Northam to use vaccine to reward supporters

Uncategorized 1 Minute

COVID vaccine distribution Virginia

Sometimes I wish Northam were not so predictable.

The CDC recommendations for vaccine distribution allocate the first doses to healthcare workers in contact with COVID patients and to Long Term Care Facility residents and staff.

Fine.

Then the CDC recommends distribution to the most vulnerable adults, those over 65 and over 55 with co-morbidities. But there Virginia differs.

Northam’s plan inserts “Essential Workers” ahead of high risk adults. Who are essential workers?

Public Employee Union members including teachers, first responders, transportation workers. Pretty much everyone who works for the government.

Vaccination of high risk adults could be pushed back months depending on supply.

So much for ‘follow the science’ and having a doctor as governor, it’s all about political payback.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

49 thoughts on “Northam to use vaccine to reward supporters”

  1. I’ve read and listened to this debate and found it to be more a matter of professional differences of opinion rather than some nefarious “payoff”. I’ll look into it more, but it doesn’t seem an unreasonable position to take.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. You don’t see it as unreasonable that young, healthy teachers and other government employees who have a negligible risk of death if infected will be vaccinated ahead of elderly citizens who are far more likely to die?

      Like

      Reply

      1. There are a lot of teachers who are over 50 and may have health issues.

        The data on whether children can be contagious is mixed. Realistically we cannot force adults to commingle with young people in closed, indoor environments without affording them protection.

        And then expect them to go home among family members, young or old.

        Giuliani, Mr. “people don’t die of this disease anymore.” , boasted about his celebrity status warpath regards to receiving drugs that are not available to most of us. Then saying it’s curable.

        That might be news to the 3000 per day death toll. Or the 100,000 plus in hospitals struggling on available treatment rather than hard to get cocktails.

        Certainly top leaders like the president, cabinet members, and others whose demise would create instability in leadership should get what works best regardless of universal availability.

        Rudy, unfortunately bragged about his celebrity status as the reason for access to rarer drugs. Certainly not what you want a high level confidant of the president to say when the rest of us are struggling through this mess.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  2. Why are they called “essential workers”?

    Perhaps because they are on the frontline and most exposed as part of their jobs. There absence would be most impactful on the rest of us. And on the economy.

    I guess there is no perfect solution. But it seems not long ago that some pols were suggesting that frontline workers in healthcare who tested positive but didn’t feel too bad should go back to work. Now that is for nurses and doctors. But as the winter approaches, can we afford to lose other essential folks. Particularly teachers who are now under great pressure to go to work. If we are going to require them to enter closed buildings with thousands of students for hours on end, might not immunity be a big deal?

    You and I, along with others who can or are retired can hunker down for a few more months.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. No, we can’t. As students return to class and the infection becomes more widespread in the population you cannot avoid dealing with, the hunkering down that worked last month is no longer going to cut it.

      There is no good reason that the guys on the pothole filling team need to be vaccinated before people like you and me, who live with critically vulnerable people or children.

      Like

      Reply

      1. YES WE CAN!

        I see this situation as an argument that can go either way as we ALL want to be at the head of the line.

        However, I believe older people (even with underlying medical issues) are, for the most part, people who can more easily hunker down if needed for a while longer.

        Most of us don’t HAVE to go to work outside our homes. Our checks from investments, Social Security, etc. will still show up. I’m far from being rich, but I can easily stay in my home and not put myself in dangerous situations. The medications I depend on land in my mailbox. My groceries can be delivered or picked up safely & easily.

        I’m not going to throw a “No, we can’t” temper tantrum because Northam needs my patience for a little longer.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

  3. Bwaahhh! Me! Me! Me!

    We “elderly citizens” who are not in a care situation can hunker down a little longer. Our risk of death from the virus is zero if we remain vigilant about staying away from people. “Essential workers” – whoever they are or whatever they do – have no choice but to interact with others. That puts them at greater risk than you or I. And, being actively involved with other people, they are the ones most likely to be spreaders should they come down with it. The idea that this rational approach is some sort of political payoff is, with all due respect, laughable.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. As perspective:

      Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death or curbing the spread of the virus and returning to some semblance of normalcy is the highest priority. “If your goal is to maximize the preservation of human life, then you would bias the vaccine toward older Americans,” Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, said recently. “If your goal is to reduce the rate of infection, then you would prioritize essential workers. So it depends what impact you’re trying to achieve.”

      A major point of concern is the perception that the Federal definition of “essential” is too broad.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. You’re not that naive. This is a payoff to the teacher’s union.

        Schools have been closed for 8 months now. Waiting one more month would not make a major difference.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “Schools have been closed for 8 months now. ”

          Not really. The public schools in Chesapeake have stayed in person for quite a while now. I believe it is the only one in the 757 that has, but I could be mistaken.

          A payoff to the union? Delusional. You’re telling me that my daughter should not get vaccinated but still show up and teach (If VB Schools would figure out the right answer to getting the kids back in the classroom), possibly exposing herself to the virus and then take it home to her husband and children, and potentially my wife and I (of the cancer survivor crowd). Teachers should be next in line after elderly in facilities and the workers there, along with those working at hospitals caring for those who have the virus as well as those who require hospitalization for other things.

          Teachers union is a “right to work state”? LOL!

          Like

          Reply

          1. What makes COVID an emergency?

            Would it be an emergency if those who caught it felt bad for a week and missed work? No, It is an emergency because people die.

            But nearly all those deaths come from the small group of people over 65, or over 55 with complicating conditions.

            So, if you protect that group most likely to die, you still have a problem, but a manageable one, and not an emergency.

            Ask your daughter what she would prefer, knowing you were safe from COVID from all sources, or just from her bringing it home.

            Would she trade being ill for a week for you and your wife being safe from death?

            Of course she would.

            The first step should be to protect that part of the population which is likely to become seriously ill or die. Once that is done, everything else is manageable.

            Like

          2. “Of course she would.”

            Don’t EVER presume to know what my daughter does, would do or thinks. She isn’t a puppet like you and the rest of the Trumpkins.

            …” if you protect that group most likely to die, “…

            THAT would be people of color, regardless of location or age.

            Like

          3. I was presuming your daughter to be a decent human being.

            While Blacks have a higher fatality rate than whites within each age group, age is overwhelmingly a larger factor.

            Like

          4. “What makes COVID an emergency?”

            So almost 300,000 deaths and well over 14 million confirmed cases does not constitute and ’emergency” in your mind?

            Like

          5. Of course, but consider that the seasonal flu kills 12 t0 60K every year. If we could, within a month, reduce the rate of death from COVID from 300K per year to 30k per year, it would not be an emergency(though it would still be a problem)

            Vaccinating those over 65 first would accomplish that within a month.

            Like

      2. “Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death or curbing the spread of the virus and returning to some semblance of normalcy is the highest priority”

        I’ve been giving that some thought and I think Gottlieb is wrong. I think the road to returning to normalcy is by preventing death.

        Would we accept shutdowns and closures if the death toll for COVID was less than the seasonal flu? If all that happened was that people might miss a week of work if they got sick, would we close restaurants and theaters?

        Not likely

        But over 90% of the deaths from COVID come from that vulnerable part of the population over 65 or over 55 with comorbidities. If we protected that small portion of the population, the death toll would fall by 90%, to a level below that of the flu.

        Because COVID is lethal to such a small and identifiable part of the population, protecting that sector allows everything to reopen.

        Like

        Reply

    2. So, all of Northam’s exhortations to ‘follow the science’ and conform the CDC recommendations were just a sham?

      The CDC does not place teachers ahead of the elderly. Few, if any, teachers will die if they wait a month for the elderly to be immunized, but a lot of older people will die waiting on them and the other government union workers who elbow their way to the front of the line.

      Like

      Reply

        1. Certainly Northam’s self righteous hypocrisy is a part of it. After using the CDC as a club to beat down criticism for months, he suddenly wants to go his own way and reward his political supporters.

          That, and the fact that my grandchildren, who kiss me goodnight every evening, go back to school in February.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Two of my 5 grandsons and 1 of my 5 kids (40+ years, but “kid” forever) has had the virus so I know how personal it can be. However, your ascribing the decision to a political motivation just because you disagree is, to be tactful, a stretch.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. I don’t see any other possible reason.

            There are lots of Virginia families in which children have close contact with older family members. Vaccinating teachers so you can open the schools before the elderly grandparents are protected is right up there with Cuomo putting COVID patients in nursing homes.

            Like

          3. “I don’t see any other possible reason.“

            I sincerely hope I don’t ever get to a place where my imagination is that limited….

            Liked by 2 people

          6. But I thought it was OK for the kids to be back in the classroom now, as per CPS. You seem to want it your way for yours and the rest be damned. If it safe for my daughter to go back to the classroom then it is safe for YOUR grandchildren to go back to the classroom NOW.

            Like

          7. It is not safe for any children to go back to in person schooling at full capacity until the vulnerable population has been immunized.

            But once the vulnerable population is protected, a lot of things can go back to normal. COVID is only a reason for closures so long as people are dying of it at a greater rate than the seasonal flu.

            Emergency measures are only justified as long as there is an emergency

            Like

        2. Northam could wake up tomorrow, proclaim himself a follower of the Walter Williams (RIP) school of economic thought and try to implement that school and Don would still have an issue with it.

          Like

          Reply

      2. Where teachers go in the priority list is not a matter of science.
        Public policy is a balancing act with many competing values and interests. Get over it.

        Personally, sitting here safely at home, I am fine with the people who I depend on and who must interact with others as they provide my groceries, my electricity, police my streets or collect my garbage or whatever being given the first available doses. You obviously are not fine with it. There is no argument that will change your mind. I will not even try but . . .”union workers?” Good grief. What is wrong with you?

        But, I will add that your stated concerns about older people dying because of these priorities rings completely hollow from a supporter of the person whose incompetence, indifference, lies and twisted priorities have got us to where we are today – 3,046 deaths just yesterday.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  4. RE: “So much for ‘follow the science’ and having a doctor as governor, it’s all about political payback.”

    So it seems. If we’re going to apply the principles of triage (see Wikipedia) in distribution of the vaccine, it should be solely on the basis of age and medical condition. Even healthcare workers as a class would be ineligible.

    Both Northam and the CDC appear to be politicizing the virus.

    Like

    Reply

    1. This pandemic has been politicized since the regime surrogates said it was like the common cold.

      #LIBERATE was added later as “common cold” took a back seat to funerals.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. RE: “This pandemic has been politicized since the regime surrogates said it was like the common cold.”

        So what? That doesn’t make more politicization acceptable.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Uh, that is why I said #LIBERATE. That was later after the common cold hoax.

          That would be your “more politicization”, still unacceptable. And still by Trump and friends.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        1. The question was who politicized the pandemic.

          You might contend that it was the media and CDC or Fauci or the Democrats .

          I believe the media and the Democrats were ringing some alarm bells. What did Trump do with regards to informing us?

          Who insulted mask wearers? Who insulted governors after they were told to deal with it on their own?

          Why do think mask wearing is even a political issue? And make no mistake, it is no question that it is one. Maybe a bit less now that people are dying in deep red zones.

          Come on Don, your blinders are worse than mine.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          2. The sad part is that by the time it was apparent that mask wearing was good, it was still played for politics by Trump.

            How was the pandemic politicized before? Simply put, every alarm bell by media and Democrats what’s dismissed by the regime and its surrogates.

            But it is obvious that your mind will never accept that as anything other than criticizing Trump.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. The jackass is the effing President of the United States. He is doing his best to destroy this country. What you call an “obsession” is very legitimate concern for the damage he does every day. Far worse than any so-called obsession, is your total inability to even acknowledge simple facts if Trump tells you to believe some alternative.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. OK, you tell me what Trump not pushing maks wearing has to do with Northam’s choice to give teachers and other government employees priority for vaccination over the medically vulnerable, contrary to CDC guidelines?

            That another issue entirely.

            Like

          2. It’s ALL about supposed politicization. You didn’t jump trump when he wouldn’t advocate (not mandate, but just advocate) for nationwide mask wearing. Now you take issue with Northam’s vaccine plan.

            You don’t have nay mirrors at the compound, do you?

            Like

          3. If you look back in this forum you will see that I repeatedly said that though Trump was often correct that he did not need a mask in a certain situation, he should have worn one anyway to set an example.

            I have also said, in other forums, that it was the fault of people on my side who made masks a political issue that the election went the way it did. I have lost a lot of friends over that issue.

            Like

          4. But you deny the politcalization of both? You claim it for Northam but deny it for Trump. Not only did Trump not promote the idea, he sided with those who thought mask mandates were an affront to personal liberty. And YOU gave him a pass on it, just like you do everything else. Does the phrase “He spoke carelessly” ring any bells?

            The idea that getting teachers immunized so we CAN get ALL students back in the classroom appears to be a good way forward. -IMO. Immunized folks don’t catch or shed the virus, correct? That is the idea of the herd immunity concept.

            Like

Leave a comment