[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.