This is actually pretty funny.
The fact that the CDC tracks this is truthfully a waste of resources, but it does prove a point.
California is trying hard to make sure the vaccine is distributed “equitably”, whatever that means, and they are failing miserably at it.
Florida’s approach does not take “equitably” into account and they still are more “equitable” than California.
FYI, I am pretty sure Nebraska didn’t figure “equitable” into the equation either, and they are near the top of the list.
They over complicated the process. Equitable. That means you give jut to blacks to make up for racism.
You don’t let the rich have it and make sure the poor do.
While neither of these will slow the virus, it shows we care and sharing is caring.
But lefty states care more and that’s more important than actual results.
Living in Los Angeles County, I can say personally that the vaccine distribution here has focused on prioritizing certain occupations plus older people and people with certain underlying health conditions. I had not heard of anything about equitable distributions.
With that said, I did a bit of Googling and found this announcement from the governor on March 4:
However, the original article stated the following:
Researchers from the CDC analyzed vaccines administered from 14 December to 1 March, and compared where doses were distributed against county-level demographic data.
The article also said the following:
In February, advocacy groups, doctors and public health researchers wrote a letter to the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, asking him to “immediately correct the unequal rollout that is leaving too many frontline communities behind”.
Facing mounting criticism, Newsom announced at the beginning of March that California would dedicate 40% of its vaccine doses to the neighborhoods and zip codes hardest hit by the pandemic, including some of the poorest neighborhoods in the Central Valley and Los Angeles.
So, from what I can see that report analyzes data during a period before the governor said anything about implementing equitable distribution procedures. It does not say anything about any attempt started prior to that report as having failed.
So, all of this is very recent, within two weeks. Yet, you said that California has been trying to ensure that the vaccine has been trying to ensure an equitable distribution and has failed miserably. Did you see anything about any attempts prior to the beginning of March that I missed?
Anecdotal, but I have read several article about it.
Admittedly I am not going to take the time to go look them all up.
Fine, for now your comments are worth exactly what you posted above.
For what it is worth I fully acknowledge that I could have missed something. If you post something showing me that, I will fully acknowledge that. However, I hope you will forgive me for not accepting you word that you read several articles which you now don’t want to look up.
And more…
California under Newsme is a dumpster fire.
Go back and read my original post. I did not question any of this. I questioned yours statement that California is trying hard to ensure that the vaccine is distributed equitably and is failing. I pointed out that the earliest reference I can find to that is March 4, which starts after the period of that study that you referenced.
I will ask you again. Do you have any source saying that California intended an equitable distribution prior to March 4?
There are links from January and February.
I see that. One link talks about how the state can implement steps that will make things more equitable. It does not talk about steps that were implemented.
I acknowledge that the other one does mention equitable distribution, but in the context that I mentioned earlier, namely certain occupations, older residents and residents with underlying health conditions.
Your original link referred to a failure to equitably distribute vaccines to residents in its poorest and most vulnerable regions. You then said that California is trying to equitably distribute the vaccine and is failing miserably. My point is that I have not seen any reference to any initiative which specifically intended to distribute the vaccines “equitably” to the poorest and most vulnerable regions until March 4.
As an aside, here are the regulations that are currently governing us:
http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/coronavirus/vaccine/index.htm
I stand by that.
California has made a point out of “equity” in distribution since January.
Florida has made no such point, yet has actually been more “equitable”.
OK. When you refer to equity in distribution since January, were you referring to equity in getting the vaccine to the residents in its poorest and most vulnerable regions, which the article you linked to opened with?