Interpretive Column Rough Draft 2/6/2021

Write a 350-400 word interpretive journalistic column about an issue in the news that you feel strongly about. In your column you should do the following:
a. Stake out a position, explain your position and advocate for it throughout the column.
b. Support your position with as many facts as you can (quoting experts is a good idea).
c. Offer solutions if there are any for the position/problem you've written about in your column.

California’s move to prioritize immunization based on age for future phases is ableist and proof that even in healthcare, government officials choose to perpetuate systemic disregard for those differently-abled and at higher risk.  

For the entire year, various health care organizations and lawmakers have touted prioritizing vaccination for those immune-deficient with pre-existing conditions. 

Now, about three months into vaccine rollouts, some of these people have been moved to the bottom of the list. 

After education sectors, emergency services, and food and agriculture departments are vaccinated, the California vaccine advisory panel has planned to vaccinate from oldest to youngest. 

This means that younger individuals with underlying health conditions like chronic lung disease, heart disease, and neuromuscular disease will have to wait at least a few more months until it is their turn. 

Similarly, young to middle-aged individuals who are visually-impaired and navigate by touching surfaces and reading braille are put at the back of the line. 

Despite adults with disabilities being three times more likely than adults without disabilities to have underlying conditions that make them at higher risk of dying of COVID-19, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, California decides to choose efficiency over equity. 

When instead, the state's main goal should be delivering health equity as efficiently as possible. 

Age-based prioritization assumes that all younger people are at lower risk for infection at the expense of the minority groups like the differently-able. 

This ill-advised assumption falls victim to the tyranny of the majority, an ethical rule argued by utilitarianism’s prominent figure John Stuart Mill. 

California argues that the age-based eligibility criterion is simply just easier, faster, and more verifiable. 

However, if people can show proof of their employment sector to get vaccinated, showing proof of disability shouldn’t be much different. 

California residents receiving disability benefits can show statements, records, or letters from the Federal Government agency that is issuing their benefits. 

Likewise, those with underlying conditions that make them immune-compromised can show proof of their last hospital treatment. 

In addition, the speed of vaccine distribution has more to do with how many vaccines are actually being allocated to California and the spaces and facilities available to conduct the immunization. 

Many people feel fooled by these poor government decisions that appear to be just an excuse for their ableism and utter laziness to adapt and create an efficient system for those differently-abled.

It is only illogical that if the goal of efficiency is to create the most useful outcome, vaccinating solely by age is not the most favorable method to combat a virus that targets immune-compromised individuals.