SOUTH BRONX SCHOOL: The Vaccinations are Here! What to Know

Sunday, January 10, 2021

The Vaccinations are Here! What to Know

 Sometime last night during my binge watching of Family Guy I got a text from one of the many SBSB groupies. It was shared with me that sign up is available for those who qualifyunder group 1B for the COVID vaccination (I'll post the link at the end of this post).

Finally! This vaccination process, at least in NY State is taking too long. Cuomo has to control it. Why not use all 62 NYS county health departments. Less control for Cuomo one would hazard to guess. Heck, in 1947 NYC vaccinated about 6 million people for smallpox in about a month. Why can't this be done again? 

So for the last week or so we here at SBSB have been hearing rumors that teachers have been moved into 1B and that vaccinations are imminent. Thanks to DeBlaso for finally showing some balls to Cuomo that day has come starting tomorrow. But the rollout has not been exactly smooth. 

This morning on 880 WCBS I heard the tail end of an interview with Mulgrew in which I heard...

"Teachers who are in the classroom will be given priority"

That was a "whatcha talking about Willis" moment for me. It was time to roll up the sleeves. 

I reached out to the SBSB groupie as well as someone in the UFT. I got some decent clarification from the UFT.

If you signed up on the link provided last night with NYCHHC you are still good to go. You don't have to wait for the UFT to do it for you.

You do not need to be a NYC resident to use the NYCHHC link. I am getting my shot at 3rd Ave and 174th St. 

I'm also hearing that each individual must schedule the second shot themselves, but that just doesn't make sense. But waiting to hear confirmation. More likely at wherever you get your shot they will schedule for you.

The UFT has scheduled a paid release time for the vaccination. 

And finally, and this is what is bothersome: That according to Mulgrew's email today members working in school will get priority. But according to what I was told "if you are 1B you won't be turned away." Just those in buildings will kind of have a head start. 

I really must take umbrage. I mean the infection rate nearing 10 percent. With the buildings still open the DOE, and seemingly, the UFT has no issue with such a high rate of infection. Originally the threshold for shutting down the buildings was to be 3 percent. All of the sudden someone gives a shit about the teachers in the building ? Mind you, I am not besmirching these teachers. They are doing a fantastic job under the circumstances and we should support them. But they're mostly healthy. Chances are they do not have a morbidity.

The priority should be those with a morbidity. Whether it is a member or a member's loved one that they live with. These people are the most vulnerable and susceptible to dying.

Right now the way the UFT and DOE are prioritizing the healthy sounds a wee bit like Eugenics with a smile. "Let's take care of the healthy first. As for the weak and the sickly? If we get to them, we'll get to them." Maybe I am being hyperbolic but come on. Talk about wanting to thin the herd, the teachers on accommodation are the most vulnerable.

One more thing. People are getting their underwear into too much of a bunch over the video of the UFT nurse getting vaccinated. Big fucking deal. She's got more guts than Trump. Look at it this way, she's demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the vaccination. Too many anti-vaxxers out there. Let her set an example. Get your undies out of shape for the priority list and other real shit.

Now for the Health and Hospitals link. CLICK HERE  If you see nothing keep coming back. It's like you are getting tickets for opening day on Tivk. If you don't live in NYC check with your doctor, your provider, your local department of health. Be aggressive and be proactive. Most of all be safe and stay healthy. 


William Woodruff said...

Here is why I disagree with your opinion of the criteria for preference to give the vaccine to in person teachers vs. teachers with comorbidity. I can speak for myself as a teacher with multiple comorbidities. My Doctors advised that I applied for a remote accommodation, and based on the criteria I would have received it. Most of District 7 knows that I have some underlying illnesses, I have not be quiet or hidden them to my chapter leaders, or shied away from mentioning them at chapter meetings from different schools.
Over this year I have heard from multiple UFT members in District 7, who will of course remain nameless, who have called to talk out their options. They shared with me that they too had comorbidities that put them more at risk for contracting, and dying from COVID-19. Some chose to take advantage of the accommodation to work remotely. Others, like myself, chose to work in person despite being at heightened risk.
I love the days when I am in teaching my fifth grade students. I do not regret at all the decision I made to take the risk to teach in person. I also applaud people who made the opposite choice to teach remotely to protect themselves and their families.
The thing is, while I personally am open about my comorbidities, many of the UFT members who have decided not to apply for the accommodation are not. They have chosen to not apply, and therefore do not need to inform their employer of their underlying conditions. They have the right to keep those conditions concealed under HIPPA laws. And I support their rights to privacy. In order to make comorbidities the priority list we would force these people to share their medical conditions with their employer. I don’t think that is good for our member sin the long run at all.
The fact that people are being prioritized because of the fact that there is just not enough vaccine available is bad. But ensuring that people who are teaching in person have access to the vaccine first is the best way to quell the spread and keep our schools safe while the vaccines are produced.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure if the complexity of the vaccine supply being so constricted and how that impacts rollout is readily apparent to you.
Vaccine is, AND WILL BE FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS, in a very limited supply.
Why would we give a dose to someone that is at no risk of contracting the disease thru their employment (if they are teaching remotely)?? That takes away a dose from someone in a high risk group, including classroom teachers.
Do you feel a teacher, by virtue of being a teacher, is worthy of a vaccine above, say, a 74 year old? Even if that teacher is sitting alone in a room in front of a computer screen?
Do you think an administrator with a teaching degree who doesn't interact with children deserves a dose before a teacher in the classroom that is breathing in COVID-19 in the air from the students in front of them?
There is a severe shortage of vaccine, so the distribution is based on a complex equation of risk of catching it thru mandatory-essential employment/congregate living and risk of death/severe disease if one catches it, overall.
Teachers or any other employee in any field whatsoever that are working remotely (including health care workers) cannot be in the queue for COVID-19 vaccination; this denies someone else who actually NEEDS that dose from getting it. They can get back in the queue for their age or medical conditions, but not solely on the basis of their professional qualifications.

Anonymous said...

Agree with comment #2, while many teachers are home due to health risks- they are still AT HOME. I person teachers are taking public transit or ordering in lunch etc- thereby exposing themselves to far many more people= greater risk!!!

Pete Zucker said...

So you think we are at home all day long and never leave the house? What about those who are not sick yet have someone at home who is? That person is not at home all day.

But using your logic should single adults be at the very end of the list and adults with children be at the head of the list?

Bill- I never said that someone based on their professional qualifications should get an automatic trip to the head of the line. What I was saying that those with underlying medical conditions should be prioritized. You brought up a good point that there are those in the buildings that do have medical conditions and yes, they should be prioritized.