others haven't said a word about getting a miracle delivered to them. San Diego was not among those suspiciously silent; they announced the county got the vaccine on Monday.