[dabigv13]

New CDC ACIP guidance on vaccine distribution. The new 1b designation now is for 75+, and "frontline" essential workers.

This is a change, previously 1b was all essential workers, and 1c was 65+.



I think this is a good change. A pure age based approach has a lot to recommend it- first, age is by far the biggest determinate of mortality from covid 19. With a limited resource, doing it like the UK, 85+, then 80+, then 75+, seems the quickest way to cut down deaths. Age is more difficult to fudge than a subjective measure of "essential" or "frontline", which as we saw at Stanford Hospital may not be applied in a way that seems fair. 

But healthy older folks can also more likely sequester at home. Police, grocery store workers, teachers, etc. cannot, and are more likely to be further vectors of transmission. Cutting off the transmission chains could lead to a quicker end to the worst of the pandemic, and relieve stress on the healthcare system and allow a more functional society sooner. These workers are also more likely to be poorer and minorities, and spread it into their communities, which have born the worst of the pandemic by far.

I think these updates are a fair compromise. It still adds up to 49 million people, (and the lobbying to determine who is really frontline and essential will be intense), which will likely take a few months to vaccinate, but it would be a big big step forward I think if it can be accomplished.

Also note these are just guidelines. States will make their own plans. I would like to see California try to follow this closely though.

The whole CDC presentation is good to scroll through. Glad to see they are keeping to their lab lunch meeting/ morning resident didactics powerpoint aesthetic standard.

https://cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/d...oling.pdf…

[dabigv13]

New CDC ACIP guidance on vaccine distribution. The new 1b designation now is for 75+, and "frontline" essential workers.

This is a change, previously 1b was all essential workers, and 1c was 65+.



I think this is a good change. A pure age based approach has a lot to recommend it- first, age is by far the biggest determinate of mortality from covid 19. With a limited resource, doing it like the UK, 85+, then 80+, then 75+, seems the quickest way to cut down deaths. Age is more difficult to fudge than a subjective measure of "essential" or "frontline", which as we saw at Stanford Hospital may not be applied in a way that seems fair. 

But healthy older folks can also more likely sequester at home. Police, grocery store workers, teachers, etc. cannot, and are more likely to be further vectors of transmission. Cutting off the transmission chains could lead to a quicker end to the worst of the pandemic, and relieve stress on the healthcare system and allow a more functional society sooner. These workers are also more likely to be poorer and minorities, and spread it into their communities, which have born the worst of the pandemic by far.

I think these updates are a fair compromise. It still adds up to 49 million people, (and the lobbying to determine who is really frontline and essential will be intense), which will likely take a few months to vaccinate, but it would be a big big step forward I think if it can be accomplished.

Also note these are just guidelines. States will make their own plans. I would like to see California try to follow this closely though.

The whole CDC presentation is good to scroll through. Glad to see they are keeping to their lab lunch meeting/ morning resident didactics powerpoint aesthetic standard.

https://cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/d...oling.pdf…