[davidf560]

> It is ridiculous there aren't much more clear/specific guidelines, and in some cases enforceable policies/regulations, from the federal government. It's like nobody's driving the bus here.

Why is this not California's fault? States were each permitted to establish their own procedures, which somewhat makes sense given the challenging distribution requirements of the Pfizer vaccine. Montana has significantly different challenges than Rhode Island in that sense. Most states that I know of have established clear guidelines saying who gets it and when - I assume California is the same.

Seems like California is the governmental entity that failed to exercise proper oversight and/or requirements specification here.

[jrochkind1]

At all levels, sure.

Most states you know have established clear guidelines sayign who gets it and when? Including specifics on what medical staff within a hospital system would get it? Like not just "health care staff" or "first responders" (everyone in the Stanford Medicine system is that already right, this is about who within that group gets it).

Please back that up by showing me such clear guidelines from a few states. It should be easy to find this, if indeed most states have done this, presumably in a very transparent way for something so important and contentious, right?

I don't believe most states have.

(It doesn't make it easier that the federal government told states how much they'd get them REDUCED it, and in general is only committing to telling states how much they'll get a week in advance).

[davidf560]

New York's plan: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/ny-unveils-draft...

Phase 1 says "Healthcare workers in patient care settings"

Tennessee's: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/nov...

Phase 1 says "hospital/free-standing emergency department staff with direct patient exposure and/or exposure to potentially infectious materials"

Other states have similar wording. You'd really have to twist yourself into a knot to convince yourself that a work-from-home administrator falls into the categories specified above. Shame on any state who didn't include wording like that - there was nothing stopping them from putting some common-sense wording in their plans. Beyond the written rules, you'd also have to be a selfish idiot to think that just because you're related to a healthcare company that you should get it this week if you're working from home. If I were in that kind of role, shame would be enough to stop me but as we've seen the elite often have no shame.

(edit) California's own plan [0] says Phase 1-A includes "paid and unpaid persons serving in healthcare settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients and infectious materials and are unable to work from home". So if Stanford was really vaccinating admins who are working from home, then it seems like they violated state guidelines and should be punished appropriately.

[0] https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20...