Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Boston: limousine, vs., store)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by cb2008

That seems logical. But that's not what the site said when I checked last. You are eligible to make appointments and get vaccines starting the 18th. May be after midnight.

This is correct. The wording in several locations is tricky, but the announcement is that starting tomorrow, people over age 65 (or with 2+ medical conditions) can make appointments and begin to receive the vaccine. So today, if you're 67 years old, you technically can't make an appointment - even for March 1 if it's available. Starting tomorrow, you could make an appointment for your first shot, even on the same day.

They're also making 77,000 additional appointments available for reservation tomorrow morning (I'm assuming as soon as the clock strikes 12).

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by jtolpin

I misunderstood.

If you are under 65, and have 2 issues, are you eligible?

And how do they check when you get there, if you are obese, smoking, T2D, etc. Is it the honor system?

Disclaimer: I got vaccine #1 and #2 is in another week.

Starting tomorrow, Group 2 of Phase 2 are eligible - Group 2: Individuals age 65+, individuals with 2+ certain medical conditions, and/or residents and staff of low income and affordable senior housing.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ma...hases#phase-2-

[wolfgang239]

Lowell General has spots available for people in the next phase, my folks (under 75) just booked and saw dates as early as tomorrow when looking around 3pm. For 2 together they had to go out to later next week.

[charolastra00]

I'll be refreshing tonight at midnight to see if I can get in.



There doesn't seem to be any kind of check to see if you *actually* have 2 or more comorbidities, so I'll report back on how that works (if I can get in).

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

I'm not suggesting ticky-tack fines because an individual correctly identifies proportional risk (e.g. walking a dog mask-less in a medium density public park).

For every very public gym-standoff, there were and continue to be hundreds of smaller scale 'super-spreader' events which seemingly have no adequate legal mechanism to slow, short of town admin and PDs deciding to pull certain levers such as utility access.

For example, at the very moment case number were going parabolic this winter and my ED contacts were loading bodies into refrigeration trucks, the LDS church in my community was meeting with near zero mask compliance on a biweekly basis. Town admin had no political will to address the issue suggesting a free-market solution is to simply avoid that church. Normally I would agree, but when community spread is a societal problem I believe free-market solutions are not the best tool for the task. You need enforced accountability when groups are willing to ignore all guidance in the name of politics (this swings both ways).

Now, I also place blame our healthcare leadership who greatly confused the public early on by dismissing the efficacy of mask wearing as a thinly veiled supply chain 'solution'. Non-transparent actions like this introduce plenty of runway for conspiracies and distrust. Sweden's current situation is a great example of public health communication gone wrong.

I wouldn't necessarily conclude it was based on free market principles, but rather that the government would have a pretty heavy burden in establishing that targeting a protected class religious group was in the name of a compelling government interest in avoiding some harm; a harm that would be nearly impossible to establish. This becomes even more ludicrous when you have public comments (printed in establishment media) by health officials basically declaring that any potential public health concerns from BLM rioters and/or protestors were essentially offset by the greater need for social justice (along with a many other hypocrisies propagated by public officials of all stripes). Good luck with all that.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

I wouldn't necessarily conclude it was based on free market principles, but rather that the government would have a pretty heavy burden in establishing that targeting a protected class religious group was in the name of a compelling government interest in avoiding some harm; a harm that would be nearly impossible to establish. This becomes even more ludicrous when you have public comments (printed in establishment media) by health officials basically declaring that any potential public health concerns from BLM rioters and/or protestors were essentially offset by the greater need for social justice (along with a many other hypocrisies propagated by public officials of all stripes). Good luck with all that.

That part from last summer--I agree with you. It strains the credibility of public health officials to take sides on social issues.

However, let's face it--the BLM protestors were mostly masked. And if you recall, Baker offered free testing for the protestors and the results showed no significant increase in positivity rate amongst them, vs. what we had in the population at large (at the time).

When we've seen protests from the right wing, it's been exactly the opposite--almost zero masking. Hence the more vocal opposition to holding all those campaign rallies last summer & fall.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

I'll be refreshing tonight at midnight to see if I can get in.



There doesn't seem to be any kind of check to see if you *actually* have 2 or more comorbidities, so I'll report back on how that works (if I can get in).

Boston Globe today:

"The state is not requiring people to provide medical documentation or proof that they have any of the aforementioned conditions in order to receive early vaccine priority. Instead, eligible recipients will be asked to fill out an online attestation form confirming they meet the criteria. In other words, the state is relying on the honor system."

Full article is linked here...in case you subscribe.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/02/...covid-vaccine/

[porterhouse]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

In other words, the state is relying on the honor system.

Good luck with that. Get ready for 2 months of being annoyed with line jumpers who have justified it somehow in their own mind.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Good luck with that. Get ready for 2 months of being annoyed with line jumpers who have justified it somehow in their own mind.

I agree, I thought the same. I personally couldn't do it ethically, but others will. The way to avoid this, given HIPAA, would be to have the medical groups (e.g. Atrius Health, etc.) contact their patients directly with some kind of registration code, which they would receive only if medical records support the existence of the comorbidities.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Good luck with that. Get ready for 2 months of being annoyed with line jumpers who have justified it somehow in their own mind.

I meaan getting as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible will benefit everybody. This isn't exactly like cutting the line at a grocery store or at Disney World.