COVID-19 vaccine discussion

After reading that flow chart, Wilco or san Antonio will be an austinite's best bet to get the vaccine.

The state will continue to give those other hubs the vaccines and Austin will be left with a disproportionate amount compared to the population

 

The race for the COVID-19 vaccine came to Texas Motor Speedway at daybreak Tuesday as thousands of people lined up to get shots.

With 10,000 doses ready to go, Denton County officials said the 16-lane mega-site was one of the nation’s largest vaccine hubs. (Although, leave it to Californians to do their best to one-up us; A site at Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium was set up in January to administer 12,000 doses daily, although a lack of supply has allowed for an average of only 7,000 shots a day.)

People lined up in pickups and small cars. Some brought their family members and pets along, while others came alone and received their shots through their driver’s side window.

Unlike the scenes at some mass testing centers that were beset with organizational and scheduling problems early in the pandemic, the mood was light at the speedway Tuesday morning. Smiling eyes peeked over face masks as patients honked and cheered when they approached the tent where shots were being administered.

LaDonna Gatlin Johnson of Frisco arrived early for her morning appointment. She didn’t want to lose her spot, not just for her sake, but for her husband’s, too. In December, they learned he had pancreatic cancer. He was also supposed to get a shot Tuesday morning but had a conflict: He had to report at 8 a.m. for his first round of chemotherapy.

Johnson will be a caregiver for her husband, so she wanted to be sure to get vaccinated so she wouldn’t get him sick. Alone in the car, before she drove to meet her husband at his appointment, she began to cry.

“Everybody’s been frustrated, but let me tell you, it’s beauty in motion here,” she said. “This is like a military operation, and it makes me proud to be a Texan and proud to be an American.”

3 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

The race for the COVID-19 vaccine came to Texas Motor Speedway at daybreak Tuesday as thousands of people lined up to get shots.

With 10,000 doses ready to go, Denton County officials said the 16-lane mega-site was one of the nation’s largest vaccine hubs. (Although, leave it to Californians to do their best to one-up us; A site at Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium was set up in January to administer 12,000 doses daily, although a lack of supply has allowed for an average of only 7,000 shots a day.)

People lined up in pickups and small cars. Some brought their family members and pets along, while others came alone and received their shots through their driver’s side window.

Unlike the scenes at some mass testing centers that were beset with organizational and scheduling problems early in the pandemic, the mood was light at the speedway Tuesday morning. Smiling eyes peeked over face masks as patients honked and cheered when they approached the tent where shots were being administered.

LaDonna Gatlin Johnson of Frisco arrived early for her morning appointment. She didn’t want to lose her spot, not just for her sake, but for her husband’s, too. In December, they learned he had pancreatic cancer. He was also supposed to get a shot Tuesday morning but had a conflict: He had to report at 8 a.m. for his first round of chemotherapy.

Johnson will be a caregiver for her husband, so she wanted to be sure to get vaccinated so she wouldn’t get him sick. Alone in the car, before she drove to meet her husband at his appointment, she began to cry.

“Everybody’s been frustrated, but let me tell you, it’s beauty in motion here,” she said. “This is like a military operation, and it makes me proud to be a Texan and proud to be an American.”

That's both cool and creepy.  Looks like a scene from an apocolyptic movie.

10 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

 

Been there for races twice and that's pretty much how it looks leaving that place anyway.

51 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Anyone got insights into APH's cadence releasing vax appointments?  I just got the nod for a vax but there are no appts available. 

Supposedly Tuesday and Thursdays. Not sure about what time on those days.

Texas Motor speedway looks like a great setup that could possibly be ramped up more.   It seems like it could be a model for a regional center where the feds could send excess dosage as supplies are available.  It might be hard for any given local location to increase capacity from say 500/day to 1000 day, but if you had an extra 50K to throw at Texas, Texas Motor Speedway could probably knock that out in a few days at peak efficiency.  No idea how sophisticated the Denton County "waitlist" but they should absolutely throw some $$ at some good software to manage their lists.

 
How Austin Public Health is distributing vaccines. 
This should go over well in Austin.

https://www.kxan.com/texas-coronavirus-vaccine/how-austin-public-health-determines-if-you-qualify-for-a-covid-19-vaccine/

Well, honestly, the chart should just stop at 65 and perhaps those under with serious immunodeficiency issues or particularly essential/high risk jobs.

I don’t have an issue with them trying to prioritize underserved communities. They’re a safety net provider and the rollout has been very inequitable. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to rectify that. The issue is Austin getting
It really should just be 65+ and a limited, clearly delineated pool of those most at risk under that age though.

After reading that flow chart, Wilco or san Antonio will be an austinite's best bet to get the vaccine.
The state will continue to give those other hubs the vaccines and Austin will be left with a disproportionate amount compared to the population

Which is really a state issue at the end of the day, isn’t it? Punishing Austin or Dallas for trying to take measures to ensure they serve disproportionately hit communities while pumping Amarillo and Lubbock full of vaccines. Well the latter had worse outbreaks, right? That’s the reasoning? Some harder hit areas get preference, some don’t.

CoA can be taken to task for plenty of stupid shit but this is the state.

I see what Austin is doing and on some levels it makes sense. Poor communities have more comorbidities. Covid would be financially ruinous for those without insurance. And/or get kicked back to taxpayers and patients that pay their bills. But it's unnecessarily complex and self defeating.

It comes from a good place but it's over-engineered and kinda silly. That could be Austin's motto in general.

15 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Well, honestly, the chart should just stop at 65 and perhaps those under with serious immunodeficiency issues or particularly essential/high risk jobs.

I don’t have an issue with them trying to prioritize underserved communities. They’re a safety net provider and the rollout has been very inequitable. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to rectify that. The issue is Austin getting
It really should just be 65+ and a limited, clearly delineated pool of those most at risk under that age though.

the problem was they went immediately to trying to go to ONLY underserved communities secretly regardless of age or condition...Austin gonna Austin

Edit: and APH and UT Austin was getting the large majority of the vaccines if I recall.

Edited February 2, 2021 by dcar00

I see what Austin is doing and on some levels it makes sense. Poor communities have more comorbidities. Covid would be financially ruinous for those without insurance. And/or get kicked back to taxpayers and patients that pay their bills. But it's unnecessarily complex and self defeating.

It comes from a good place but it's over-engineered and kinda silly. That could be Austin's motto in general.

the problem was they went immediately to trying to go to ONLY underserved communities secretly regardless of age or condition...Austin gonna Austin
Edit: and APH and UT Austin was getting the large majority of the vaccines if I recall.

Yeah, I get these for sure. APH is the only game in town so you can’t just start excluding large swaths of otherwise eligible people given the current situation. The real issues are beyond their control is all I’m really saying I guess.

Did they validate that you were in a 1a/1b group to get it? I heard from a friend that is 40 and no underlying conditions and they told her "no" when she pulled up at her appointment time. I've heard mixed reviews on what they are doing.

I was asked which group and what pre-existing condition qualified me for that group. No proof required.

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Punishing Austin or Dallas for trying to take measures to ensure they serve disproportionately hit communities while pumping Amarillo and Lubbock full of vaccines

I think living in Amarillo or Lubbock is their punishment.  

4 hours ago, ZB'Tejas said:

Did they validate that you were in a 1a/1b group to get it? I heard from a friend that is 40 and no underlying conditions and they told her "no" when she pulled up at her appointment time. I've heard mixed reviews on what they are doing.

Got my first shot there this afternoon. They simply asked if I was 1A or 1B after verifying my appointment, I said yes; they let me in. 

Got an exception to get the vaccine early rather than waiting till April/May cause Idaho can challenge Texas in the number of retards that run the state. Now I just need to monitor like 5 different places that give the vaccine to hope I can get an appointment.

might move some people ahead in the line:

Quote

More than 40% of Texans say they are certain to be vaccinated against COVID-19 when the vaccine becomes available to them or have already received the vaccine, according to a new report released Tuesday.  About one-third say they are unlikely to do so.

And more than one out of five – 22% – say they definitely will not accept a vaccine.

https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2021/february-2021/02022021-hobby-covid.php

I really hate people. Everyone wants “normal” back, but many don’t want to do what’s necessary. 

6 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I really hate people. Everyone wants “normal” back, but many don’t want to do what’s necessary. 

I think the people that won't get the vaccine have been back to normal for awhile.

23 hours ago, smoky said:

Is that 100% that want it or 100% of Texans in that category?

My charts are based on 100% of Texans over 16 years of age.  No phases or people who want it or don't want it, just 100% of those over 16.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Texas Jeff

Frontline:  China’s COVID Secrets

starting now 

15 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I think the people that won't get the vaccine have been back to normal for awhile.

Normal... as in their usual dumbfuckery.

APH is gonna cock block the vaccine distribution to pharmacies aren’t they? Austin is missing from the list of CVS locations getting the vaccine.

3 hours ago, dcar00 said:

the problem was they went immediately to trying to go to ONLY underserved communities secretly regardless of age or condition...Austin gonna Austin

Edit: and APH and UT Austin was getting the large majority of the vaccines if I recall.

APH and UT are getting almost 100% of the vaccine sent to Travis County.

Last week it was 98% of all vaccines sent to the county.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Texas Jeff

I sent you the link to the scheduling page. There’s no need to re-register. Just refresh that page and at the bottom, when available, appointments show up.

Currently, the page says “Booking Disabled”.

The “booking disabled” on the FHS site comes and goes. Keep hitting refresh, like continuously for 15 minutes. Tonight about 6:30 I was seeing mostly March but February options popped up as i was looking for earlier appointments. Like others said, sometimes the available “blue box” appointments you think you’re getting get nabbed before you can finish, but boom, after one refresh, like 10 appointments for TONIGHT popped up and i was out the door with a jab at Reeves at 7:55.
BTW - 30 BMI is a skinny definition of obese.

4 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Well, honestly, the chart should just stop at 65 and perhaps those under with serious immunodeficiency issues or particularly essential/high risk jobs.

I don’t have an issue with them trying to prioritize underserved communities. They’re a safety net provider and the rollout has been very inequitable. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to rectify that. The issue is Austin getting
It really should just be 65+ and a limited, clearly delineated pool of those most at risk under that age though.

 

4 hours ago, BradInATX said:

I see what Austin is doing and on some levels it makes sense. Poor communities have more comorbidities. Covid would be financially ruinous for those without insurance. And/or get kicked back to taxpayers and patients that pay their bills. But it's unnecessarily complex and self defeating.

It comes from a good place but it's over-engineered and kinda silly. That could be Austin's motto in general.

How does the City define "community disproportionately impacted by COVID 19"?  I might be missing it, but I don't see a definition.  My guess is that it is defined as "Non-White."  I hope that I'm wrong about that, but I fear that I'm not.

If that's the case, then you're God damn right I have a problem with that.  The Government should not be in the business of discriminating based on race.  The end.  It is unacceptable for the Government to be dolling out critical, life-saving medical care to people based on the color of their skin.  "Sorry, 64 year old white man, you don't get a vaccine right now because you are white."  That does not "come from a good place."  It comes from a facially discriminatory place that would not be acceptable if it was targeted literally to any other racial group.

1 minute ago, Stannis said:

 

How does the City define "community disproportionately impacted by COVID 19"?  I might be missing it, but I don't see a definition.  My guess is that it is defined as "Non-White."  I hope that I'm wrong about that, but I fear that I'm not.

If that's the case, then you're God damn right I have a problem with that.  The Government should not be in the business of discriminating based on race.  The end.  It is unacceptable for the Government to be dolling out critical, life-saving medical care to people based on the color of their skin.  "Sorry, 64 year old white man, you don't get a vaccine right now because you are white."  That does not "come from a good place."  It comes from a facially discriminatory place that would not be acceptable if it was targeted literally to any other racial group.

 

If you boil it down to its simplest form, giving out 1,000 vaccines to Hispanics is going to save more lives than giving out 1,000 vaccines to Whites. Greater good is served. Math doesn't lie. 

The problem is not that it's racist or whatever virtue signaling type of deal people choose to be outraged about. It's that it's clunky and overly complex and is probably slowing down the rollout, which then undoes the greater good benefit they're trying to accomplish.

16 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

If you boil it down to its simplest form, giving out 1,000 vaccines to Hispanics is going to save more lives than giving out 1,000 vaccines to Whites. Greater good is served. Math doesn't lie. 

The problem is not that it's racist or whatever virtue signaling type of deal people choose to be outraged about. It's that it's clunky and overly complex and is probably slowing down the rollout, which then undoes the greater good benefit they're trying to accomplish.

I don't think we know enough to know if one of a hispanic person, a black person, or a white person of the same age and similar medical history is going to survive covid more than another.

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

If you boil it down to its simplest form, giving out 1,000 vaccines to Hispanics is going to save more lives than giving out 1,000 vaccines to Whites. Greater good is served. Math doesn't lie. 

The problem is not that it's racist or whatever virtue signaling type of deal people choose to be outraged about. It's that it's clunky and overly complex and is probably slowing down the rollout, which then undoes the greater good benefit they're trying to accomplish.

You're on board with the government implementing public health policy designed and intended to be racially discriminatory simply because the discriminatory policy allegedly serves the "greater good"?  Accepting that as a worthwhile and laudable form of public policymaking could lead to some really, really bad outcomes.  In fact, I think human history is littered with countless such examples. 

It's also a policy that would never be applied in the other direction.  If the data showed that White Americans died at a higher rate, adjusted for age, than other racial groups, there is zero chance the City of Austin would design a policy targeted towards vaccinating White citizens before non-White citizens. 

Just now, dcar00 said:

I don't think we know enough to know if one of a hispanic person, a black person, or a white person of the same age and similar medical history is going to survive covid more than another.

Who's saying "similar medical history"?

We know that some nonwhite ethnic groups have higher levels of obesity, diabetes, etc. We also know that the poors have higher rates of the same. So targeting those communities would be optimizing the ROI of the early investment.

1 minute ago, Stannis said:

You're on board with the government implementing public health policy designed and intended to be racially discriminatory simply because the discriminatory policy allegedly serves the "greater good"?  Accepting that as a worthwhile and laudable form of public policymaking could lead to some really, really bad outcomes.  In fact, I think human history is littered with countless such examples. 

It's also a policy that would never be applied in the other direction.  If the data showed that White Americans died at a higher rate, adjusted for age, than other racial groups, there is zero chance the City of Austin would design a policy targeted towards vaccinating White citizens before non-White citizens. 

I know right? And why isn't there White Entertainment Television or White History Month?!??!

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Who's saying "similar medical history"?

We know that some nonwhite ethnic groups have higher levels of obesity, diabetes, etc. We also know that the poors have higher rates of the same. So targeting those communities would be optimizing the ROI of the early investment.

but that's not what they were doing.  I saw it in action.

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

but that's not what they were doing.  I saw it in action.

Yeah I'm not going to get into what you saw anecdotally, I'm just talking about the flowchart that prioritizes above 65, 50+ with medical conditions, or <50 with conditions and in a "community disproportionately impacted" by Covid. 

I wonder why some of you get so riled up about other races getting priority over you (due to being higher risk) when you're not at all bothered by people older or fatter than you getting priority over you. 

Things that make you go hmm.

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by BradInATX

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Yeah I'm not going to get into what you saw anecdotally, I'm just talking about the flowchart that prioritizes above 65, 50+ with medical conditions, or <50 with conditions and in a "community disproportionately impacted" by Covid. 

I wonder why some of you get so riled up about other races getting priority over you (due to being higher risk) when you're not at all bothered by people older or fatter than you getting priority over you. 

Things that make you go hmm.

who said I'm not bothered about people older and fatter than me getting it.   things that make you go hmmm.

40 year old black male healthy vs. 50 year old white guy who is diabetic.  who should get it first?  Is a particular race inherently higher risk.

and it wasn't anecdotal.

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Yeah I'm not going to get into what you saw anecdotally, I'm just talking about the flowchart that prioritizes above 65, 50+ with medical conditions, or <50 with conditions and in a "community disproportionately impacted" by Covid. 

I wonder why some of you get so riled up about other races getting priority over you (due to being higher risk) when you're not at all bothered by people older or fatter than you getting priority over you. 

Things that make you go hmm.

 

that chart says nothing about what their health is.

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

that chart says nothing about what their health is.

 

That's the point. And the city's. Think. Again, I think the process is stupid. But not because it's racist. Mathematically, the city is doing the right thing. It's just that logistically they aren't, as they've pulled an Austin and overcomplicated it to their own detriment.

Edited February 3, 2021 by BradInATX

Just now, BradInATX said:

 

That's the point. And the city's. Think.

right they are prioritizing by race status not health status.  think.

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

That's the point. And the city's. Think. Again, I think the process is stupid. But not because it's racist. Mathematically, the city is doing the right thing. It's just that logistically they aren't, as they've pulled an Austin and overcomplicated it to their own detriment.

since you edited.  they are guessing and not using science.  we can agree the process is stupid.  I think you are in denial that it isn't racially motivated.

6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I think you are in denial that it isn't racially motivated.

Maybe, but I'm using math and you're using emotion.

There are ways to achieve what Austin is trying to achieve without using race, if that's how they're defining "community".

Start with the zip codes with the lowest property tax appraisals. Or by job classification. Or whether they live in multi generational housing.

In the end APH will bungle this and not get as many shots in arms and the state will draw down the number of vaccines they get because of their inefficiency.

6 minutes ago, smoky said:

There are ways to achieve what Austin is trying to achieve without using race, if that's how they're defining "community".

Start with the zip codes with the lowest property tax appraisals. Or by job classification.

In the end APH will bungle this and not get as many shots in arms and the state will draw down the number of vaccines they get because if their inefficiency.

 

Yep. Agree with this fully. I don't agree with others that the policy is strictly race based. I do think they're awfully proud of themselves about it. But to your point, it'd have been better just to do it by zip code. 

Or just decreasing by age groups, which probably would be more impactful. Black/Hispanic ethnicities have 4x the death rate of whites, where even 50 year olds have 30x the death rate of younger folks.

In hindsight, it should have just been decreasing by age group all across the country. Keep it simple, stupid.

 
Or just decreasing by age groups, which probably would be more impactful. Black/Hispanic ethnicities have 4x the death rate of whites, where even 50 year olds have 30x the death rate of younger folks.
In hindsight, it should have just been decreasing by age group all across the country. Keep it simple, stupid.

Yup. The age related data doesn't lie. The older you are, the worse this'll affect you.

And that's a plan that everyone can understand. Oh, the 72 year olds and older are on January 12th. The 71 year olds are the 13th....

(Working class and poor disproportionately affected by Covid) + (public health issue) = Data tells where to concentrate efforts to minimize death and disability. 

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

And take off the race lenses if you are going to complain about race politics.  

23 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

In hindsight, it should have just been decreasing by age group all across the country. Keep it simple, stupid.

Here's a chart that is my argument for doing it by age, if your goal is to prevent death.  I created this from data in late December.  Vertical axis is percent of population over 16, horizontal axis is percent of death.  For example, the "80+" dot shows that people 80 and over represent about 4% of Texans over 16, but about 34% of all COVID deaths.

Just doing the 75+ population should take out half of the death.  Get to 50+ and you cut out over 90%.

Healthcare workers helping COVID patients should have gone first.  After that, just create large vax centers and put a big sign up that says "80 and over".  When the line goes down, lower the age on the sign.  If the sign in Amarillo says "50 and over" and the sign in Austin still says "80 and over", then give Austin more vax.  Do something special for the homebound and hard to reach.

You could even have an express line that says "80 and over" when the regular line says "70 and over", for those that can't wait in line.  Keep the express line age high enough so that the wait is no more than 10 minutes.

 

16 hours ago, zman13 said:

 

How Austin Public Health is distributing vaccines. 

This should go over well in Austin.

https://www.kxan.com/texas-coronavirus-vaccine/how-austin-public-health-determines-if-you-qualify-for-a-covid-19-vaccine/

That seems WAY overcomplicated.  Open it up further and let's just get this done.

9 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

Here's a chart that is my argument for doing it by age, if your goal is to prevent death.  I created this from data in late December.  Vertical axis is percent of population over 16, horizontal axis is percent of death.  For example, the "80+" dot shows that people 80 and over represent about 4% of Texans over 16, but about 34% of all COVID deaths.

Just doing the 75+ population should take out half of the death.  Get to 50+ and you cut out over 90%.

Healthcare workers helping COVID patients should have gone first.  After that, just create large vax centers and put a big sign up that says "80 and over".  When the line goes down, lower the age on the sign.  If the sign in Amarillo says "50 and over" and the sign in Austin still says "80 and over", then give Austin more vax.  

 

I think it all depends on what the overall goal is for say the first 2-3 months of vaccination program (i.e., whether the goal is to reduce the number of deaths or reduce the spread or some hybrid approach).  I saw an article today that highlighted the issue.  The takeaway is that ages 20-49 are responsible for 76% of the "spread" of COVID while ages 55+ are responsible for 93% of the deaths.   Texas is clearly taking a hybrid approach automatically approving anyone 65+ while leaving a broad 1B group to increase vaccination in the demographic actually spreading the disease.    There can be arguments made either way but I think I'm on board with the Texas approach with as little red tape as possible (i.e., NOT the Austin approach).  The reality is (i) 65+ are generally in a better position to isolate than under 65 and (ii) based on all anecdotal evidence I've seen, pretty much everyone in the state that is 65+ and even somewhat diligence about looking for a vaccine should be able to get first round of vaccination by the end of this month if they haven't already.  It isn't like they are getting pushed to the back of the line.  Everyone I know in that demographic that wants a vaccine (i.e., I know some Trumpers that aren't on board yet) has either had first round or is scheduled for first round this week or next week.

Obviously the mutated strains are a bit of a wild card but I think the Texas approach has a pretty decent chance of a continued downward slope through the spring with the combination of more vaccinations throughout a diverse population + better weather.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Skipper

11 hours ago, smoky said:

There are ways to achieve what Austin is trying to achieve without using race, if that's how they're defining "community".

Start with the zip codes with the lowest property tax appraisals. Or by job classification. Or whether they live in multi generational housing.

In the end APH will bungle this and not get as many shots in arms and the state will draw down the number of vaccines they get because of their inefficiency.
 

NO.   Doing something based on race, class, education or income is discriminatory.  We have to be better than that.

What APH, and other locals need to do is make it available to everyone, but much like with Handicapped we need to work to have special and reasonable accommodations to make sure those who have a harder time getting access or making appointments are supported.  This does not mean you disadvantage one group to benefit another.   They should have locations in poorer areas that support registering poorer or non-English speaking people who may not know or have internet access.  They can have mobile centers that drive around to provide support or even web access.  They can push education through non-standard methods to reach people and communities that may not get information through more mainstream means (Web, AAS, etc).  We should work to be inclusive and supportive of all.

But to say we will lock out one group and only support another shouldn't be the way.

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

The takeaway is that ages 20-49 are responsible for 76% of the "spread" of COVID

But since we don't even know how effective giving them the vaccine is against the spread this doesn't really matter.  Although in theory its seems that there will be some protection against infecting others.  Astra zencas shows a high level of stopping transmission.   

Edited February 3, 2021 by midtown

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

I think it all depends on what the overall goal is for say the first 2-3 months of vaccination program (i.e., whether the goal is to reduce the number of deaths or reduce the spread or some hybrid approach).  I saw an article today that highlighted the issue.  The takeaway is that ages 20-49 are responsible for 76% of the "spread" of COVID while ages 55+ are responsible for 93% of the deaths.   Texas is clearly taking a hybrid approach automatically approving anyone 65+ while leaving a broad 1B group to increase vaccination in the demographic actually spreading the disease.    There can be arguments made either way but I think I'm on board with the Texas approach with as little red tape as possible (i.e., NOT the Austin approach).  The reality is (i) 65+ are generally in a better position to isolate than under 65 and (ii) based on all anecdotal evidence I've seen, pretty much everyone in the state that is 65+ and even somewhat diligence about looking for a vaccine should be able to get first round of vaccination by the end of this month if they haven't already.  It isn't like they are getting pushed to the back of the line.  Everyone I know in that demographic that wants a vaccine (i.e., I know some Trumpers that aren't on board yet) has either had first round or is scheduled for first round this week or next week.

Obviously the mutated strains are a bit of a wild card but I think the Texas approach has a pretty decent chance of a continued downward slope through the spring with the combination of more vaccinations throughout a diverse population + better weather.

IMO, the 20-49 are spreading to other 20-49 mostly.  the goal is to stop hospitalizations and by doing that you can stop deaths.  age was the way to do that simply and systematically. a 40 year old relatively healthy black, hispanic or white man should not get it before any 65 year old.  I think people would wait in line and there would be a shitload less gaming of the system.

that said, good news is we may be getting close to the point where the folks over 65 who want it can get it.  it seems to be loosening up some and will only get better.

South Austin’s mom is loosening up?