Fla Covid vaccines

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If we had unlimited supply of doses and ability to get them all into arms tomorrow...you have a point. Why leave behind one group who will still suffer and cost us for medical care.

The big reason Israel is way ahead in vaccination is they are scheduled to have enough doses by the end of March for the entire population (setting the whole Palestinian situation which is arguably not good public policy but really only side tracks this discussion onto unrelated issues)...so they are just vaccinating like mad without a lot of consideration to risk groups. That means they can do it very quickly. No other country has enough doses, so that's not a repeatable approach.

Unfortunately, all the other countries of the world have a limited supply. The original approach in the USA was a much more refined selection process but they found it bogged the process down so much that it caused more harm than good, so they simplified in order to speed up the process (ie: better to get 10 moderate risk individuals vaccinated over 1 high risk individual...plus the high risk individual can still get vaccinated).

So with the current standard of 65+ or pre-existing conditions, there is no public health policy advantage to incorporating Canadians at this time when there are still far more individuals in that pool than available doses. There is no conflict with public health policy until the Citizens in this risk pool wanting vaccination run out. This will likely continue until spring.

As indicated by the time it comes down to a healthy 35yr old citizen vs a 75yr old sickly Canadian...the Canadian snowbirds will be heading home and the supply will likely be high enough that a few stray Canadians won't be a big issue. There really won't be a "dilemma", at least not in numbers big enough to matter one way or the other in terms of public health policy.

As far as the closure of the Canadian border, that was primarily driven by Canada. It was not something where the US took the lead and Canada responded. Potentially encouraging Canadians to travel to Florida because they can get the vaccine sooner is not good public health policy for Florida or the US.

I see no disagreement (for once ). Vaccinate based on risk. Max out your supplies in that group, and I have no problem putting citizens at the front of the line as long as we're talking about same risk group.

As I said, if that is the approach, you'll never pit a 35yr old citizen vs a 75yr old sickly Canadian. The only way that would happen is if they're not following a public health approach. ALL 75-year-olds should be vaccinated before ANY healthy 35-year-olds, regardless of citizenship.

But this would be a non-issue if the USA was keeping recreational travelers out, as per the agreement. Completely agree, it was, and still is, driven by Canada. But the US agreed. You can't say we bullied your government into doing this. That would suggest Canada is way more powerful than we all know it is.

Hmmm, I wonder if there will be a change now that there's a new Prez in charge. He seems to appreciate the value of international agreements and cooperation more than the previous fellow.

[NaClyDog]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I see no disagreement (for once ). Vaccinate based on risk. Max out your supplies in that group, and I have no problem putting citizens at the front of the line as long as we're talking about same risk group.

As I said, if that is the approach, you'll never pit a 35yr old citizen vs a 75yr old sickly Canadian. The only way that would happen is if they're not following a public health approach. ALL 75-year-olds should be vaccinated before ANY healthy 35-year-olds, regardless of citizenship.

But this would be a non-issue if the USA was keeping recreational travelers out, as per the agreement. Completely agree, it was, and still is, driven by Canada. But the US agreed. You can't say we bullied your government into doing this. That would suggest Canada is way more powerful than we all know it is.

Hmmm, I wonder if there will be a change now that there's a new Prez in charge. He seems to appreciate the value of international agreements and cooperation more than the previous fellow.

Mike, why does it have to be on the US to keep us out? Shouldn't we, as Canadians, own up to our own responsibilities and stay put when our government asks us to?


I have a problem with our citizens breaking our rules and getting in line in front of a vulnerable population somewhere else. The adult and civilized thing to do would have been to stay home like the vast majority of us.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by NaClyDog

Mike, why does it have to be on the US to keep us out? Shouldn't we, as Canadians, own up to our own responsibilities and stay put when our government asks us to?

I have a problem with our citizens breaking our rules and getting in line in front of a vulnerable population somewhere else. The adult and civilized thing to do would have been to stay home like the vast majority of us.

Completely agree, people should not be traveling unnecessarily. But as we know, being irresponsible is not a characteristic unique to any one nationality.

The problem is, neither Canada nor the USA controls who departs our countries. We don't demand people clear out of our countries the way many countries do. So it becomes very difficult to manage the outflow.

In theory we could do it, but it would require setting up a whole new bureaucratic and legal infrastructure. I doubt there's an apatite to do so, but if the USA demanded it, I bet we'd find a way.

[Woodland Hills]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Do you lock your front door at night to keep trespassers from stealing your food, money, meds, etc...?

No I don’t. Why should I? It has been over 50 years since anything was stolen from me. I lock up when we leave the boat overnight though, but I leave a key with the marina in case of emergency.

[AA3JY]

Add Sarasota & Manatee counties..

https://www.wfla.com/news/local-news...id-19-vaccine/

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But this would be a non-issue if the USA was keeping recreational travelers out, as per the agreement. Completely agree, it was, and still is, driven by Canada. But the US agreed. You can't say we bullied your government into doing this. That would suggest Canada is way more powerful than we all know it is.

Hmmm, I wonder if there will be a change now that there's a new Prez in charge. He seems to appreciate the value of international agreements and cooperation more than the previous fellow.

I wouldn't call it an agreement or bullying. It was more of a tit-for-tat. Canada threatened to close it's border to US citizens, so the US responded in kind but never really had it's heart in it.

As far as change with the new administration...I'm waiting on baited breath. I don't think it has anything to do with valuing agreements or cooperation but playing at politics (on both sides of the border) but I'm betting "Follow the Science" is suddenly forgotten and the new unofficial mantra will be "Follow the Politics".

I'm also expecting at least in the US media, the virus coverage turn a lot more positive...even if nothing changes. For example, the media is lapping up the VOW to have 100million vaccinations in the first 100 days...they don't seem to realize (or do they?) that that as of yesterday, the US 7 day average was in the mid-900k range and climbing with 2 more vaccines projected to be approved within 2-3 weeks basically doubling supply. 100 million in the first 100 days to my mind would imply an utter failure with a system primed to put out 1.5-2.0 million per day. On top of that, reports from a week ago were setting up the future story with the new administration advisors claiming they aren't sure we can even do 100 million. I'm sure that will result in stories of the spectacular success of the new administration when they hit 150-200million in the first 100 days (basically the same trajectory as if they do nothing)

Forgive me if I'm a little cynical.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

A question for our Canadian friends:
In a world where public health policy does not consider borders, citizenship or costs: if the public health experts indicate getting the 65+ and pre-existing conditions population vaccinated first is the best policy for the world as a whole.

After getting all Canadians in that risk pool vaccinated, are you going to lobby your govt to ship all Canadian paid for doses to other countries until the entire world population 65+ and with pre-existing conditions is vaccinated before any more doses are given to Canadian Citizens?
Follow up question: How do you think that would go over politically if your govt decided to do this?

Good question(s). I haven’t seem any polling, about Canadian attitudes, on those questions.
FWIW:
Canada’s investments to support equitable access to COVID-19 tests, treatments and vaccines ~ Global Affairs Canada, December 14, 2020
"Since February 2020, the Government of Canada has announced that it will commit nearly $1.6 billion to the global response to COVID-19. This includes more than $865 million in funding for the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator to support equitable access to COVID-19 tests, treatments and vaccines ...
... To date, Canada has announced a commitment of more than $865 million to support low- and middle-income countries to access COVID-19 vaccines, tests and treatments through the ACT-Accelerator. This includes today’s announcement of $485 million for antibody treatments and in support of the ACT-Accelerator’s health systems connector and vaccine pillars. It also includes:
- a contribution of $220 million, announced on September 25, 2020, to support the procurement of vaccine doses for low- and middle-income countries through the Gavi COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC)
- a contribution of $120 million in support of the ACT-Accelerator, announced on June 27, 2020
- a contribution of $40 million to the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovation announced on April 5, 2020
- a previous initial contribution of up to $31 million to the Gavi COVAX AMC
Canada is currently the second-largest financial supporter of the Gavi COVAX AMC, which will enable 92 low- and middle-income countries to access vaccines with the support of official development assistance financing ...”
More ➥ https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affa...-vaccines.html

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Personally, I have no problem with a country prioritizing its own citizens. This too makes sense. But again, if you're going to allow non-essential visitors, then to achieve the public health benefit of vaccination, it is best to give it to everyone.

IMHO s/b "residents" not "citizens". And "residents" includes those legal and otherwise.

Virus doesn't care what the paperwork says. A person in the area is just as at risk, able to spread it, and able to consume a hospital bed regardless of the paperwork. So the risk reduction strategy should account for that.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Does not Canada have lots of illegal citizens?/ USA has at least 20000000 of them . Biden says he will make the all of them legal citizens and voters by his 'orders.'

He says nothing of the kind. Several of your posts are either deliberate lies or you are simply deluded.

[Chotu]

All I know is I miss going to Canada in the summers.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So why would they give it to non-citizens?

because non-citizens are just as able to spread it, catch it, and consume hospital resources from it

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Following public health approach, you'd vaccinate ALL at-risk people first, regardless of citizenship. It's not citizen vs non-citizen. It's higher risk vs lower risk.

Start with the most at-risk, and work your way down. If you want to further subdivide the risk groups into citizen vs non-citizen, that could be done.

After seeing the debacle made by the states and outgoing administration at the federal level, and thinking about the LOE and complexity involved, I'm not sure I agree with that strategy.

I'd have focused teams going to assisted living facilities. For everyone else I'd rather see massive drive through programs at sports stadium, convention centers, outlet malls and so on with the goal of just getting as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible rather than dealing with the complexities and logistics of all these different categories.

ATM the categorization seems to be slowing down the number of vaccinations given, and that is the important thing to achieving something close to herd immunity. And frankly, while older and sicker folks might be more "at risk" in terms of being affected by the virus, younger more active folks are much more likely to be exposed to it or expose others if they have it, simply due to being more active and mixing with more people.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Do you lock your front door at night to keep trespassers from stealing your food, money, meds, etc...?

False Equivalence. Look it up.

[NaClyDog]

Originally Posted by Chotu

All I know is I miss going to Canada in the summers.

You will be welcome with open arms once this pandemic ends!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Good question(s). I haven’t seem any polling, about Canadian attitudes, on those questions.
FWIW:
Canada’s investments to support equitable access to COVID-19 tests, treatments and vaccines ~ Global Affairs Canada, December 14, 2020
"Since February 2020, the Government of Canada has announced that it will commit nearly $1.6 billion to the global response to COVID-19. This includes more than $865 million in funding for the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator to support equitable access to COVID-19 tests, treatments and vaccines ...
... To date, Canada has announced a commitment of more than $865 million to support low- and middle-income countries to access COVID-19 vaccines, tests and treatments through the ACT-Accelerator. This includes today’s announcement of $485 million for antibody treatments and in support of the ACT-Accelerator’s health systems connector and vaccine pillars. It also includes:
- a contribution of $220 million, announced on September 25, 2020, to support the procurement of vaccine doses for low- and middle-income countries through the Gavi COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC)
- a contribution of $120 million in support of the ACT-Accelerator, announced on June 27, 2020
- a contribution of $40 million to the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovation announced on April 5, 2020
- a previous initial contribution of up to $31 million to the Gavi COVAX AMC
Canada is currently the second-largest financial supporter of the Gavi COVAX AMC, which will enable 92 low- and middle-income countries to access vaccines with the support of official development assistance financing ...”
More ➥ https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affa...-vaccines.html

Good info but you missed the main thrust of the question.

It wasn't to imply Canadians won't help out poor countries.

All the wealthy countries have programs to help poor countries...and that's the right thing to do. If you look at any of the wealthier countries, you can pull up info on similar programs. No one is suggesting it's not both morally and in their own self interest, a good idea to get the entire world population vaccinated...but I've yet to see any country not prioritize the doses that they can get their hands on for citizens and/or residents first. Later when their own are taken care, they will be willing to help out other countries.

But there were some of the posts implying an ethical responsibility to vaccinate non-resident foreign nationals ahead of citizens for the "greater good". As an abstract theory or when it's not impacting you or your country, it's easy to say yes because it has no impact on you or your country. At the same time, you get to feel good about being a morally upright person.

The question was phrased as a gut check to see if you are saying what you think you should say or do you truly believe it. Are you really willing to go to your politicians and say ship what we have to other countries because in the big picture it will do more good for the world as a whole rather than give it to my adult kids who have a lesser need?

I think if we are being honest, it will be the very rare person who is willing to take that step...and the even rarer politician willing to act on it.

And this isn't all bad. A big part of why we have a number of highly viable vaccines in large scale production is due to the self interest of various countries. The wealthy countries threw a lot of money at development and committed to buy huge numbers of vaccines that weren't even ready for preliminary testing, so they could get fast access. This accelerated the development by leaps and bounds. We are way ahead of where anyone realistically thought we would be 10 months ago when optimistic predictions were 2-3yrs before a single low effectiveness vaccine was available. The poor countries may be second in line but as a result, they are still looking at a much quicker access due to the selfishness of the wealthy countries.