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.
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.
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.
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.)
It was specifically opened to counter the difficulty of members of that community to get vaccinated at the Coliseum. The "clinic was intended to serve: Black, Latino and Pacific Islander people." Organizers call people from outside the community "interlopers" (I recognize you may live in the community, but those you invited did not.) They say “You hope that word doesn’t spread".
The fact that they did not require online appointments or ID was because the population they were trying to serve often lacks ID or the means to make appointments. Again, this is directly comparable to a food bank. The food is first-come first-serve and there is rarely paperwork/proof of insolvency. Heck, they probably don't even have a sign that say "Free Food for poor people only". Why are you not going to a foodbank?
You then claim if you hadn't taken a vaccine someone else just as unentitled would have. That's a claim you can make about almost any crime or heinous act. If Bernie Madoff hadn't ripped those people off some other smart con would have. If you don't steal that drunk's wallet, someone else is going to.
But, beyond that, you advertised the location. The main reason there was... what? To score social credit by being "the guy who found me my vaccine" in stories for the next five years? To produce a sense of obligation among people you may need favors from? Because you valued you were communicating with over the poor people in Oakland?
Fundamentally, you did something wrong.
You did have an option to give it to someone less privileged - The option is not taking it yourself so that someone who is at higher risk likely gets it, which is what the program was trying to achieve. In a world of limited supply/capacity one person getting a vaccine simply means another doesn’t.
I’m not from the states, but your post does seem to be the stereotype of American culture of “seek individual benefit at the expense of the wider community”, I.e. “I didn’t technically break any rules, so why am I being berated for jumping in front of other people who are more in need?”.
Huh -- how was that option taken away from you? You could have just not queued up there, or left the queue. Or were you chained in line?
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.
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.
