Approximately 8% of the county received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine and another 9% were fully vaccinated. | Graphic via Humboldt County.
###
Last month, about 50 to 55 Humboldt County Superior Court officials were able to obtain the COVID-19 vaccination at a clinic in Scotland, despite the fact that, according to state guidelines, it was not yet their turn.
The state is currently in the middle of Phase 1B of its vaccine distribution plan. This phase includes people aged 65 and over, as well as education and daycare workers, agriculture / food and emergency services.
Judges and other court officials across the state have been fighting for a higher priority since the beginning of December, before the vaccine was launched. In late January, the judge presiding over the Humboldt County Superior Court, Joyce Hinrichs, sent a letter to Director of Public Health Michele Stephens requesting that court officials, court officials, and prosecutors and the Office of Public Defenders to Phase 1B, which made them eligible for the shots.
However, in a statement sent to the Advanced post, Stephens said the state was clear in its guidelines.
“We have contacted state officials several times in the past few months, and each time they have confirmed that the state’s vaccination plan does not include court officials in Phase 1A or Phase 1B,” she said. “They remain listed in the Government Operations sector, which were in Phase C before the state moved to prioritizing by age.”
And yet, more than four dozen Humboldt County court officials were able to be vaccinated last month at the Southern Trinity Health Services clinic in Scotland.
In an email to Advanced postCourt Executive Director Kim Bartleson said she disagrees with Stephens’ position and last month instructed her team to “explore all options” in an effort to prevent a COVID outbreak among court officials.
“A catastrophic event like this could have created an additional threat to public safety for the community,” said Bartleson in his e-mail. “I instructed the HR department of the Court to contact several clinics and pharmacies in the region to inquire about the possibility of extra doses being available so that we could be placed on a notification list to be called at the last minute for COVID injections.
Some court officials who are patients at Southern Trinity Health Services heard about a vaccination clinic held in Scotland earlier this month and, according to Bartleson’s guideline, sought to know whether “higher risk” court officials could receive their vaccines. “Fortunately, they said yes,” said Bartleson to the Advanced post.
The clinic proved to be a good connection. “A few weeks later, we were able to send additional staff to the same clinic,” continued Bartleson. “Approximately 50 – 55 people employed by the court have been vaccinated.”
This leap in line caused frustration in the county’s Department of Public Health and also among lawyers from the Public Defender’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Last week, a local resident wrote to several county supervisors asking why public defenders and prosecutors cannot get their vaccines when court officials, judges “and family members of judges” have already received them. First district supervisor Rex Bohn forwarded the email to Stephens, who responded by saying that court officials received their vaccines “by mistake and not with the approval of Public Health.”
The Public Health branch has some flexibility in determining who to vaccinate, but must focus on the groups specified in the implementation of various stages of the state, Stephens wrote.
“[W]We cannot be so dishonest as to start forming groups like all county officials, like DA and PD who are not in the initial phase priorities that the state outlined, ”she continued. “It has to be based on equity in terms of who is most affected by covid-19, who is most at risk. And without a large supply of vaccine, these decisions are really difficult to make. “
Contacted by phone on Monday, Tracy Wade, administrative assistant at the Southern Trinity Health clinic in Scotland, said that some county court officials who allegedly were in high-risk health categories attended a clinic in February and received their vaccines. . His colleagues were not far behind.
“What happened was [the court] ended up sending us another group that was not at high risk, ”said Wade. How did these workers manage to make appointments if they were not yet officially eligible? “There are a number of ways,” said Wade.
Although your clinic will usually fill your vacancies based on a mass registration list provided by the county, patients who receive email notifications about eligibility or a future appointment sometimes share the link with friends and family despite an explicit request. not to do so.
The link takes people to a website where they are asked a series of screening questions. We asked Wade if it is possible to circumvent this system by providing false answers.
“I would say that the possibilities are endless,” she replied. “It depends on how honest you are.”
Clinic staff check people’s identification when they show up for an appointment, but Wade said it was not feasible to investigate each person’s eligibility.
“If someone shares a link, there is not much we can do,” she said. “We are just trying to vaccinate as many people as possible.”
The fourth district supervisor, Virginia Bass, told the Advanced post on Thursday, she heard that court officials jumped ahead in line and that they were also able to vaccinate their family members. And while she believes that Bartleson was “trying to do the right thing” for her employees in the context of a potentially confusing and frequently changing system, she still found the change frustrating.
“It is frustrating because we [the county] they are responsible for vaccinating the most vulnerable, and we haven’t even been able to fully vaccinate food and farm workers, ”said Bass. She pointed out that migrant workers, farmers and grocery store clerks have been on the front lines since the start of the pandemic, while many of the court’s businesses are being conducted via Zoom.
“This whole thing didn’t bring out the best in people,” added Bass.
Bartleson told the Advanced post that court officials, judges and justice partners have been given higher priority in other counties, including Los Angeles County, although that county’s guidelines say eligibility is limited to those “who are required to appear in court routinely and interact with clients in correctional facilities. “
Still, Bartleson argued that the state’s guidance to local public health directors was not clear or consistent, and she said, “our Director of Public Health has taken a very restrictive position that has not been shared by other counties.”
She added that not all court officials received their vaccines and, until they do, she will continue to press for them to get in line.
“The Court still supports the designation of Level 1B for Court officials … and would encourage our Public Health to do so,” she said.