Where are you in the CV19 vaccine line?

Thought everyone might find this interesting/helpful. Based on the Surgo Vaccine Allocation Planner:

9 Likes

Interesting. Only 1,900 people before me.

2 Likes

I’m in the 2nd third. That seems legit. I believe by February.

“Based on your risk profile, we believe you’re in line behind 23.0 million people across the United States.
When it comes to Minnesota, we think you’re behind 434,200 others who are at higher risk in your state. And in XXX County, you’re behind 16,100 others.
If the line in Minnesota was represented by about 100 people, this is where you’d be standing: 36”

This article made me realize just how complicated the logistics are to distribute this vaccine. These are good problems, however, in a situation where we’ve been able to produce viable vaccines in less than one year from the start of the process.

The tool in the article predicts that there are 23 million people in the US ahead of me in line for a vaccine. I’m happy to wait my turn as I am fortunate to be able to shelter in my apartment without the need to report to an outside job (I’m retired.) and I take minimal risks to secure groceries and consult my doctors.

While I am particularly vulnerable for a bad outcome if I catch this virus, many groups in society are much more stressed and vulnerable to this virus than I am. For now, I am happy that vaccinations are imminent and we can look forward to a return to more normal human interactions during the next year.

3 Likes

I live in a small college town. My son lives across the state border in another smallish college town. He is 32 and is an essential worker. He has 14,000 people ahead of him. I would trade places with him if I could, since I can shelter and he can’t. The only reason that I will probably go ahead and get the vaccine as soon as I can is for needed cancer checks. I also have skipped my annual eye exam and all blood tests that I can’t do at home. I am not sure that I am very comfortable getting one of the first vaccines though.

I have diabetes. And I’m an essential worker.
I’m 54 and yet I’m 700,000 in losangeles county and
2.3 millionth in the USA overall.
That’s whack.
However since I work for one of the companies who make it, they might give it to us early so we can safely ramp production.
But maybe I don’t want to be first either.

2 Likes

That article doesn’t resolve what’s most unclear to me about my place in line though, which is whether Type 1 diabetes (especially if in good control, probably defined medically as <7 A1c) counts as higher risk. I’ve seen some places suggest it won’t be, only T2. Lots of things people think are conditions conferring higher risk it has turned out aren’t, like asthma, so they aren’t on the lists I’ve seen either.

Makes the difference between being behind 23 million people, nationally, and 268 million, for me anyway.

5 Likes

Most places lump us all together. It’s the one and only time we benefit from that.

I think the numbers will be smaller though because
Very few people want to be first in line.
I’ll take it as soon as I’m offered it
I have faith in it. The worst case is that it won’t work.
The safety issues have already been negated. Unless of course you have allergies to eggs or other vaccines

Very Interesting but will see what actually happens, not to mention that there may be a large number of individuals that qualify before me but refuse to take the shot when first offered. This is also a little suspect because it shows me behind 23 million others in the US, behind 602,400 in MA and 4,200 in my county. Since I am 72, have underlying condition(s) and am an essential full time worker, I would have thought that I would place a little higher than at least some of the retired individuals posting on this thread. It could be based on our county having so few Covid cases, I believe only 6 in our town since the beginning and I know our whole county only has 19 cases per 100,000 population which is the lowest in MA and one of the lowest in the US.

You folks do all realize that this is just the NY Times making a slightly educated guess, yes? At this point since most of the infrastructure needed to accomplish this is not even thought out let alone put into place, it’s likely not a very reliable guess.

Your average pin the tail on the donkey contestant is probably more likely to reliably hit the mark.

Nothing wrong with guessing. They’re informative in their own limited way, but always bear in mind the limits of extrapolation. :wink:

3 Likes

Yes, we get it.

3 Likes

I believe that’s all we can do at this point. The policy makers have already made their decisions, they are going to slow drip the policies and schedule out to us to try and avoid a rush like the toilet paper shopping sprees. The CDC and state of WA policies (drafts) I have read differ from the conventional guesses (as promoted by the NYT) in a couple of important ways: the age cutoff for “elderly” is 65 not 60 and Type 1 is NOT classified as high risk for the purpose of vaccine priority as far as I can tell. WA also classified bankers and real estate agents as essential.

So the whole thing has already been twisted by the WA DC crowd. Prepare for turmoil, protests, politicians grandstanding etc starting around mid January.

Here’s one of the CDC documents that the states are following to fine tune their state by state policies:
Certain Medical Conditions and Risk for Severe COVID-19 Illness | CDC
and a quote from it:
“Having type 2 diabetes increases your risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Based on what we know at this time, having type 1 or gestational diabetes might increase your risk of severe illness from COVID-19.” First time I’ve seen that word “might” pop up in the official word from the powers that be.

It says I should get vaccinated around 2035. Hmm are they trying to tell me something ?

1 Like

Not exactly. It’s based on the Surgo algorithm, which is a proposed distribution algorithm backed by a number of epidemiology institutes, including Channing Lab at Brigham & Womens, where my wife works as a senior IT professional. It’s not just the NYT pulling it out of their butts, in other words.

4 Likes

I still don’t buy it no matter how good the algorithm is. I tried toggling my age from 61 to 69 and the algorithm gave me identical results…not consistent with the draft policy for WA which lists >65 as a higher priority than <65.

The way I read the WA policy a 29 year old banker with no co morbidity and a 64 year old Type 1 will be standing next to each other in line. And WA says they are following CDC guidance to a tee. I think the powers that be know that there will be pushback when the details of second phase prioritization are publicized. So they are sugar coating it with vague algorithms like this.

I bet every type 1 who read the NYT article clicked “yes” for covid health risk. Well Type 1 does not count so the correct choice is “no”.

1 Like

I suspect on an undertaking of this scale they’ll likely not be getting into the finer details of different types of disease groups… just like in the insurance world… diabetes is diabetes on a checklist I suspect

So, I’m really curious as to what covid-related health problems move you up in the line. I’m behind 52,900 others in my county, despite my age (74) and covid-related health problems. They don’t ask what, or how many, covid-related health problems one has…it’s just a yes/no check box.

I’m hoping I can get the vaccine by late spring, but who knows?

@Terry4, So many people said this vaccine was impossible. But, many people, also, assured us that it was…from the start.

To what degree do we believe that this was ‘impossible’ simply because people are not motivated to do the things that are possible and don’t bother to do them? Granted there was worldwide, extremely high interest/motivation/financing to fix this situation.

To what degree is that interest/motivation/financing lacking under normal circumstances where only a small proportion of the population is sick?

Quite possible, especially since relatively speaking our numbers aren’t that high compared to T2 (I suspect if prevalence rates were reversed, they would definitely specify). That said, I recently participated in an NIH survey where they specified T2 only when listing conditions increasing risk, so who knows.