[dasickis]

I'm the person this original tweet was about.

None of you know any of the internal details but what I can state is that Paul has no idea what he's talking about and later admits to the fact I wasn't lying.

Here's the order of events:

1. I went to a neighborhood clinic in Oakland, CA that's literally next door to my house, I can see the church from my window. Paul lives in NYC which is on the opposite end of the country.

2. I asked them about eligibility and told them I don't clear CA guidelines. They told me it's first come, first served with an ID showing I am 18+.

3. I showed up the next day, waited in line for 4 hours then got jabbed.

4. Posted it in an internal forum for other founders.

5. A few people had issues so raised them which I addressed but YC still took down the post within the day.

6. I appealed but YC still held their decision as final.

Outcome: YC founder came with his aunt, uncle, and mom all over 65 to get jabbed who didn't know about the vaccine site.

---

Paul ends up tweeting about it and making a huge deal around something he has no idea about. He gets a bunch of people on Twitter upset about something they don't know about.

Outcome: Internet rage.

[mbgerring]

So just so everyone has the full context: Oakland opened up its vaccination sites to more people on a shorter timeline than the rest of the state, in certain ZIP codes with disproportionately poor residents, in order to get vaccines to those disproportionately poor residents. I know this because this is how several of my friends who live in West Oakland got vaccinated ahead of the eligibility opening up in the rest of the state.

Your post suggests that the result of your post on the YC message board is that people who did not live in those zip codes came to Oakland to take advantage of a program that was not meant for them (and please correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I’m seeing here).

I think if you really want to exonerate yourself here, you should probably come clean about what kinds of objections were raised to your original post, because it is very plain to me how the kind of thing you’re describing could be seen by a reasonable person as unethical.

[dfabulich]

I got vaccinated at one of these West Oakland "first come, first serve" vaccination sites back in March. They were administering J&J vaccines (which do not thaw) with no residency check, and not even a poster saying "please don't line up unless you live in this neighborhood." No statement of intent at all.

Others standing in line asked coordinators walking the line, "Am I eligible here?" and the coordinators responded, without hesitation, "Yes, you're in the right place! Stay in line." No questions asked.

The vaccination site may well have been "intended" for West Oakland residents and/or underprivileged folks, but if that's right, they could have at least put up a sign saying so, and maybe the coordinator(s) could have said "this vaccine is intended for West Oakland residents only."

I think there's an argument to be made that everyone in line who didn't live in West Oakland should have just assumed that the vaccine wasn't intended for them, but I strongly believe that the ethics of the situation are "If you're offered a vaccine, take it." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/opinion/covid-vaccine-eth... It's not just for you; it's for everyone around you, especially children and others who can't be vaccinated.

[HWR_14]

They don't ask for proof of poverty at a food bank either. And "Am I eligible here" could be seen about specifically asking about age/preconditions eligibility.

In fact, that whole conversation could have been changed trivially to picking up free food at a food bank and would not have looked out of place.

As for "if you're offered a vaccine take it", I don't think that applies to "I can go somewhere to get offered the vaccine." If there was a 4 hour wait, then it's not like they had spares lying around. If you had driven to a rural site where they have to thaw 6 doses for 3 people that would have been a different story.

[dfabulich]

The analogy to food banks makes no sense. I normally acquire food by paying for it at a grocery store. If I could have gone to a grocery store (or pharmacy) to get a vaccine, I would have. If I could have paid for a vaccine, I would have.

You're imagining a world where food banks give out magic apples that not only nourish you but also nourish everyone you come into contact with, a world where food is only available for free at food banks, and is not available in stores at any price, and many people are at risk of dying of starvation as a result.

If we lived in that world, and if a food-bank coordinator told me to come in and eat a magic apple, with no guidance (not even a sign) indicating that these magic apples were intended only for the poor, and if I (and others around me!) were at risk of dying of starvation if I didn't eat that apple, uh, yeah, I'm going to go into the food bank (just like they asked me to do) and eat the apple.

In that world, if someone offers you a magic apple, you should eat it, nourishing yourself and everyone around you.

Here in the actual world, if the vaccine is offered to you, take it.

[HWR_14]

You could have gone to a grocery store or a pharmacy for the vaccine. Every grocery store with an in house pharmacy and ever major chain of pharmacies offered it. You just didn't want to wait your turn.

But, besides that, Mt. Zion was set aside for a high-risk community. You didn't have the same risk factors but helped yourself to one of their doses.

I don't see how that's not applicable. I mean, the food was available to anyone. Other people needed it more, but you wanted it.

[dfabulich]

Mt. Zion wasn't "set aside for a high-risk community." It should have been, and indeed it was set aside earlier that week, but by Thursday morning they opened the gates and let everyone in. https://archive.is/Z55Oe

As a result, it was my turn, after I waited in line for four hours at a "first come, first serve" vaccination site.

Elsewhere you allege that @dasickis and I were "skirting eligibility rules." You know that's not true. Perhaps there should have been eligibility rules, but there simply weren't. There weren't even eligibility guidelines, not even a written sign saying "for West Oakland residents only."

The lack of rules actually means something. Due to the lack of rules, I didn't have the option to give the vaccine I took to an underprivileged person of color in the West Oakland community.

The SF Chronicle article describes the last person in line on Friday, "Roz M., a 37-year-old from Hayward with vivid purple hair."

Do you think I owed it to Roz to offer her the vaccine I took? You may say that neither of us deserved a vaccine, but, due to the lack of rules, in fact, it was me, or Roz.

(And let's not forget that I have a special obligation to my kid, who's not yet old enough to be vaccinated, to vaccinate myself and the adults in our family. I have no such special obligation to Roz.)

[m-ee]

They didn’t skirt some eligibility rules because no one asked questions. The west Oakland site first tried reaching out to local low income community members and after seeing low uptake opened it up to everyone one, the pastor of the church himself was encouraging anyone over 18 to come by.

[HWR_14]

mbgerring's post further up the chain definitely claims that they exceeded the eligibility rules. Inviting people from outside the prioritized neighborhood to come take shots and there being a 4 hour line implies skirting eligibility rules.

[m-ee]

I’m saying that claim is not accurate, there were no eligibility rules at this site later on. They tried restricting to get shots to people in west Oakland reached through the networks of the church and other community organizers, then deliberately opened it up to everyone because they had excess supply. I didn’t get my shot there but live a few blocks away.

You could argue that they shouldn’t have opened it up, or that every healthy person under 65 should have waited until supply was plentiful before trying to get one to not edge out any seniors or other at risk people, but there was no rule breaking or duplicity here.

I’ll also add that after this there were further targeted efforts towards getting shots to these zip codes. Someone in 94607 was eligible at most East bay sites weeks before CA fully opened up eligibility. I think this is what mberring is referring to, but it was a separate program from the vaccination site at the church.

[anoncake]

Everyone knows that food banks are only for the poor. Vaccination sites usually aren't.

[avereveard]

> If there was a 4 hour wait, then it's not like they had spares lying around

Nonsequitur. They migh have been understaffed, or they might not have handed out paperwork beforehand, increasing the time required per person behind what they forecasted.

[tdeck]

I'm not making a judgment on this situation, but as someone who lives in Alameda County (where Oakland is) and tried hard to get a vaccine as early as I ethically could, I can definitely confirm that this rollout was very confusing. The county and my city (Berkeley) kept on saying it wouldn't be available to the general public until the 15th. Then they changed the eligibility on the 10th, but with zero fanfare and without all of the websites being updated. I believe MyTurn wasn't even updated for a while. I was checking periodically and only happened to notice on the 11th. I also heard about these "certain ZIP code" vaccination centers and assumed that they probably weren't "for" me (not my ZIP code), but there wasn't much clarity.

I understand why the county probably did some of these things: they want to make the vaccine available to underserved communities without asking for documents that are typically a barrier for members of those same communities. They want to make it easy to get a vaccine, but not talk about it too much so people don't flood in from other areas. But it does leave you in a weird quandry when you want to do your part and line up when the time comes to get vaccinated, and the question of "is it time yet" isn't exactly clear.

In my case I didn't get the shot until the 16th, but I'm so glad I got it at all.

[ping_pong]

Gotta love the rationalization. In March there was a lot of issues with supply of vaccines and the program was intended to specifically target underprivileged people because COVID is drastically affecting them more than people.

But you said to yourself, fuck their rules, I found a news article that justifies me jumping the line. So you hacked the system and jumped the line and got yourself vaccinated ahead of someone who could have gotten their shot that day.

[JoeyBananas]

As an outsider, I see no real reason to believe that this guy is not just as deserving of a vaccine as anybody else. It's hard to express how judgmental this post is.

Imagine you're browsing HackerNews and you see that there's a controversy. So, you instantly associate one side with "the plight of underprivileged Oakland residents" and the other side with "Greedy bourgeoisie colonizer." Because it's completely obvious who is in the wrong, you proceed to type this comment.

[mynameisvlad]

He isn't as deserving of a vaccine as everyone else at the time.

This happened in March, when vaccine supplies were still severely constrained and eligibility was still restricted to those who could be affected by the virus; the elderly and those with comorbidities.

Just because this specific site opened up to all in an effort to serve the underprivileged members of the community who couldn't otherwise prove eligibility does not suddenly mean he is the intended audience for the vaccine at the time, nor that he is deserving of the vaccine. People who actually needed the vaccine were the only ones who were deserving of it at the time.

Everyone else can wait a month. It's not the end of the world or anything.

[chris_wot]

No offence intended by the following question, but if it’s not made clear who the vaccines are intended for, how can it be “hacking the system”? Hacking the system implies you know the intent but you ignore it and used the system in a way it was not designed.

[ping_pong]

https://archive.is/Z55Oe

[BombNullIsland]

The site is intended to vaccinate the population as quickly as possible. Ignore the rules, get jabs in every willing arm until there is none left. Vaccines in the fridge or thrown in the bin don't lower R0.

The goal of any competent vaccination program should be to get the most socially active population vaccinated as quickly as possible to lower R0. This means 15-35 and retail workers first. That's not what happened anywhere in the west because of gerontocratic politics.

[ianleighton]

If your goal is just lowering R0, sure… but a lot of countries prefer to lower deaths, which is why they start with the older population / those with health conditions.

[BombNullIsland]

People with health conditions won't get infected if there is no spread. By all means vaccinate the most vulnerable, but stay at home early retirees aren't exactly superspreaders.

The 18-35 cohort after vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine are going from being extremely dangerous asymptomatic spreaders to having high levels of sterilizing immunity.

[Symbiote]

After the 60+ people were vaccinated, Denmark started at opposite ends in parallel: from 59 down, and 16 up.

[throwaaskjdfh]

EDIT: I was mistaken here, corrected by a response below.

-

I don't think there was a way for the public health authorities to create an explicit rule about neighborhood residency without inviting lawsuits. The best they could do is place vaccination centers in more convenient locations for underserved communities, and hope that it could raise the rate of vaccination in the vicinity.

I think there were people assuming that if it wasn't against the explicit rules to commute there to be vaccinated, it must be OK, even though it might (in the event of limited supply) undermine the effort to raise vaccination rates in that specific area.

[hamandcheese]

> I don't think there was a way for the public health authorities to create an explicit rule about neighborhood residency without inviting lawsuits.

Zuckerberg Hospital in SF was offering vaccinations to targeted zip codes ahead of schedule, and they were verifying residency.

[throwaaskjdfh]

That's interesting, thanks for the correction. I was extrapolating from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/health/white-people-covid... but that might not have been applicable here.

[ping_pong]

This pretty much summarizes how it was taken advantage of:

https://archive.is/Z55Oe

[lawnchair_larry]

Glad it was "taken advantage of", racism has no place here. Disgusting that people think this is ok.

[Devon64327]

They didn't set up a clinic and stick a "Colored folks only" sign out front.

At the county or state level, they looked at the data and identified that Black and Latino populations were not being vaccinated at the same rate as white populations, and also recognized that the pandemic has disproportionately affected those same populations.

So they committed resources to establish more clinics in areas with high concentrations of the given populations and may have waived certain documentation requirements that are historically more challenging for them to acquire.

The result being that people of means, predominantly white people, took time off of work and travelled long distances to take advantage of the situation. Taking the place of a non-zero number of residents that were the intended recipients.

[tdeck]

To be fair, this is a reasonable assumption based on past experience. The government normally has no shortage of rules - it literally governs us. It's not unreasonable for some people to assume that this is a disorganized or inconsistent rollout rather than a form of social engineering meant to narrow the eligibility guidelines.

[etc-hosts]

Means Testing is stupid

[Karrot_Kream]

I stood in one of those Oakland lines myself and what I saw sickened me, so I left. I had taken a day off (long planned) and decided to check out a line around a mosque, asked an organizer what was going on, and sat myself in the line. I saw people rushing into line. Many of them called their friends or sent status updates on their phones and their friends joined them in line. Almost everyone in that line _was not_ from the neighborhood. As I saw people chit chatting about their work from home life, I started feeling a bit queasy. When the organizers started mentioning that doses might be out, people started getting angry, which made me even more disturbed. When I saw someone kick over a candle on the sidewalk that was on a person's memorial, I just had the last straw. I left. It wasn't my place to get a vaccine, I was not from this zip code.

What's funny is that friends of mine who were okay with that waited for hours and hours (up to 8 for some) to get their vaccine. I got mine 2 weeks later in my car, and was in and out within 30 minutes. The mania seemed so stupid and gross in hindsight, but I think some of my friends at least regretted it.

[cactus2093]

There are tens of millions of people in the US who were careless, got covid, and then spread it to others in the past year who have more blood on their hands than anyone who cut a vaccine line. Vaccine line cutting is just such a bizarre thing to take a hard moral stance on. And even now months later when the opposite problem of vaccine hesitancy is a much bigger concern, you’re still calling someone out for not even having done it but for perhaps having inadvertently encouraged others to do it.

I’ve seen a lot of pointless internet fights but this is truly next level.

[captainredbeard]

Are people culpable for flu deaths, too? That’s a shaky chain of responsibility.

[gfodor]

In relative terms hey are in a worse position than those who theoretically got a flu vaccine by violating distribution rules, if such a thing existed, was I think the point.

[CRConrad]

> Vaccine line cutting is just such a bizarre thing to take a hard moral stance on.

Even if we stipulate that a hard moral stance may be "bizarre", it's still at least rather dubious, isn't it?

So, it's certainly more bizarre to excommunicate someone for merely pointing it out.

[temp8964]

You are mixing two things. Even if the sites were setup for poor neighborhood, it doesn't necessarily mean they are exclusive for people from those neighborhood.

And also, basic common sense, the sites are run by adults. If the adults over there don't care, why should you care?

Unless you have specific knowledge of people lied to get to use those sites, nobody need your judgement to "exonerate" themselves.

[HWR_14]

"If the adults over there don't care, why should you care?"

What makes you think that the people running the sites, once fully informed, would not have cared? If you cheat on your partner, but your partner is not upset (of course, they don't know about it) your logic states that no one should call you an asshole for it.

[rootusrootus]

> What makes you think that the people running the sites, once fully informed, would not have cared?

Without exception, every person I've talked to that has been involved with vaccine distribution has cared only about getting vaccines into arms. In their minds the gov't can make rules, but where the rubber meets the road they were 1000% more interested in maximizing the number of people who were vaccinated than spending precious manpower carefully scrutinizing eligibility.

Heck, even in official communications the gov't repeatedly pointed out that they wouldn't actually be checking documentation on site. Almost like they were inviting people to get vaccinated before they were officially eligible.

[mynameisvlad]

So you have asked these specific people?

People like the pastor of the church where this vaccination site took place, who called people outside of their neighborhood, the intended recipients of the vaccine, "interlopers"?

Because it sure sounds to me like they cared.

[throwthrowbye]

For further context, having seen the original post, there were also details on which questions made someone qualified and which answers were “unprovable”.

It was crystal clear what the intent was and the poster was called out for it. There was a strong negative reaction.

[TaylorAlexander]

Agree. Really not tooting my own horn but I qualified very early for the vaccine because I am a “farm worker” and while I really do work at a farm and all employees qualified early, I’m actually a robotics engineer with no necessary contact between me and those that tend the fields. I have an isolated office and I work alone.

I felt that if I ever decided to get the shot because of my employment as a “farm worker”, there would be one elderly person or real essential worker that had to wait another day. And that didn’t seem fair. So I waited until the general population could get vaccinated in April.

Just because technically someone will give you the shot doesn’t mean you’ve made an ethical decision.

[buu700]

I agree with what you're saying, and made the same decision myself. I was advised by someone who'd looked into it that I could have qualified as a healthcare worker and gotten into phase 1B or 1C, because my startup Cyph has customers in the healthcare industry. However, I work remotely and don't have all that much human contact even outside of a pandemic, so it didn't make sense to me to skip the line and take a more deserving person's spot on a technicality. (I am fully vaccinated now, though.)

That being said, based on the limited information in this thread, it seems to me that Paul unfortunately started a whole lot of drama over nothing.

My choice was a personal decision that made sense for me, not an absolute moral value that I feel entitled to impose on the world. I don't know these people's situations, or why they felt they needed the shot more urgently than I did, but even if our situations were identical it's not obvious that my decision was more correct. Arguably, they were more correct based on the position from the NY Times article someone else linked ("If you're offered a vaccine, take it"). At worst there's an argument that they were inconsiderate, but it's silly to raise a stink about such a morally grey issue.

If anyone is truly upset about this, why not instead write/call whichever level of government is responsible for having structured the system such that these things happen and are neither illegal nor discouraged?

[azinman2]

Here’s the thing: public officials created procedures with estimates based upon who qualifies. If you qualified and didn’t take it, you actually created inefficiencies in the system, and slowed down rollout.

Source: friend in high up gov in CA

[TaylorAlexander]

I’m one independent contractor doing engineering at one farm. I’d be surprised if I was even on whatever list was used to estimate what must be tens of thousands of farm workers in CA. In fact farm workers are so often undocumented they cannot have an accurate tally.

[azinman2]

I don't think it matters. They wanted to pipeline people, knowing that some would technically qualify but be lower priority, but efficiency was the most important thing. That and each person getting vaccinated means less risk to them, less risk to spread to others, and less risk to mutation.

[HWR_14]

That argument only applies if they are demand limited. If they are, sure, great, get a vaccine. If they aren't, then you are quite literally keeping someone else from getting a vaccine.

[TaylorAlexander]

I read the news regularly and the bulletins from the San Mateo County health advisor. During the time I qualified they were still running out of doses every week for front line workers. I am not a front line worker. It was not my place.

[asquabventured]

Shot in the arm as soon as it is offered saves lives by being one less person that will spread the virus to someone vulnerable.

[mbgerring]

Shots in arms for people in neighborhoods with a much higher rate of infection and death from COVID are more valuable than shots in arms in neighborhoods like mine where people could work from home and were basically unscathed.

I understand what you’re saying but the neighborhoods in question weren’t prioritized randomly.

[HWR_14]

I should probably have been at the end of the list. I work from home, had a pod that works from home and we're all able to take precautions when we go to the stores. A grocery store cashier faces people for 8 hours a day and is therefore a huge risk to themselves and to all their customers. There's no reason to claim the two of us are at all equivalent (assuming that we are in the same personal risk group.)

[TaylorAlexander]

I’ve been extremely cautious with covid and I do not need to interact with the public beyond quick and careful grocery store visits. It would be better for a front line worker, who is not able to exercise the same level of avoidance, to get it than for me to have gotten it. I also do not live with any immunocompromised people - we are all healthy and under 40 and they work from home - so again it was better for someone who lives with an older person to have gotten it.

[oblib]

I'll applaud what you did. Early on there was a very clear need for those at risk to be vaccinated and the guidelines for essential farm workers were pretty clearly meant for those getting food to tables who were working in close quarters with others.

The odds of one of them getting and spreading it to many others were much greater for them than you, and that's what needed to be considered.

[TaylorAlexander]

That’s right. I pass by several farms on the way to work and there’s a lot of people working in close groups and using shared housing. Thats who those shots are for. I show up to work at 4:30pm and work at a computer till 10 or 11pm. If all the tech workers were on some vaccine list for some reason I’d have done it, but I’m not the kind of “farm worker” those doses were intended for.

[systemvoltage]

A friend of mine flew out from Zurich to CA to get a shot.

They gave him one without checking anything. His response? “America has the best vaccine program on the planet. They have so many rules in Zurich that the confusion is holding things back. They’d rather throw away vaccines than break minor rules”.

Vaccination should be easy, bureaucracy free and straightforward; especially now. I can understand age restrictions from Dec-Mar.

This is not like standing in the line at DMV. The entire country needs to be vaccinated and if we put too many rules around this, we all lose and that’s unethical. I urge everyone to be reasonable and flexible. This does not mean you should go and cut lines, push elderly and others aside. The goal for everyone should be efficient distribution of vaccines.

[hiq]

> They gave him one without checking anything. His response? “America has the best vaccine program on the planet. They have so many rules in Zurich that the confusion is holding things back. They’d rather throw away vaccines than break minor rules”.

I live in Zurich, the vaccination program is crystal clear. If there are free slots, you can book an appointment. Up to recently, if you were not in a priority group (which are well-defined), you couldn't book. Now it's open to everyone. I haven't heard of vaccines thrown away.

I don't know what your friend found confusing in Zurich, or how he somehow concluded that flying long-distance during the pandemic to get a shot in CA is worth it.

[rurban]

I've heard of about 2 million shots thrown away so far, but only from internal medical sources.

You would not dare to call friends and neighbors, you rather throw them away. Public outrage only over the first

[hiq]

> I've heard of about 2 million shots thrown away so far, but only from internal medical sources.

I couldn't find any information about this, is that more than a rumor? Where did you read this? Honestly I find this hard to believe without more evidence.

[systemvoltage]

I had a long chat with him and don't remember it all but I paraphrased his take on Zurich's vaccine program. I don't know enough about situation there but my guess of why they flew down to CA was probably that they didn't cut it for the tier, frustrated by the slow roll out and the trip was most likely not a dedicated trip - they also rented an RV to travel around. Vaccication!

[hiq]

The main differences between the countries which could have frustrated your friend could be:

- Switzerland got their doses later than the US for a variety of reasons, so the US was able to give them away earlier, and lift the age restrictions earlier

- Switzerland made clear groups to assign priorities, with which you friend might not have been happy (presumably because he is in the last group, as I am)

That would explain why in his personal situation he was better off getting the vaccine in the US while on vacation there, but that's not really a case of too many rules or red tape holding the vaccination back in Zurich.

[systemvoltage]

I see, thanks for sharing your perspective.

[HWR_14]

I don't think anyone's disputing that extra vaccines should go in arms as opposed to getting thrown out. However, given wait times in the 4-8 hour range all over this page, that clearly wasn't the case.

And how is this not like standing in line at the DMV. We have a number of people to process and limited resources to process them. It seems like an excellent analogy. If we had to reissue all licenses, I would like to think we would prioritize truck/bus/ambulance/fire engine drivers over other people. Than probably people who need to go to work. The people who need to go to essential jobs. Then unessential jobs. Then people who were working from home.

[systemvoltage]

I agree with you - it depends and there is a nuance to each situation. Also, it is not like DMV because of the scale of vaccination. Vaccination is more akin to voting - less bureacracy leads to be better outcome. Too many rules and complicated voting process means lower voter turnout.

I hope that makes sense. Vaccination isn't an individual's selfish activity (like DMV queue) - it is a social contract and responsibility to prevent the spread of virus by lowering the r^2 value and breaking the chain of spread. It's not a perfect analogy of course and we're bikeshedding on the accuracy of the analogy... :-/

[HWR_14]

Vaccination is positive for society as well, but when this took place in mid-March it was definitely a selfish activity.

It's not like voting - you voting doesn't prevent me from voting.

Obviously, too many rules is bad. And too few rules are. And, just like voting, this site did not require ID because it would have harmed their ability to help an underserved population. It used the honor system. The people we're talking about violated that.

[OldHand2018]

I think there is a large difference between having guidelines and asking people to voluntarily follow them for the sake of expediency, and having a policy of first-come-first-served.

This incident was in March, and what is really sad is that back in March there were places in the US where it really was first-come-first-served. I know many people here in Illinois that got vaccines in Indiana because their official policy was that any open slot was fair game if it was less than 24 hours to go. That policy started in late February or early March.

There is absolutely no reason to be jumping in line, especially if you have the means to travel.

[jshen]

It was very different in CA than it was in IL. demand far outpaced supply here in CA during the time we’re talking about.

[chx]

> friend of mine flew out from Zurich to CA to get a shot.

I call BS.

Unless said friend is a US citizen, people who have physically been to the Schengen area have been forbidden to enter the US for quite a while now. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/from-oth...

[systemvoltage]

There are exceptions, I’m sure otherwise I would have not met him (!!). His wife is US citizen. He is not. What more can I say?

You can call BS all you want. Your response sort of violates the HN protocol of assuming the best of people.

Edit: Perhaps because his wife is US Citizen, this would apply but not sure: "As further provided in each proclamation, citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States, certain family members, and other individuals who meet specified exceptions, who have been in one of the countries listed above in the past 14 days will be allowed to enter the United States". I really don't know.

[bellyfullofbac]

If you click the link "European Schengen area", it leads to the detailed proclamation[1], and:

2 (a) Section 1 of this proclamation [the suspension of entry] shall not apply to: [...] (iii) any noncitizen who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;

So yeah, GP is typical of the world nowadays, calling BS without knowing all the details...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...

[pseudalopex]

Why not assume their friend is a US citizen?

[systemvoltage]

He is not a US citizen.

[tw04]

> Your post suggests that the result of your post on the YC message board is that people who did not live in those zip codes came to Oakland to take advantage of a program that was not meant for them

That part makes no sense. If it “wasn’t for them” they’d have been turned away. You have to provide your drivers license to get vaccinated. Your address is on the license. If it was limited to people living in a certain zip code they could easily turn them away.

[Siira]

> to take advantage of a program that was not meant for them

What’s wrong with this? Our whole society operates like this, but it’s suddenly wrong for some small fries to “take advantage of the law” ?” Write your laws correctly, and don’t blame people for looking out for themselves using completely legal means.

[mynameisvlad]

There is a huge difference between something being legal and something being moral.

What they did might have been legal, sure, but it sure as hell was not moral.

[Igelau]

> the kind of thing you’re describing could be seen by a reasonable person as unethical

False. A reasonable person would know that the shots don't last after they are thawed out. If someone skipped the appointment, the ethical thing to do is put it in the next warm body that's standing by rather than waste the shot. No one owes anyone any "coming clean" over encouraging others not to let those shots go to waste.

[ping_pong]

Incorrect. J&J vaccine are designed to be stored at regular refrigerator temperatures. They are different from the mRNA vaccines which expire shortly after thawing. So J&J shelf life is much much longer than Pfizer and Moderna and are good for areas where recipients returning for a 2nd vaccine shot are less likely.

[Igelau]

Irrelevant. J&J wasn't available at the time of the incident.

[mynameisvlad]

J&J was literally what the church was providing. It has been mentioned multiple times in these comment threads.

It was authorized for emergency use at the end of February. Just because it wasn't available locally doesn't mean it wasn't available.

[baby]

So we getting offended at people getting vaccinated now? Smh

[CRConrad]

No, we're getting offended at well-heeled serial start-up founders getting vaccinated at the expense of others and then playing the victim card when it's pointed out that this isn't super nice.

Did you really not get that, or are you just pretending?

[sweis]

For context, this site was at Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church in West Oakland. It was intentionally located there to target the local underserved communities. At the time, California was in phases 1A and 1B. This was intended for elderly and essential workers.

There was misinformation that it was first-come, first-serve to anyone who wanted it. I looked into it at the time and it was easy to verify that this was not true. The CA State website, the church's fliers, and their help line were all clear.

Here's an example clearly listing who was eligible: https://twitter.com/SarahBelleLin/status/1370071520953835520...

They intentionally did not check eligibility to avoid putting barriers up for high risk people. It was effectively an honor system.

This site ended up being oversubscribed and most doses went to people outside the targeted area or demographic: https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/A-West-Oakland-chu...

[Permit]

Your account may very well be biased but it astonishes me how many HN commenters are willing to chime in while knowing next to nothing about what actually took place.

I know next to nothing and as such would typically hesitate to comment. Others appear to know next to nothing and appear very interested in sharing their opinions here, and I don’t quite understand why...

[dwaltrip]

> Others appear to know next to nothing and appear very interested in sharing their opinions

The modern internet in a nutshell. Of course, this is nothing new. We just now have more powerful tools for doing it.

I wish saying "I don't know" or "I'm not sure but I'd like to learn more about that" was more widely valued.

[andrew_]

I don't know anything about the situation, but what is evident is this is some of the worst of Twitter on display, and why I shy away from the platform more often than not.

[0xbadcafebee]

The same comments were made here on HN...

[hn_throwaway_99]

I wish I could donate all of my karma as votes for this comment. I'm really astonished at how the dynamics of internet forums make so many feel like they must immediately pick a side, even when there is such little information and even when getting just a single side of the story.

The worst part about this is that when more information does come to light, it's so rare to see an "oh wow, I really shouldn't have jumped to conclusions" apology. Instead, a lot of the time you see folks dig their heels in more, lest they actually have to admit they were wrong.

[Permit]

On the second half, I saw a quote from C.S. Lewis (here on HN[1]) which I thought captured the same sentiment well:

Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible?

If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.

-- C.S. Lewis

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26614034

[thrwn_frthr_awy]

When I worked at Apple I got to read a ton of comments on HN when features I worked on were released and so much of it just wasn't true. Even articles, blog posts, and news reports.

[kjs3]

I assume by 'astonished' you mean 'totally not surprised'.

[dasickis]

Since most of these self-righteous comments below still have no idea what they're talking about. The site was for overflow of vaccines that were going unused & being thrown out. The Oakland Coliseum is one of these mega-sites. So many of you don't understand the on-the-ground realities of the communities you're speaking of where I live. I see my neighbors and when FEMA is running these sites they know their goals. It's not unethical to follow the guidelines and get jabbed. Also the line was most exclusively healthy adults coming in from all around California. Clearly I didn't invite 800 people myself from a deleted post on an internal forum.

Also on the Monday before the FEMA agents were telling me they had less people than vaccines, Tuesday they barely covered the people with vaccines, and Wednesday (when I got it) onwards they had slightly more demand when they asked people to tell their friends.

It's up to governments to enforce rules around their clinics instead of moral crusaders that live across the country with no on-the-ground experience to tweet an internal post to generate outrage.

Here are articles around why there was so few people getting vaccinated in our area and why FEMA requested us ask our friends to show up.

"COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in the United States: A Rapid National Assessment " - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778842/

"Addressing Justified Vaccine Hesitancy in the Black Community " - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8009077/

[HWR_14]

That seems to be just not the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27402261

[mbgerring]

From what other people who saw your original post have said, it sounds like you got significant pushback at the time, and that you knew that you were skirting the eligibility criteria as you understood it.

As I’m sure you are aware, the brunt of COVID infections and deaths in the Bay Area were borne mostly by our Black and Latinx neighbors, especially those who continued to work during the pandemic, serving those of us who were able to work from home in our underwear all year. And I’m also sure you’re aware that the relaxed eligibility criteria that allowed you to get vaccinated early was meant to reach them, not you.

You can dismiss your critics as “moral crusaders.” You cannot dismiss the fact that the people public health officials were trying to reach with the vaccine you took died at a much higher rate from COVID than, for example, the community of Y Combinator alumni.

How you feel about any of that is up to you, but I hope you’re at least willing to be honest about what happened.

[dasickis]

read the papers I linked and you'll realize that these sites have challenges with getting people vaccinated due to lack of trust in government and healthcare in general

it's been 3 months since that clinic and many people here are still hesitant to get vaccinated

these issues remain because few people understand how deep distrust runs especially in Oakland where people have seen the massive destruction caused by government agencies

[CRConrad]

> read the papers I linked and you'll realize...

How about you read the tweet someone else linked?

https://twitter.com/SarahBelleLin/status/1370071520953835520

[julianapostate]

What massive destruction? Have vaccines been a net health deficit for these groups?

[dasickis]

you can go to a community with high vaccine hesitancy or you know actually click the links I posted

[mynameisvlad]

If you want people on your side, you're really going to need to get some more tact over here.

Unnecessary snark isn't going to get you fans.

[tallgiraffe]

Dude, you forget it is 2021 and facts don't matter. Outrage is up to 11, and nothing else matters.

Good for you. You got vaccinated, got a few people vaccinated, and the world is safer at large. Ignore the haters~!

[tallgiraffe]

Got downvoted for this comment by a mob. How very on brand.

[gabereiser]

When I lived in Denver a few months back, the mass-vaccination site of Coors Field was right behind my condo. I love to skateboard and OneWheel that lot (Coors Field lot C) and just rolled up in my OneWheel and a nurse asked if I was there for a vaccination. I said I wasn’t but that I also hadn’t been vaccinated. She directed me to the line and said “Well, go get yours”. At this time CO hadn’t opened up vaccines for everyone 18+ (they did two weeks later). While I understand the frustrations some people have with the fact their state has waiting lists and eligibility requirements still, I also believe we should be happy people are getting vaxed. No input on the drama here but I’m glad you made the decision to get vaxed and Paul should do his part to make sure he gets vaxed. Internet outrage isn’t a sustainable community builder unless you’re into conspiracies or cancel culture. Calling out others for doing their part (whether ethically or not) is missing the point. Get vaxed. So we can all move forward.

[hef19898]

I am split on that. Waiting in line behind all those having prioritized appointments in order to catch surplus doses, fine. Lying to get such an appointment? Not cool. Generally, we shouldn't make such a fuss vaccination on social media, either way.

[gabereiser]

People lie. All the time. The Karen’s of the world. If you deceived in order to get vaxed and someone who desperately needs the vax couldn’t get one, I understand the anger. I’ve lost friends to covid. What I will say is life isn’t fair, crying about it after the fact doesn’t do anyone any justice. Focus on you and just go get vaxed. If you need to make an appointment, do it. If you need to walk up to a clinic, do it. The sooner we can get everyone vaxed the sooner we can return to normal. I’m not downplaying the issue, I’m simply redirecting energy into more positive outcomes. I have no say on the drama of whether they lied to get bumped to the front of the line or not. People lie to jump lines all the time. Hell, some people just cut them. Does it anger me personally, yes. Will it change the overall outcome, no. Get vaxed. Call your congressperson if you must, but get vaxed.

[kmonsen]

Your original post is a bit unclear. You don’t state if you lied or not pretending to be eligible.

If you did I don’t really feel any moral superiority, we each make our own decisions. That being said you are now one of those Karen’s in your own words.

[gabereiser]

I didn’t lie to skip a line. I just showed up. Labeling me isn’t going to get people vaxed. Go get vaxed.

Also, Karen’s (internet term) are people who complain about issues that don’t affect them personally or take offense at others actions that don’t matter to them. Or using their privilege to get what they want. I specifically stated I just showed up.

[kmonsen]

Oh, I really didn't think it was clear from your comment or follow up.

Honestly I have friends who lied to get the vaccine early and I don't really want to blame them. We were all in different circumstances in this pandemic and like I tried to say I don't want to pass judgement.

If you didn't lie I cannot see in any way how you did anything wrong. I read that you did from your follow-up post calling other people Karen's.

Not that it matters, but I did get vaccinated the very first day it was open for me where I live.

[walrus01]

> 2. I asked them about eligibility and told them I don't clear CA guidelines. They told me it's first come, first served with an ID showing I am 18+.

There are a number of 'special' vaccination sites in the USA which are indeed vaccinating first come, first served people without going through any special qualifications/eligibility check. For instance FEMA was, and still is, running a mass vaccination site in Yakima, WA which was a massive hot spot of infections in WA state.

They quite specifically told the media that they were focused on getting "shots into arms" and not spending a lot of time on each person checking residency documents.

https://www.google.com/search?q=yakima+wa+vaccination+site+f...

Although by the time it opened it was also possible for most people in the Seattle metro area to get a shot without a very long wait, I do know a few people who drove over there and quite clearly showed their drivers license for ID, and got vaccinated without violating any policy or lying about anything whatsoever.

[cavisne]

This was actually fake news, Yakima fema site had the same eligibility as elsewhere in the state

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/washingtoni...

A good example of how confusing and micro managed the eligibility charade was.

[simonbw]

I live in Seattle. What I remember is that they advertised that they were following the same eligibility requirements as everywhere else in the state, but they were having such trouble getting enough people to show up that they put out requests for anyone over 18 to show up. I know a few people who drove out there to get their shots a couple weeks ahead of when they would be eligible to make an appointment elsewhere in the state. None of them lied about their eligibility factors.

[turtlebits]

My manager drove out to Yakima. While they don't enforce eligibility, I still think it's immoral to try to get a shot when you aren't eligible.

[jonny_eh]

Information you think is wrong isn’t “fake news”. Please don’t be so hyperbolic. It’s akin to calling someone a liar.

[cavisne]

There is no “think” there is a quote from the public health officials who make the rules right there

[walrus01]

That may have been the policy which was published but the factual reality is that they were vaccinating very nearly any adult who showed up.

[steve_adams_86]

> There are a number of 'special' vaccination sites in the USA which are indeed vaccinating first come, first served people

Same here in Canada. Some private clinics have been offering FCFS vaccines to eligible age groups for some time now. I assumed the US must be the same and wondered what the outrage is here. I got messages from people encouraging me to do the same.

[_hyn3]

> There are a number of 'special' vaccination sites in the USA which are indeed vaccinating first come, first served people without going through any special qualifications/eligibility check.

As well as entire states in certain parts of the USA.

For example, Texas, where you only have to be at least 12 years old[0]. In many cities in Texas, they're at more than 50% and running out of arms to stick them in, and definitely very short or no lines. No idea why California has those requirements instead of just opening up more jab spots.

0. https://dshs.texas.gov/covidvaccine/

[kmonsen]

This is historical, there are no limitations in CA now. I believe that’s true for the whole country since April 15th. Bay Area removed requirements a few days before that due to higher than anticipated supply.

[_hyn3]

That makes a lot more sense -- thanks for the data.

[random314]

However these vaccination sites were set up specifically for underserved communities.

https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210326/california-fema-...

It also doesn't help that this person keeps changing his story all the time. On Twitter he claims that joe Biden announced that all adults are eligible for vaccination in March. This is patently false.

[jonny_eh]

Link to that tweet?

[random314]

https://twitter.com/Prafulfillment/status/140093960124245606...

"Also I never showed people how to skip a line given the rules for federal vaccination clinics were 18+ and the president announced it the same night as this rant."

The entirety of his reasoning that he didn't show people how to skip a line is based on the false premise that all adults qualified for a vaccine in March. In march, we had a tremendous shortage of vaccines for the 50+.

His tweets in march were super smug memes about what he did - "It is what it is". This simply doesn't jive with his story here that vaguely implies getting left over shots after waiting for hours. A completely different attitude from what he presents here. There is no verifiable history here, but I simply cant take the founder on his word.

[gruez]

Biggar's accusation is that you "lied to skip the vaccine queue". In your comment implies that you didn't, but it wasn't stated explicitly. For the record, can you affirmatively deny that you haven't "lied to skip the vaccine queue"?

[random314]

The yc founders commentary is highly unreliable. On Twitter he claimed that joe Biden declared that all adults are eligible for a vaccine in March. Hence he didn't skip the line. This is patently false. He has a different story here. I would take his claims with a huge helping of salt.

All that we know is that he got vaccinated in March ahead of federal guidelines. Did he wait to obtain vaccines left over at the end of the day? Or did he enter a line meant to serve underserved communities. We cannot tell.

[natch]

I believe what are being thought of and judged by some (not you necessarily) as hard rules are actually just guidelines as you mentioned.

And individual sites are encouraged to use their discretion in giving out available doses, when extra doses are available, to people who would otherwise not fit the guidelines. Because having doses go to waste is not desirable. So, people passing judgement may be being overly harsh.

It’s hard to speak generally about it though because rules and guidelines vary from place to place.

[Aeolun]

It’s perfectly acceptable to do this thing (in theory), but if stories about it turn into he said/she said there is part of the context we are missing.

[natch]

Maybe the takeaway is that organizations may (fairly, imho) try to limit the toxicity when people initiate he said/she said accusations in public without having all the facts.

[bodono]

Can you post your original message to the forum here too? That way we can know for sure what was said precisely, otherwise it's just he-said / he-said.

[kordlessagain]

Why is it we need to discuss this more? It’s not technical, or interesting. Just a bunch of people gossiping and trying to judge!!

[gruez]

Because people are interested and want to find out the truth? At the moment it's a he-said-she-said situation, with each side posting their own (probably biased) version of events.

[derefr]

The person you're replying to is suggesting that everyone who's "interested and want to find out the truth" here should stop and re-evaluate what utility that gets them, vs what disutility that information-seeking gets the people involved.

To put this another way: the paparazzi that chased Princess Diana to her death, did so because there was demand for tabloid journalism.

[pvg]

Because it’s just gawking curiosity, not intellectual curiosity - the latter being what the site is ostensibly about

[scrollaway]

The people that invested in this affair that doesn't concern them? They need a new hobby. Maybe volunteering at their local vax site for a few weeks could do some actual good instead of trying to play detective just to feel good about themselves pretending they are contributing.

[throwaaskjdfh]

The technical work that a lot of us are involved in is deeply intertwined with the venture capital business. This is a glimpse of how things operate inside of that business.

[oh_sigh]

Posting the exact text would be sort of the opposite of gossiping. And it is somewhat important because of the possibility of ycombinator unjustly punishing someone(the other possibility being that ycombinator did nothing wrong and this tweeter just burned his reputation). The beauty of the internet and message boards is that if you don't want to take part in the conversation, you can just leave the page.

[teddyh]

From the HN guidelines: “Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.”

[koolhaas]

Did the church site have to turn away elderly people, or other people who cleared CA guidelines, at the end of each day?

[drbacon]

I am also super interested in the answer to this particular question. I know a lot of people who waited for surplus/standby shots at the end of the day outside clinics in SF. Anecdotally, a lot of my coworkers got early vaccines that way.

As a non-essential worker with no risk factors, I felt that my contribution to the pandemic was to stay home and wait until my turn. I did, by the way, wait until the vaccine was generally available before scheduling. Before general availability, most of my friends my age (mid-30s) had been vaccinated by stretching the truth. I felt like the idiot, and had a fair amount of resentment.

I wonder about the surplus doses, though. Did a substantial culture of seeking out unused doses result in outcomes that were net positive from a utilitarian point of view? It's unclear to me how much "line cutting" this resulted in.

Clearly, stretching the truth to get a dose ahead of others is selfish at least. Back in March, I assume that there were plenty of people in need that didn't/couldn't get an appointment that needed a shot more than YCombinator founders. This wasn't stretching the truth though, just exploitation of a loophole and small surpluses of a limited resource.

In the end, I think the morality hinges on your question, koolhaas. To what extent did standby shots interfere with mitigating the health crisis. Is that what dasickis was doing? Was dasickis aware of opportunity cost of taking that shot? Did he even care?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/13/covid-your-bay-area-g...

[tzs]

> I am also super interested in the answer to this particular question. I know a lot of people who waited for surplus/standby shots at the end of the day outside clinics in SF. Anecdotally, a lot of my coworkers got early vaccines that way.

How did that work with the two-dose vaccines? If you were not eligible under the then current phase but got the first shot from surplus (which is entirely legitimate), were you exempted from phase requirements for the second shot?

[koolhaas]

Essentially yes. Once you get the first, you are scheduled for the 2nd, and aren’t questioned (and really, it’s all very honor system anyways).

Early in vaccination, I believe sites were reserving 2nd doses for everyone who got the first. Then production became predictable enough where cdc instructed sites to not reserve in favor of increasing vaccine rates. Then sites always prioritized people returning for 2nd doses (internally, or through scheduling systems)

[koolhaas]

I would feel guilt if me waiting in line before becoming eligible resulted in another person being turned away at a busy vaccine site - even if I didn’t have to technically lie about my eligibility.

Even if I’m iffy on the morality now, I don’t want to look back 20 years later as a different person, thinking about how, as a healthy young person, I cut in front of the eligible.

Would that person who was turned away because of me get a shot the next day, or the next? Probably. It’s just principles for me, like a personal code. The morality is debatable, everyone is different.

There’s something nice too about working cooperatively with an entire country at a unique time in history, and helping the less fortunate by simply following the rules as best you can as a non-essential individual.

My 2 cents

[labster]

I’d feel guilty, but it’s hard for me to get upset about other people skipping the line for the vaccine. Sure there are higher risks for certain people, and in a perfect world. But it’s hard for people to not be self-interested in their health.

And in public policy, the long game is always the important one. People will always cheat, and you have to decide what level of enforcement generates the most social good. Too much enforcement of welfare fraud leaves children hungry; too little enforcement gives out-of-state prisoners free money.

So here, since everyone needed to be vaccinated eventually, we really only needed the appearance of enforcement. Honestly, having rich people cheat only made vaccines more desirable, which in the long term may lead to a higher overall vaccination rate. I mean, if politicians and VCs and the elite all want it ASAP, maybe it’s safe for almost everyone?

[koolhaas]

> I’d feel guilty, but it’s hard for me to get upset about other people skipping the line

Same. I’m not upset, just wanted to walk through what goes through my head personally.

> And in public policy, the long game is always the important one

This is a key point. The policy did its job. Old and weakened people got their shots, line skippers are a blip on the radar. But maybe it worked because most people played their role and held back tiny personal infractions for the greater good.

> I mean, if politicians and VCs and the elite all want it ASAP, maybe it’s safe for almost everyone?

I think that is very theoretical psychoanalysis, but if it’s what people tell themselves to get that early jab, sure. In the end, this is an unprecedented global crisis and people are either going to fall in line or act in ways that help them cope with uncertainty and anxiety.

[k__]

Don't know about the state of vax in the USA, but here in Germany it's pretty chaotic.

There are vax centers for priorized people and then every doc gets a bunch of vaccinations for their own patienst, which don't have to be priorized.

Now, some vax centers are temporarily closed, because they run out of vaccinations, so priorized groups cant get vaccinated anymore.

But if you find some doc somewhere, who still got a few jabs left, you can vaccinated there even if you aren't priorized.

[hef19898]

Yep, Germany screwed up the whole supply management. Just saw a projection that Germany will reach 80% first vaccinations in July. Which was kind of expected, initial orders as of January were enough to get that in June/July. I guess we will one month behind everyone else in the EU, so I think July won't be that far off. In August we will see headlines complaining about all the over ordering of vaccines and what to do with it.

I'd love to write a case study about that one day. Or maybe not.

[ryanobjc]

Yes it did.

All the fema pop up sites ran out every day and thus shut down and turned people away.

[mgh2]

Well, if Paul was mistaken, then he should have been informed- not kicked out of YC for a misunderstanding don’t you think? Sounds like abuse of power

[addicted]

Yeah, I’m not gonna get particularly upset about either side doing something wrong at a time when there was a lot of confusion, lot of pressure, and frankly the correct moral decision isn’t all that clear.

But that swings both ways, and it does not speak well that 1 side was penalized so heavily for it, irrespective of whether they were in the right or wrong.

Of course, it’s even more egregious coming on the heels of a Ycombinator founder defending someone who did far far worse.

[mgh2]

I am not surprised this comment was buried to avoid scrutiny. Technocracy censorship is common these days

[pdonis]

> 4. Posted it in an internal forum for other founders.

Why? That seems to be the key question and I don't see an answer to it anywhere in this discussion.

[sour-taste]

FWIW: Early on California had a no leftover doses policy. But what do you do when you have more vaccines than eligible people? You lower the eligibility requirements. This probably wasn't official policy but it was required of vaccination site runners to comply with the policy, so as they got towards the end of the day and they still had doses leftover they probably started jabbing anyone who walked in. I don't know what the consequences were from having leftover doses, but they were severe enough that some sites started doing this kind of thing.

[tzs]

Several posters in this reddit discussion [1] about that vaccination site corroborate dasickis' claims.

It's still not clear why they were not sticking to whatever the current phase California was in at the time. I've seen a couple claims on that, both of which are believable.

1. The site was participating in a Federal vaccination program, not a state vaccination program. The state rollout phases only applied to state programs.

2. They didn't get enough people making appointments to use up their vaccine allotment. When that happened (or when people made but didn't keep appointments) sites were allowed to give the leftover vaccine out first come first served to anyone who met the requirements of the FDA emergency authorization for the vaccine they were using.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/m4bqx9/a_west_oakl...

[random314]

This was a FEMA clinic for underserved communities in need

Make what you want to about it.

https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210326/california-fema-...

[chasd00]

This whole thing is about a COVID shot!? Yeah petty on all sides sounds about right to me.

[KyleBerezin]

I don't agree with this comment, but we should probably upvote it for credible argument's sake.

[ericjang]

I agree with this comment and upvoted it for credible argument's sake

[KyleBerezin]

I read more about the location he got his shot from. He is most likely right that he did nothing wrong. Idk anything about the other person who supposedly bragged about skipping in line, but seeing as 1 of his 2 examples was incorrect, I'm going to assume the 2nd one is untrue too until I see something more than hearsay.

[CRConrad]

Judging from this poster, he is most likely not right: https://twitter.com/SarahBelleLin/status/1370071520953835520

[jollybean]

As it is presented it does not seem controversial. If someone is not misrepresenting themselves, and they are following the rules of the site/clinic then there's no concern here.

[Hamuko]

>YC founder came with his aunt, uncle, and mom all over 65 to get jabbed who didn't know about the vaccine site.

Did this YC founder and his aunt, uncle and mom also live in the neighbourhood?

Also, I'm curious about those "issues" if you were just intending to help out people in your neighbourhood? What issues were there with your post?

[csomar]

I think they didn't have residency requirements. (just being 18+ and you are eligible).

[boublepop]

So did you or didn’t you instruct people to lie about their profession in order to get vaccinated? I’m not making an accusation here, but I’m genuinely curious if that point is a blatant lie or something you feel is ok to omit in your description of events?

[hmsimha]

For people like me who read the linked twitter thread before reading the comments (admittedly guilty of getting outraged before hearing both sides): There is an "unvote" button underneath the headline.

[xtracto]

It baffles me how people get outraged when other people get vaccinated out of "order" . Here in Mexico there's a lot of ruckus because of people going to Texas to get vaccine. Or when doctors vaccinated themselves and their families.

My thought is... when it comes to vaccines. It doesn't matter who goes first and who goes later. The fact that someone (anyone) is vaccinated helps us all. I still dont have the vaccine and will get it later. But I already feel safer with all the people that have been vaccinated. Theres no way people can do wrong!!

[beiller]

I think, assuming the vaccine is effective, vaccination only one group like what is happening in a small set of countries, will have a negative effect on the goal of eliminating a virus (is this the goal?). Supposedly allowing the virus to thrive and mutate in a subset of humans would make vaccines overall less effective at completely extinguishing a disease. But case by case has a negligit effect on national disparity, but socially it seems unacceptable.

[kordlessagain]

Twitter is Internet rage defined.

[ed405]

You mean HN is internet rage defined? Twitter is awesome.

[marcos100]

Totally! If your Twitter timeline is not awesome, it's your fault.

[axiosgunnar]

Why would people have issues with you simply posting you...went and got a jab? Is there more to the story? Sorry genuinely curious, not trying to put fuel on the fire

[hn8788]

From what they wrote, it looks like they probably said something along the lines of "Hey, here's a location where they don't care if you are in an at risk group, you can just show up and get your vaccine." Considering it was back in March, people probably found it wrong to be advertising that to a bunch of people who are probably healthy and well-off, instead of people who actually needed the vaccine.

I'm not going to make any judgements about it though, considering I don't know anything about how things were in California. In Maryland they had county level registrations that went through tiers of at risk groups, plus state-wide vaccination sites that were open to anyone, so I ended up getting my vaccination a few weeks before I would have if I'd waited for "my turn" with the county vaccination program.

[ignoramous]

> Why would people have issues with you simply posting you...went and got a jab? Is there more to the story?

From the tweets now deleted, looks like the internal bookface post in question wasn't all that popular and got roundly criticized.

At least it got 0 upvotes and every single response told him he was wrong. Doesn't seem like he learned his lesson, however it's clear almost nobody else approves of this mentality.

(I think the first one was way worse; he was advocating lying.)

Seems like there's definitely more to it?

https://archive.is/6t7AG

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

Interesting. I can still see these "deleted" tweets when I retrieve JSON from the command line. I do not like using Twitter's user interface, especially the way it uses Javascript, so I wrote a quick shell script called 1.sh to read Twitter without using a graphical web browser.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27056734

To read the JSON, I have been experimenting with json_reformat from https://github.com/lloyd/yajl

   1.sh > 1.json

   sed -n /{\"data\"/p 1.json|json_reformat|sed  -n -e 's/ *//' \ 
   -e '/created_at/p;/sation_id_str/p;/full_text/p'|grep -B2 full_text|less

[flunhat]

This was back in March when vaccine demand outstripped supply & ensuring "fair access" to the vaccine was a big concern. It seems almost quaint now that we have the opposite problem. (FWIW I think Paul's reaction was pretty unreasonable, bordering on hysterical).

[myWindoonn]

You failed a basic ethical test: Can you wait until the needy have had their turn? The answer seems to be that no, you cannot. I recognize that YC views this as a positive trait in founders, but I hope that you recognize that the vast majority of folks view it as a negative.

[0xbadcafebee]

I was hoping someone would validate my suspicion that all of the people commenting without seeing any evidence were indulging in outrage porn.

[nomdep]

NYC has been offering vaccines for all international tourists for quite some time: https://twitter.com/nycgov/status/1390389905033994246

[grzm]

As others have pointed out, the event they're discussing happened in March.

[jkaplowitz]

Not all. NY hasn't yet expanded eligibility to international residents, unlike some states like PA (other than Philadelphia) and TX which are okay vaccinating anyone of the right age regardless of country of residence.

Source: https://covid19vaccine.health.ny.gov/ "All individuals 12 years of age and older that reside in the United States are eligible to receive the vaccine." https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccine-eligibi... used to mention this requirement but still links to the NY State COVID-19 Vaccine Form (seemingly hosted on S3!) https://forms.ny.gov/s3/vaccine that includes an attestation that the vaccine recipient "presently reside[s] in the United States".

They aren't just excluding international tourists, either - lots of non-tourist international residents are still excluded from vaccination in NY. I'm an American citizen who currently lives outside the US, but I've spent most of my life living in NYC and am preparing to move back there with my wife once she gets her US immigrant visa. We recently visited my fully vaccinated parents, primarily as a family visit and mental health break, and with tourism kept to a minimum for safety reasons.

When we got our first shots in late April, the rules were "NY residents only", so we each got our two doses in a relatively nearby, rural, and somewhat politically purplish part of PA that had plenty of spare shots and that didn't mind ID documents showing foreign residency. Even now we wouldn't qualify for getting our first dose in NYC, despite having a lot stronger ties to the area than tourists.

I hope NY removes this last restriction some time soon: maybe together with its so-called "full reopening" on July 1, maybe when the Canada-US land border reopens to travelers who aren't fully vaccinated, or maybe when the geographical travel restrictions get dropped for foreigners coming from the EU/UK/China.

[nomdep]

That tweet from the official account of the City of New York says otherwise: “With State authorization, we can get vaccines to tourists and make sure they have a built in souvenir to bring home with them.”

[jkaplowitz]

That tweet is just being imprecise, not contradicting me - they can give it to tourists, just tourists who live somewhere in the US. The state did authorize that. The statewide restriction was NY residents only until the city started pushing the state to allow a broader policy. All of my links are from official state or city sources as well, and those reference webpages and official forms get a lot more attention as to the details than a single admittedly official tweet.

In practice, I doubt an international resident would be refused at many of these sites, as they're no longer asking for proof of residency beyond the attestation on that form, and it would probably be an informal or even formal policy not to turn people away who admit they don't fit within the guidelines. But still, that's just a question of tolerance for going outside the eligibility criteria, not a refutation of the existence of the criteria.

[rdlecler1]

I don’t know when this occurred but a few months ago sites started having an oversupply problem and were taking people no questions asked. At that point the elderly and vulnerable had several months lead time and 95% of the people at the vaccination centers were 25-55. I was more outraged at the snitches rage. I personally don’t think there was a moral issue here at all.

[throwkeep]

> Paul ends up tweeting about it and making a huge deal around something he has no idea about. He gets a bunch of people on Twitter upset about something they don't know about.

I gave him the benefit of doubt, but should have been more skeptical upon seeing pronouns in bio. It's a curiously predictive heuristic. For whatever reason, pronoun people tend to be particularly good at generating internet drama.

[dcra]

Yeah, or we want to be treated like humans. Find a better heuristic.

[throwkeep]

That exaggerated oppression claim only reinforces the heuristic. In reality, approximately 99% of the time people use the correct pronouns based on name and appearance. The remaining rare cases consist of honest mistakes (that can be politely corrected) or bullies (who the rest of us already denounce).

[metaxis79]

This is really frustrating to me, I also got vaccinated at that clinic through the same mechanism - I live in the complex on the street a block away and perpendicular.

I also had people complain at me, and I had to patiently ask them, "would you rather the doses expire"? It's really frustrating but I understand the confusion and also the general feeling of "unfairness", as everyone right-thinking is eager to get vaccinated if possible.

[kuschku]

When I was a child I remember going to food banks. I remember the food bank having no eligibility checks whatsoever.

I also remember a few rich people going there just to take advantage of it, and I remember days where we were so far back in line that we got nothing while the rich people walked out happily.

That vaccination site isn't any different. Those vaccines were intended for poor, underdocumented, at risk populations. Your vaccination saved one life (yours), but cost many more. It's not any different from the days I went hungry due to egoists like you.

Nowadays, I'm obviously in a different situation, but I still can't stand people with this "fuck you, got mine" mindset.

[SyzygistSix]

Apparently lots of vaccination sites were indeed different.

Your food bank analogy would work if they were serving fresh food and could not give it all away, so invited any and all to come and eat. Which was the situation at many vaccination sites. Doses were going to waste if people did not use them. And when not enough people in the designated groups were showing up or making appointments at some sites, everyone was encouraged to come so the shots did not go to waste. That so many showed up after the general call for people is a marker of success. Not the one intended for initially, but better than shots going to waste.