Daviewolf83 said:

---

Here is today's update for vaccines in NC from the Bloomberg data tracker and the CDC data tracker:

Vaccine Doses Distributed: 498,450
Vaccine Doses Administered: 123,598
% of Available Doses Administered: 24.8% (Declined from 27.9%)*

*Supply increased by 103,350 doses reported on Monday and doses administered increased by 13,338 doses, reported on Tuesday on the NCDHHS website. This is why the percentage of available doses administered declined.

Based on what is happening in other states, there are likely some lags in reporting of the LTC vaccinations by CVS and Walgreens, so the percentage is likely not as low as I posted yesterday (8% of available vaccines used that are allocated to LTC facilities).

As far as other states, here are the current Top 10 with regards to percentage of available doses administered as reported by the Bloomberg Vaccine Data Tracker:

South Dakota (64.5%)
New Hampshire (56.0%)
North Dakota (54.8%)
Connecticut (54.7%)
Tennessee (51.5%)
Maine (50.7%)
Iowa (50.0%)
Ohio (48.8%)
Rhode Island (47.1%)
Vermont (47.0%)

I excluded the District of Columbia from the list of states. They would be in the Top 10 with 47.9% of available doses used.

North Carolina's percentage of vaccine allocation administered ranks them in the bottom 10 with regards to the vaccinations, just behind Alabama with 24.9% of available vaccines administered.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Assume that distribution is weighed heavily because of the focus on HCW and it will go up quickly for 75+. Hopefully.

---

Actually, it is not due to this, but you would think so. Some doses have been reserved for use in LTC facilities and they are not available for use by healthcare and the general public. The issue is Walgreens and CVS seem to be slow in ramping up vaccinations in these LTC facilities.

---

That seems criminal that they have Federal contracts and weren't prepared to distribute the moment they were approved for EUA. How long have they had to think about what their approach would be?

---

It is weird how uneven the response has been.

There's a lot to like about Trump's Warp Speed WRT vaccine development.

Multiple viable vaccines were safely developed in record time then when it came time to push them out to hundreds of millions the feds were like "we just think Walgreens and CVS should handle this."

Their distribution plan has been as bad as their vaccine development plan was good.

---

I think the Feds picked Walgreens and CVS, given their experience in the past with the annual flu vaccines. I am not sure why they would have picked them to vaccinate the LTC facilities based on their area of expertise. As I mentioned in another post, it is being reported that the CVS and Walgreens vaccinations are not up to date from a reporting standpoint. Hopefully, this will get fixed soon. Other than the LTC facility vaccinations, the federal government really has no responsibility to get everyone vaccinated. The responsibility for each state is up to the governors and their state's healthcare organizations.

As to the state's response, it has been equally as bad. Mandy was on television last night saying each health department in each NC county is responsible for vaccinations of the general public and implied it is not being coordinated by the state at all. She said (I am paraphrasing) that she and her department are there to help if called upon, but the state is looking to the health departments to get people vaccinated in the counties. It was not a very reassuring message to be sending to people and seems to be a way to deflect blame when things go wrong with the vaccinations.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Assume that distribution is weighed heavily because of the focus on HCW and it will go up quickly for 75+. Hopefully.

---

Actually, it is not due to this, but you would think so. Some doses have been reserved for use in LTC facilities and they are not available for use by healthcare and the general public. The issue is Walgreens and CVS seem to be slow in ramping up vaccinations in these LTC facilities.

---

That seems criminal that they have Federal contracts and weren't prepared to distribute the moment they were approved for EUA. How long have they had to think about what their approach would be?

---

It is weird how uneven the response has been.

There's a lot to like about Trump's Warp Speed WRT vaccine development.

Multiple viable vaccines were safely developed in record time then when it came time to push them out to hundreds of millions the feds were like "we just think Walgreens and CVS should handle this."

Their distribution plan has been as bad as their vaccine development plan was good.

---

I think the Feds picked Walgreens and CVS, given their experience in the past with the annual flu vaccines. I am not sure why they would have picked them to vaccinate the LTC facilities based on their area of expertise. As I mentioned in another post, it is being reported that the CVS and Walgreens vaccinations are not up to date from a reporting standpoint. Hopefully, this will get fixed soon. Other than the LTC facility vaccinations, the federal government really has no responsibility to get everyone vaccinated. The responsibility for each state is up to the governors and their state's healthcare organizations.

As to the state's response, it has been equally as bad. Mandy was on television last night saying each health department in each NC county is responsible for vaccinations of the general public and implied it is not being coordinated by the state at all. She said (I am paraphrasing) that she and her department are there to help if called upon, but the state is looking to the health departments to get people vaccinated in the counties. It was not a very reassuring message to be sending to people and seems to be a way to deflect blame when things go wrong with the vaccinations.

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Short of sending out the army to vaccinate the country, which probably wouldn't be well received, I'm not sure what the federal government could've done differently. Even if they were in charge, they would presumably still be subcontracting out to local hospitals, CVS, etc. to administer it, and I feel the same problems would still exist.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

I read an interesting article published by Bloomberg News today on the disjointed virus rollout. It has some very good insight into the complications with rolling out a vaccine. Some of the comments echo what we have all been discussing and thinking on this thread. I found it interesting that while the US is not where they want to be, many other countries, including France, Canada, Italy, and Spain, are doing worse.

I thought the following quote from the article helps to summarize the situation:

"Bloomberg's reporting shows missed opportunities at every level of government, from a laissez-faire approach in Washington to local hospitals where harried health-care workers were left trying to make last-minute decisions without guidance."

You can read the full article at this link: US vaccine rollout hindered by faulty coordination, messaging

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think your local situation is an excellent example of why rollout should not be handled by federal government. The federal government has given suggestions on how to roll out the vaccinations. The local and state governments should adopt and adjust so as to fit their constituents. The federal government should not be depended upon to manage roll out for the 50 states and thousands of counties.

---

I agree and disagree. Typically and in most situations, I would say, yes, limit the federal government influence. However, in this situation, the federal government has really not given at least our local area any suggestions. I am good friends with the vaccine director at our health department and they are coming up with all plans themselves (according to her). They were sent the vaccines and told the state would decide whom to give them to. There were no other suggestions (again, according to her).

There has to be a more efficient, simpler way to mass distribute the vaccines and then maybe there isn't.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think your local situation is an excellent example of why rollout should not be handled by federal government. The federal government has given suggestions on how to roll out the vaccinations. The local and state governments should adopt and adjust so as to fit their constituents. The federal government should not be depended upon to manage roll out for the 50 states and thousands of counties.

---

I agree and disagree. Typically and in most situations, I would say, yes, limit the federal government influence. However, in this situation, the federal government has really not given at least our local area any suggestions. I am good friends with the vaccine director at our health department and they are coming up with all plans themselves (according to her). They were sent the vaccines and told the state would decide whom to give them to. There were no other suggestions (again, according to her).

There has to be a more efficient, simpler way to mass distribute the vaccines and then maybe there isn't.

---

Good information. I saw a Tweet by Dr. Scott Gottlieb today where he suggested the local health departments should focus on vaccinating the LTC facilities and let the pharmacies focus on the at risk populations in the general public.

I was curious as to if you think that would be a more efficient process than the current plan?

---

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I think your local situation is an excellent example of why rollout should not be handled by federal government. The federal government has given suggestions on how to roll out the vaccinations. The local and state governments should adopt and adjust so as to fit their constituents. The federal government should not be depended upon to manage roll out for the 50 states and thousands of counties.

---

I agree and disagree. Typically and in most situations, I would say, yes, limit the federal government influence. However, in this situation, the federal government has really not given at least our local area any suggestions. I am good friends with the vaccine director at our health department and they are coming up with all plans themselves (according to her). They were sent the vaccines and told the state would decide whom to give them to. There were no other suggestions (again, according to her).

There has to be a more efficient, simpler way to mass distribute the vaccines and then maybe there isn't.

---

I'm sure we agree more than we disagree on this. I'm just not sure what additional information the federal government can give local government on how best to handle their unique situation. I may be remembering this incorrectly, apologies if so, but isn't it the CDC guidance that the state is basing their vaccination plan on? It seems the state has done nothing to break it down more for the state level. And I'm not one to say necessarily that they are better suited to handle it than the local government. It just seems to me there should be tweaking at each level to better ensure the constituents are cared for. Instead it seems we have CDC guidance, and state and local government throwing their hands in the air not knowing what to do. Aren't these people elected, or professionals in these areas as well? Have they no plan?

---

packgrad said:

---

I think it's ridiculous to expect the federal government to orchestrate the vaccinations. There is no one size fits all approach for the 50 states. It may be asking too much to expect it of the governors, but i think that's a much more reasonable expectation.

---