Whiteness of groups should deprioritise them for COVID vaccine

[GenesisNemesis]

Trump supporters definitely ought to be de-prioritized considering they believe it's all a hoax anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, my first thought is that we should be vaccinating the communities in which the spread is happening fastest.

Maybe we should all take a page out of Loren's book: make it about socioeconomics.

Then, we can see Derec and all the rest flip out over it being "racially driven" and then we can use all those SoCiOEcOnOmiCs arguments and they can all hypocritically tear apart their own principles by pointing out that there is little functional difference in the US between being a monority in the US and being poor in the US.

The fact is, we should be vaccinating the poorest people in our country immediately after vaccinating the most vulnerable and the most systematically exposed (essential services).

Functionally, this will amount to minorities getting the vaccine earlier than everyone else. Rhetorically, it's just looking out for the poor.

Vaccination should go first to those on the front lines, then by risk (both a matter of how dangerous it would be for the person, and how exposed they are--those in essential jobs should be at a higher priority than those who are not, and the people who can work from home at a lower priority.) Ideally everyone would get a score but that's probably too complex and it should just go by categories.

Doing it any other way increases the death toll.

I'm not sure the community rate should matter because that's basically self-inflicted.

Community rate is not exactly self inflicted. Not everyone within a community chooses to behave like a selfish ass and go to bars and whatever, maskless. Moving is not feasible for a lot of people, especially in a pandemic.

Which is why I said "I'm not sure" rather than "no". You can argue this one either way.

 

[laughing dog]

Anyway, the OP is fundamentally about white fragility and testeria, not honest debate of health policy.

Nailed it.

 

[Metaphor]

No, that wasn't what I was saying.

You said the only harm would be to white people's delicate self esteem. That means the harm in dead white people isn't worth considering.

What I said was, and I copy and paste, "It wouldn't be good health policy, of course, but beyond that..." Why did you leave that part out? No need to answer. It's a rhetorical question.

Anyway, the OP is fundamentally about white fragility and testeria, not honest debate of health policy.

Are you asking readers to seriously believe you did not say that dying from COVID doesn't harm white people? You said it quite plainly.

Yes, prevent all white people from getting the vaccine until all people of color are vaccinated.

Why not? It's not like such policies and attitudes have never existed where white people's interests were prioritized, often to the point of genocide. That's pretty much the substrate of white people history for fuck's sake.

Even if such a policy were to be implemented (it won't be, snowflakes, calm your tits), it wouldn't be the end of the world. It wouldn't be good health policy, of course, but beyond that, the only harm would be to white people's delicate self esteem.

You framed it as justified revenge against white people, but even if it were, it would still harm them.

 

[Toni]

Trump supporters definitely ought to be de-prioritized considering they believe it's all a hoax anyway.

Social justice, perhaps but poor public health policy. Many (but not all) Trump supporters act as super spreaders and will continue to tax the health care system. They need to be vaccinated PDQ for our own safety and well being. Many Trump supporters actually believe that COVID19 is real, mask up, etc. I know both.

And....unfortunately, a lot of people across the political spectrum really, really do mean well but they tend to think that they are being careful enough and that the rules don't really apply to them because they are 'careful.' I honestly see this from a lot of people and what they mean by 'careful' varies a great deal. Sure, there are some idiots who deliberately defy all common sense--and there are those who are naive and think that the virus doesn't hurt nice, careful people like them. And those who don't adequately understand quarantine and don't realize violating it just once to run to the store is wiping out the entire point of the quarantine. Because they really don't mean anybody ill. They're careful.

And yeah, this includes some people I know in health care. A former co-worker had to miss work for 2 weeks because her teenage daughter tested positive for COVID and she has no idea where she got it, although the daughter's boyfriend & boyfriend's entire family are COVID positive. It is also impossible for her to have considered that she could/should restrict her daughter's socializing to supervised distanced events only. Which is possible as her husband is working from home because of the pandemic. She's smart. She has a good science background and good medical lab training, including understanding disease transmission and prevention. She's much more medically sophisticated than this sounds--and she works in a lab testing for COVID 19 and has been putting in overtime for the past 9 months or so. But she has a weak spot for her kid. This also pertains to some people with PhD.'s, and some regular people who aren't stupid and who aren't jerks. People think they are being careful and safe because they mean well.

 

[Angry Floof]

What I said was, and I copy and paste, "It wouldn't be good health policy, of course, but beyond that..." Why did you leave that part out? No need to answer. It's a rhetorical question.

Anyway, the OP is fundamentally about white fragility and testeria, not honest debate of health policy.

Are you asking readers to seriously believe you did not say that dying from COVID doesn't harm white people? You said it quite plainly.

Yes, prevent all white people from getting the vaccine until all people of color are vaccinated.

Why not? It's not like such policies and attitudes have never existed where white people's interests were prioritized, often to the point of genocide. That's pretty much the substrate of white people history for fuck's sake.

Even if such a policy were to be implemented (it won't be, snowflakes, calm your tits), it wouldn't be the end of the world. It wouldn't be good health policy, of course, but beyond that, the only harm would be to white people's delicate self esteem.

You framed it as justified revenge against white people, but even if it were, it would still harm them.

Well, the first line was sarcasm. I guess I assumed it was too simplistic and ridiculous for anyone to think I literally meant that.

And again, you didn't bold the "not good health policy" part for some reason. To make things nice and black and white and absolutist? As I said, this thread was started as a conversation about white fragility reacting to simplistic assumptions, not about honest discussion of health policy.

I don't literally want to hurt anyone. But I also know that the policy as assumed and twisted to suit some anti-"leftist" tribalism is not likely going to be approved and implemented no matter what I say on the internet. Nobody's trying to do harm to white people, rhetorically or otherwise.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, the first line was sarcasm. I guess I assumed it was too simplistic and ridiculous for anyone to think I literally meant that.

You are correct it was ridiculous. You are incorrect to believe it is unreasonable for people to think you did not mean it literally.

And again, you didn't bold the "not good health policy" part for some reason.

The reason is because it's not relevant to your implication that white people dying doesn't harm them.

I don't literally want to hurt anyone. But I also know that the policy as assumed and twisted to suit some anti-"leftist" tribalism is not likely going to be approved and implemented no matter what I say on the internet. Nobody's trying to do harm to white people, rhetorically or otherwise.

Of course they are trying to discriminate against white people -- and indeed, they will tolerate the collateral damage to any non-white people who unfortunately happen to be caught in white orbit, like elderly BIPOC people or BIPOC teachers! Whether or not these considerations do end up influencing policy does not mean the sentiment of deprioritising groups just because those groups are more white than average wasn't there. The sentiment is right there, in black and white.

 

[Angry Floof]

You're right, it is reasonable to think some people would believe it, because they want to believe it and that's all that matters.

 

[Metaphor]

You're right, it is reasonable to think some people would believe it, because they want to believe it and that's all that matters.

No, it's reasonable for some people to believe you think it's okay to deprioritise groups with higher than average concentrations of white people, because that is exactly what academics consulted for comment say plainly in the OP article, and exactly what you endorsed in your first response, and exactly the kind of attitude one would expect from somebody who believes and said dying doesn't harm white people.

 

[Angry Floof]

You're right, it is reasonable to think some people would believe it, because they want to believe it and that's all that matters.

No, it's reasonable for some people to believe you think it's okay to deprioritise groups with higher than average concentrations of white people, because that is exactly what academics consulted for comment say plainly in the OP article, and exactly what you endorsed in your first response, and exactly the kind of attitude one would expect from somebody who believes and said dying doesn't harm white people.

You know what, dress it up and twist it as you please. Doesn't make it true. And once again, this thread is about white fragility overreacting to something. Stew in it for all I care.

 

[Metaphor]

You're right, it is reasonable to think some people would believe it, because they want to believe it and that's all that matters.

No, it's reasonable for some people to believe you think it's okay to deprioritise groups with higher than average concentrations of white people, because that is exactly what academics consulted for comment say plainly in the OP article, and exactly what you endorsed in your first response, and exactly the kind of attitude one would expect from somebody who believes and said dying doesn't harm white people.

You know what, dress it up and twist it as you please. Doesn't make it true. And once again, this thread is about white fragility overreacting to something. Stew in it for all I care.

Dress what up? You approved of vaccinating all nonwhite people before white people, and then said such a policy wouldn't harm white people. There's nothing to dress up. Even if you now claim you were being 'sarcastic' about agreement with your first comment, it would not follow that such a policy wouldn't harm white people, unless 'dying from COVID' doesn't count as harm to white people.

I do not believe it is 'fragile' to disagree with open discrimination against white people when formulating public health policy, but obviously your mileage differs.

 

[Toni]

You're right, it is reasonable to think some people would believe it, because they want to believe it and that's all that matters.

No, it's reasonable for some people to believe you think it's okay to deprioritise groups with higher than average concentrations of white people, because that is exactly what academics consulted for comment say plainly in the OP article, and exactly what you endorsed in your first response, and exactly the kind of attitude one would expect from somebody who believes and said dying doesn't harm white people.

Of course I agree with AF that her statement was obviously sarcasm. It's a little bit beyond belief that you actually think that AF doesn't believe that dying harms white people. You, yourself often engage in hyperbole when titling your OPs and indeed, in your OP statements. Now, you are lambasting AF for using hyperbole and sarcasm?

And NO, people are NOT suggesting that it is ok to relegate groups with higher than average concentrations of white people to the back of the line. It's saying that we should prioritize these essential workers, a majority of whom happen to be BIPOC. And that because most of those workers are BIPOC, and because our society is largely de facto segregated, these essential workers are largely invisible to us and we ( us white people) simply do not consider them very much. But the fact is that certain jobs/workers ARE essential and are more likely to be put at risk of contracting AND spreading the disease because of the nature of their work and also because their work is frankly the lifeline to the economy.

Most white people are not accustomed to thinking about these essential workers at all, unless they are somehow inconvenienced by them. Most white people aren't doing this out of any animus against BIPOC but because of myopia. We tend to value people who we see and who look like us, who are similar to us. It's the same reason that administration/management tends to want to hire more administrators/management rather than say, teachers or workers, and why they fight harder for people in positions similar to their own. It's myopia, short sightedness and the fact that society has become more stratified and compartmentalized, rather than less so. That has meant is that people in power (i.e. white people) tend to order things to favor themselves. Some of it is outright selfishness but a lot of it is myopia--simply not seeing other types of people, not just by race but by occupation and other perspectives. Service jobs: food producers, maintenance staff, even nursing home staff are largely invisible in our society--unless something goes wrong. Most of us don't look beyond the end of our noses and most of us look out for ourselves and our kindred as a matter of course.

 

[Metaphor]

You're right, it is reasonable to think some people would believe it, because they want to believe it and that's all that matters.

No, it's reasonable for some people to believe you think it's okay to deprioritise groups with higher than average concentrations of white people, because that is exactly what academics consulted for comment say plainly in the OP article, and exactly what you endorsed in your first response, and exactly the kind of attitude one would expect from somebody who believes and said dying doesn't harm white people.

Of course I agree with AF that her statement was obviously sarcasm.

Of course you do, Toni.

It's a little bit beyond belief that you actually think that AF doesn't believe that dying harms white people. You, yourself often engage in hyperbole when titling your OPs and indeed, in your OP statements. Now, you are lambasting AF for using hyperbole and sarcasm?

No, I am saying she implied she thinks dying doesn't harm white people. She did.

And NO, people are NOT suggesting that it is ok to relegate groups with higher than average concentrations of white people to the back of the line.

Really? Are the two academics in the OP who express that exact sentiment not 'people'?

It's saying that we should prioritize these essential workers, a majority of whom happen to be BIPOC.

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me?

The majority of essential workers are not BIPOC, which you fucking admitted you mistakenly thought the OP said.

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me?

And that because most of those workers are BIPOC,

They're not.

and because our society is largely de facto segregated, these essential workers are largely invisible to us and we ( us white people)

Speak for yourself.

simply do not consider them very much. But the fact is that certain jobs/workers ARE essential and are more likely to be put at risk of contracting AND spreading the disease because of the nature of their work and also because their work is frankly the lifeline to the economy.

Most white people are not accustomed to thinking about these essential workers at all,

Speak for yourself.

unless they are somehow inconvenienced by them. Most white people aren't doing this out of any animus against BIPOC but because of myopia. We tend to value people who we see and who look like us,

Speak for yourself.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're right, it is reasonable to think some people would believe it, because they want to believe it and that's all that matters.

No, it's reasonable for some people to believe you think it's okay to deprioritise groups with higher than average concentrations of white people, because that is exactly what academics consulted for comment say plainly in the OP article, and exactly what you endorsed in your first response, and exactly the kind of attitude one would expect from somebody who believes and said dying doesn't harm white people.

Of course I agree with AF that her statement was obviously sarcasm. It's a little bit beyond belief that you actually think that AF doesn't believe that dying harms white people. You, yourself often engage in hyperbole when titling your OPs and indeed, in your OP statements. Now, you are lambasting AF for using hyperbole and sarcasm?

And NO, people are NOT suggesting that it is ok to relegate groups with higher than average concentrations of white people to the back of the line. It's saying that we should prioritize these essential workers, a majority of whom happen to be BIPOC. And that because most of those workers are BIPOC, and because our society is largely de facto segregated, these essential workers are largely invisible to us and we ( us white people) simply do not consider them very much. But the fact is that certain jobs/workers ARE essential and are more likely to be put at risk of contracting AND spreading the disease because of the nature of their work and also because their work is frankly the lifeline to the economy.

Most white people are not accustomed to thinking about these essential workers at all, unless they are somehow inconvenienced by them. Most white people aren't doing this out of any animus against BIPOC but because of myopia. We tend to value people who we see and who look like us, who are similar to us. It's the same reason that administration/management tends to want to hire more administrators/management rather than say, teachers or workers, and why they fight harder for people in positions similar to their own. It's myopia, short sightedness and the fact that society has become more stratified and compartmentalized, rather than less so. That has meant is that people in power (i.e. white people) tend to order things to favor themselves. Some of it is outright selfishness but a lot of it is myopia--simply not seeing other types of people, not just by race but by occupation and other perspectives. Service jobs: food producers, maintenance staff, even nursing home staff are largely invisible in our society--unless something goes wrong. Most of us don't look beyond the end of our noses and most of us look out for ourselves and our kindred as a matter of course.

It is not only measurably important to vaccinate essential workers, though. It's also important to prioritize vaccination among the economically disadvantaged in general: the lower the education level and employability, the less able a person is to afford the "luxuries" of wearing a mask, or taking private transport, or of avoiding public spaces, or even getting to testing sites.

The fact is, the poorest americans should be getting the vaccine third (after essential workers and those with health complications), because the virus, for a variety of reasons, will continue to have a disparate act on those communities.

Note, I haven't mentioned minorities or race here above, but I'll leave yall to do the math on the demographics of this significant at-risk group.

 

[Toni]

Of course I agree with AF that her statement was obviously sarcasm. It's a little bit beyond belief that you actually think that AF doesn't believe that dying harms white people. You, yourself often engage in hyperbole when titling your OPs and indeed, in your OP statements. Now, you are lambasting AF for using hyperbole and sarcasm?

And NO, people are NOT suggesting that it is ok to relegate groups with higher than average concentrations of white people to the back of the line. It's saying that we should prioritize these essential workers, a majority of whom happen to be BIPOC. And that because most of those workers are BIPOC, and because our society is largely de facto segregated, these essential workers are largely invisible to us and we ( us white people) simply do not consider them very much. But the fact is that certain jobs/workers ARE essential and are more likely to be put at risk of contracting AND spreading the disease because of the nature of their work and also because their work is frankly the lifeline to the economy.

Most white people are not accustomed to thinking about these essential workers at all, unless they are somehow inconvenienced by them. Most white people aren't doing this out of any animus against BIPOC but because of myopia. We tend to value people who we see and who look like us, who are similar to us. It's the same reason that administration/management tends to want to hire more administrators/management rather than say, teachers or workers, and why they fight harder for people in positions similar to their own. It's myopia, short sightedness and the fact that society has become more stratified and compartmentalized, rather than less so. That has meant is that people in power (i.e. white people) tend to order things to favor themselves. Some of it is outright selfishness but a lot of it is myopia--simply not seeing other types of people, not just by race but by occupation and other perspectives. Service jobs: food producers, maintenance staff, even nursing home staff are largely invisible in our society--unless something goes wrong. Most of us don't look beyond the end of our noses and most of us look out for ourselves and our kindred as a matter of course.

It is not only measurably important to vaccinate essential workers, though. It's also important to prioritize vaccination among the economically disadvantaged in general: the lower the education level and employability, the less able a person is to afford the "luxuries" of wearing a mask, or taking private transport, or of avoiding public spaces, or even getting to testing sites.

The fact is, the poorest americans should be getting the vaccine third (after essential workers and those with health complications), because the virus, for a variety of reasons, will continue to have a disparate act on those communities.

Note, I haven't mentioned minorities or race here above, but I'll leave yall to do the math on the demographics of this significant at-risk group.

It's a good point---the poorest should be vaccinated after essential workers and those with health complications.

I will point out that this is also even more difficult to do than vaccinating en masse working class and middle class people. Largely because of the reasons you state: lack of transportation, etc. Also sometimes complicated by chronic illness, mental illness, homelessness, distrust of the government, etc. This is one place where schools and churches, if they could be open, would be very helpful. It used to be common for various vaccinations to be given during the school day to children. But with so many schools, churches, community centers closed (for good reason), this avenue is closed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course I agree with AF that her statement was obviously sarcasm. It's a little bit beyond belief that you actually think that AF doesn't believe that dying harms white people. You, yourself often engage in hyperbole when titling your OPs and indeed, in your OP statements. Now, you are lambasting AF for using hyperbole and sarcasm?

And NO, people are NOT suggesting that it is ok to relegate groups with higher than average concentrations of white people to the back of the line. It's saying that we should prioritize these essential workers, a majority of whom happen to be BIPOC. And that because most of those workers are BIPOC, and because our society is largely de facto segregated, these essential workers are largely invisible to us and we ( us white people) simply do not consider them very much. But the fact is that certain jobs/workers ARE essential and are more likely to be put at risk of contracting AND spreading the disease because of the nature of their work and also because their work is frankly the lifeline to the economy.

Most white people are not accustomed to thinking about these essential workers at all, unless they are somehow inconvenienced by them. Most white people aren't doing this out of any animus against BIPOC but because of myopia. We tend to value people who we see and who look like us, who are similar to us. It's the same reason that administration/management tends to want to hire more administrators/management rather than say, teachers or workers, and why they fight harder for people in positions similar to their own. It's myopia, short sightedness and the fact that society has become more stratified and compartmentalized, rather than less so. That has meant is that people in power (i.e. white people) tend to order things to favor themselves. Some of it is outright selfishness but a lot of it is myopia--simply not seeing other types of people, not just by race but by occupation and other perspectives. Service jobs: food producers, maintenance staff, even nursing home staff are largely invisible in our society--unless something goes wrong. Most of us don't look beyond the end of our noses and most of us look out for ourselves and our kindred as a matter of course.

It is not only measurably important to vaccinate essential workers, though. It's also important to prioritize vaccination among the economically disadvantaged in general: the lower the education level and employability, the less able a person is to afford the "luxuries" of wearing a mask, or taking private transport, or of avoiding public spaces, or even getting to testing sites.

The fact is, the poorest americans should be getting the vaccine third (after essential workers and those with health complications), because the virus, for a variety of reasons, will continue to have a disparate act on those communities.

Note, I haven't mentioned minorities or race here above, but I'll leave yall to do the math on the demographics of this significant at-risk group.

It's a good point---the poorest should be vaccinated after essential workers and those with health complications.

I will point out that this is also even more difficult to do than vaccinating en masse working class and middle class people. Largely because of the reasons you state: lack of transportation, etc. Also sometimes complicated by chronic illness, mental illness, homelessness, distrust of the government, etc. This is one place where schools and churches, if they could be open, would be very helpful. It used to be common for various vaccinations to be given during the school day to children. But with so many schools, churches, community centers closed (for good reason), this avenue is closed.

Well, homeless shelters are good places to start vaccinations at. Essential services and all.

I would absolutely say while it should be available to these people first, they should absolutely have a choice to opt out. And as much as I hate to say it; the effectiveness of the vaccine being as high as it is, we can afford some number of persons unvaccinated and still achieve the actual "protecting the least through vaccination of the most" version of herd immunity.

 

[repoman]

Huh, so the Jewish Marc Lipsitch advised Netanyahu about Covid. I wonder if he topd him to prioritize Palestinians and Arabs ahead of privileged Jews. He is not a white gentile so he should shut his mouth about us.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/harvard-prof-advising-netanyahu-dont-ease-lockdown-without-solid-fallback-plan/

 

[Emily Lake]

People say stupid shit all the time.

These are not some random weirdos. They are prominent academics.

And these are racist proposals in policy. Arizona is including "Adults from racial and ethnic minority groups" in a higher priority group than white adults.
COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN

Okay, that's either a lack of understanding, or selective information intended to drive a false conclusion.

Phase 1, when there are limited vaccines available, covers health care workers, front-line workers, and essential workers, as well as people over 65, people in group home or community homes, and people with underlying medical conditions. That's going to catch a lot of white folks already.

Phase two identifies groups that are at increased risk of acquiring and transmitting COVID, which includes racial and ethnic minorities among many other groups. This isn't "prioritizing over white people", it's prioritizing those most likely to be vectors for infection... which includes minorities.

Additionally, if you look at the distribution plan on page 18, you can see that the critical populations are being addressed in concert with the general population. The objective, if you actually read instead of looking for proof of discrimination, you can see that the goal is to ensure that those critical populations get addressed alongside the general population, because a lot of those critical populations have less access to medical care. Without an effort to make sure they're included, a lot of those would end up being the last people to get vaccinated.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What I find a bit skitchy with OP pushing for minority vaccination prioritized above white people is the risk aspect. We fast-tracked the development and testing of these vaccines by a LOT. Testing that usually takes multiple years to ensure safety was done in a matter of months. I think there's likely an increased risk of unforeseen side effects from a virtually untested vaccine. Are these people pushing for minorities to get vaccinated first because white people generally have better access to health care and more resources to work from home etc.? Or are they pushing for minority prioritization so that any dangerous side effects fall on them instead of on white people?

There's no win, and anybody can infer a nefarious driver if they're motivated enough.

 

[Emily Lake]

Missed in the debate is "what happens if something goes wrong with the vaccine?"

Personally, I think they should be giving the vaccine to the politicians before the front line health care workers. We could afford to lose a few politicians but I do not want to lose any health care workers.

If we think there's a high risk of something going wrong, then politicians are first in line. If we think there's a low risk of something going wrong, then politicians are the last in line.

 

[Jarhyn]

People say stupid shit all the time.

These are not some random weirdos. They are prominent academics.

And these are racist proposals in policy. Arizona is including "Adults from racial and ethnic minority groups" in a higher priority group than white adults.
COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN

Okay, that's either a lack of understanding, or selective information intended to drive a false conclusion.

Phase 1, when there are limited vaccines available, covers health care workers, front-line workers, and essential workers, as well as people over 65, people in group home or community homes, and people with underlying medical conditions. That's going to catch a lot of white folks already.

Phase two identifies groups that are at increased risk of acquiring and transmitting COVID, which includes racial and ethnic minorities among many other groups. This isn't "prioritizing over white people", it's prioritizing those most likely to be vectors for infection... which includes minorities.

Additionally, if you look at the distribution plan on page 18, you can see that the critical populations are being addressed in concert with the general population. The objective, if you actually read instead of looking for proof of discrimination, you can see that the goal is to ensure that those critical populations get addressed alongside the general population, because a lot of those critical populations have less access to medical care. Without an effort to make sure they're included, a lot of those would end up being the last people to get vaccinated.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What I find a bit skitchy with OP pushing for minority vaccination prioritized above white people is the risk aspect. We fast-tracked the development and testing of these vaccines by a LOT. Testing that usually takes multiple years to ensure safety was done in a matter of months. I think there's likely an increased risk of unforeseen side effects from a virtually untested vaccine. Are these people pushing for minorities to get vaccinated first because white people generally have better access to health care and more resources to work from home etc.? Or are they pushing for minority prioritization so that any dangerous side effects fall on them instead of on white people?

There's no win, and anybody can infer a nefarious driver if they're motivated enough.

To be fair, this vaccine has been in development for years, albeit targeting a different coronavirus.

That said, your point is exactly why we should allow opt-out amid outreach.

It is 90-95%(!) Effective, and that means the 10-15% of people who are too paranoid/lost will still be protected by the remaining 80% being immunized.

The win only comes because of the high effectiveness of the vaccine. But there is a win available. All we have to do is push, but not too hard.

Personally, I want to take the vaccine and end all this otherwise endless stress of worry about infection. Maybe I'll luck out and the bioassay company I work for gets to be at the head of the line since we are "at risk", seeing as we run a testing location