02-16-2021, 01:46 PM
I hope EVERYONE understands this is California moving chess pieces around. The state has been oversupplying the more populous areas at the cost of the less populous areas (in terms of vaccine doses per capita).
For the week of 2/15, CA received 30K more doses than the week of 2/8. The federal government has been squirreling lots of doses away for the Federal Pharmacy program -- CVS et al came on line a week ago with doses that don't flow through the state. And now, FEMA is supplying separate doses to the Oakland mass vaccination site. (I had thought federal doses were being supplied by the federal government for some of the SoCal mass vaccination sites.)
It isn't a matter of prioritizing the 2nd doses this week. Future 2nd doses should always be prioritized. The lack of first doses to use is a consequence of prior vaccination rates. What bothers me is that I don't see that L.A. is saying that there are sufficient 2nd doses. By my math, L.A. only has 53,600 2nd doses for the week. Do you think that L.A. only gave 53,600 first doses for the last week of January?
For the week of 2/15, CA received 30K more doses than the week of 2/8. The federal government has been squirreling lots of doses away for the Federal Pharmacy program -- CVS et al came on line a week ago with doses that don't flow through the state. And now, FEMA is supplying separate doses to the Oakland mass vaccination site. (I had thought federal doses were being supplied by the federal government for some of the SoCal mass vaccination sites.)
It isn't a matter of prioritizing the 2nd doses this week. Future 2nd doses should always be prioritized. The lack of first doses to use is a consequence of prior vaccination rates. What bothers me is that I don't see that L.A. is saying that there are sufficient 2nd doses. By my math, L.A. only has 53,600 2nd doses for the week. Do you think that L.A. only gave 53,600 first doses for the last week of January?