As Texans scramble for appointments for the COVID-19 vaccine, federal data helps explain why: Relative to its population, the Lone Star State ranks near the bottom in the country in number of doses received.
Texas has received the second-highest number of doses in the country. Per capita, however, Texas comes in closer to the bottom at 49th out of all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, according to an analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Federal officials say there is a good reason for that: Vaccine distribution is based on the adult population of each state. And roughly a quarter of Texans are under the age of 18. Still, even when adjusted for adults only, Texas ranks 48th.
As Texas politicians from Congress down to local county judges push for more doses, the supply remains scarce, even for people older than age 65 and those with serious medical conditions.
“Nobody is getting enough. That is plain and simple,” said Brazoria County Judge Matt Sebesta, estimating that more than half of the roughly 130 providers that signed up to distribute vaccines in the county have yet to receive any doses. “We are kind of where we were last April with personal protective equipment and testing equipment: not enough to go around.”
State health officials insisted they are ordering as many doses as they can from the federal government and distributing them as quickly as they can.
“The supply of vaccines is limited by both the manufacturers’ ability to produce it and the amount allotted to Texas by the federal government,” said Lara Anton, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of State Health Services. “The federal government determines how much vaccine will be sent to providers in the state on a weekly basis.”
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Bill Hall said the vaccines are distributed based on an algorithm that takes into account the adult population in each state and U.S. territory. “We are committed to fair and equitable allocation of vaccines and therapeutics,” Hall said.
Texas has received more than 3.5 million doses of the vaccine, though the rollout so far has been anything but smooth. County registration lines have crashed under demand.
We know the story by now. There’s more vaccine coming, and that supply will increase further over time, but the administration of those doses has been chaotic. Greg Abbott has done the hard work of taking credit for everyone else’s hard work, but he never did anything to push the Trump administration to have a plan – let alone make sure the state of Texas had one, given Trump’s plan was to make the states do it – and it’s hard to imagine him making a diplomatic call to the Biden administration to ask for more help. He has reassured us that everything is going great, though, so at least we have that.
Trump shortchanged Texas to give more vaccine to his home states of New York and Florida, using the excuse that Texas has a younger population than those two states.
Then, the article says that the amount is allotted by the federal government, but then the post goes on to say that Trump’s plan is to make the states do it. If the federal government has no plan why is the federal government allotting vaccine to the states. Now we have a president who has thrown up his hands and said we can’t change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next few months. All of the deaths that this president attributed to Trump, all 400,000, but now that he’s in office, there’s nothing we can do. If Trump is such a miracle worker, we need to get him back in office and just plead with him to help.
I have been vigorously searching Pub Med and reviewing the Science. I found a paper called “Disease Mitigation Strategies in the Control of Pandemic Influenza.” The paper uses a quotation: HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt’s statement at a February 2006 State and Local Pandemic Preparedness Meeting: “Any community that fails to prepare [for an influenza pandemic] with the idea that somehow, in the end, the federal government will be able to rescue them will be tragically wrong.”
Obviously the science has known for 14 years that local government needed a plan. Heavy hitters like Rick Perry and Ed Emmett failed us big time by not having a plan when the Science revealed the need.
Speaking of the Science, the same paper states that: studies have shown that the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus. The pores in the mask become blocked by moisture from breathing, and the air stream simply diverts around the mask. There are few data available to support the efficacy of N95 or surgical masks out-side a healthcare setting. N95 masks need to be fit-tested to be efficacious and are uncomfortable to wear for more than an hour or two.
Everywhere the Science shows that masks have little or no real world efficacy. It’s the Science people, and now we have a president whose only plan is let’s wear masks for like, a hundred days or something.
There is much more to unpack in the Science, and I know that our state, county, and local government leaders are busy with meetings, and self congratulations, and fund raising. They have rebuffed me when I have offered to explain the Science to them. They are happy to go along with the interpretation of the Science offered by hate filled media, like CNN and ABC.
Re: “He has reassured us that everything is going great, though, so at least we have that.”
Amen.
Prayers and pious thoughts for the dearly from-COVID departed; – Exemption from civil liability for business entities in COVID-related litigation.
OUR ECCLESIASTICAL ABBOTT VERBATIM:
– Our hearts are with those who suffered from COVID.
– And we mourn for every single Texan who lost their lives to the virus.
– We pray that their families will heal from the hurt of losing a loved one.
– We also pray for all the Texans who are still recovering from COVID.
– And we are grateful that this week more than two million Texans have recovered from COVID.
Businesses need legal protection from nuisance lawsuits. Life is full of assumed risk, and the only way businesses will be able to continue is to be protected from lawsuits like, “I shopped at HEB and then got the Wu flu….pay up, HEB!”
It’s going to be impossible to determine where and who you got the Wu flu from, but hey, let’s sue anyone with deep pockets and try to collect.
Let’s just put our pretend hats on, for a moment. The peanut gallery here all co-own a co-op, maybe you sell artisanal cheese made by disadvantage elves of color. I show up to buy your cheese, then turn around and sue you and bankrupt your business. Oops! No more employed elves, no more income for you, all because I filed a nuisance lawsuit against your company. See why there should be some legal protections here?
SHOULD BUSINESSES BE IMMUNIZED?
Bill: On the premise that “Governments are Instituted among Men to Protect Business Entities” you would have a better argument. That’s not the case though. In our system of government it is — at least in theory — about the people: living and breathing members of the species homo sapiens (though not always so sapiens).
Business entities are not natural persons; they are legal fictions.
Also remember that business entities are formed for the purpose of avoiding personal liability by owner(s) for business obligations, whether in tort or contract, and that businesses have the option to subscribe to workers comp to limit their liability to employees who suffer on-the-job injury. So, the owners — as natural persons — are already protected, and the business themselves can manage their litigation risk exposure just as they manage other risks.
DIFFICULTY OF PROVING A CLAIM
As for inability to prove a claim (and establish the causal nexus element of a tort claim in particular), the courts can and do deal with that day in, day out. By adjudicating motions for NO-EVIDENCE summary judgment, if it even comes to that, and if a claim survives the summary judgment stage, through a trial, which serves to establish whether the claim has merit or not.
The plaintiff has the burden of proof. So, if it is well-nigh impossible to prove COVID-related claims — as you assert — that would work in the biz defendant’s favor. No statutory immunity needed.
In practice, it is only a small percentage of claims that go to trial, not to mention a labor-intensive and therefore costly jury trial.
As for baseless/groundless claims, there are numerous mechanisms already in place to deal with them (and deter them), including sanctions and fee shifting statutes.
Lobo, Indeed a business is a legal fiction, but it possess a brand name, which is intellectual property. Bad publicity can negatively impact the value of the brand.
Re: “Bad publicity can negatively impact the value of the brand.”
Sure, no argument with that, but how does that relate to whether or not the Lege should grant business entities immunity to COVID lawsuits, as urged by Abbott?
BAD PUBLICITY FROM BEING SUED?
As a practical matter, a grant of tort immunity does not prevent lawsuits (although it reduces the incidence thereof because competent attorneys will not file lawsuits that are sure losers, at least not if they take cases on contingency).
It just means that lawsuits will be dismissed faster, likely at the outset, depending on what form the Lege-bestowed special-interest protection takes, and that the plaintiff may have to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees (as in health care liability claims dismissed for failure to provide a proper expert report as required by Sec. 74.351 of the Civ. Practice & Remedies Code).
If the special interest legislation creates a statutory affirmative defense for COVID-related claims, that would then be raised in traditional motion for summary judgment by the defendant (distinct from a no-evidence motion that forces the plaintiff to show their cards before a trial setting). But it is conceivable that the Lege would provide for dismissal based solely on the pleadings (nature of claim), perhaps piggy-backing on the existing Rule 91a dismissal procedure.
So what exactly is the argument here?
Why should the Lege exempt businesses from the civil tort system?
(Government entities already have immunity).
Spoiler Alert du jour – the Texas Legislature is never going to pass legislation that’d be designed/worded to protect a legally formed business from a civil suit.
Wolf,
What about DBA businesses? The owner IS the business. So let’s say I hire Wolf, Esquire to write a will for me, and then I get the Wu flu. I sue Wolf because, well, everybody knows Wolf is loaded….he has deep pockets.
Now you are left to hire a lawyer yourself and defend against a spurious suit filed by me. You’ve got to have all your employees tested, in order to mount your defense against my suit. Wouldn’t it be easier if we just applied the caveat emptor principle, and codified that into law, so I wouldn’t be able to harangue you for money just because something bad happened to me?
I mean, let’s say I get the Wu flu. I turn around and sue every business, every friend, every coworker, and everyone I’ve come into contact with. Someone must be at fault because something happened to me, right? Some will fight, and some will settle, but I’ve just cost everyone I know money, just because I can.
I realize you have no sympathy for HEB, but maybe you can empathize with Wolf, Esquire, who has 3 employees and works hard to keep the lights on. Wolf, Esquire deserves some protection, too.
Re: What about DBA businesses?
The owner has the option to operate as a sole proprietorship or one of a variety of biz entities. See Texas Business Organizations Code. If the owner is “loaded”, obtaining legal help with entity choice and formation should not be a problem.
Also, small law firms — regardless of legal form — don’t make for a good hypothetical here because they are distinct from other businesses in that they can use their own “business expertise” to defend themselves in court. They don’t have to hire outside counsel, though that is, of course, an option.