Implied on February 28 - vaccinated
Statement on March 1 - vaccinated
There were a couple of bumps on the way, but the conclusion to yesterday's story is that I'm now fully vaccinated, at least by the standards of our time. The first dose was on February 4, which left me in an almost immediate daze - it felt like I had a thirty-six hour concussion from almost the minute the needle left my arm. My second dose was in the early afternoon of February 25, but I didn't notice any side effects during the first few hours. It wasn't until the overnight that I felt the chills, fever, and light nausea predicted in the Pfizer FAQs, but those were tolerable.
The next morning proved the biggest challenge - I woke up with the kind of headache that I'd previously associated with a pint glass of whiskey, where you can't tell if it's the pain or the dizziness that's knocking you down. It started bad and became worse, my condition regressing throughout the morning despite a cup of yogurt, a little coffee, and plenty of water. By 11AM, I couldn't stand up for more than a minute or two at a time, so I gave up and passed the rest of the day lying down. A slight improvement came at around 6PM, but I still couldn't fathom eating. I awoke the next morning five pounds lighter and sloom fatigued, with a sore lower back testament to the prior day spent on bed rest. Luckily, my back was the worst of my remaining problems, and although I remained groggy throughout an otherwise normal weekend I felt much better than I did on that first full day after the second dose.
The official TOA recommendation - take a day or two off after you get your second dose.
Implied on February 28 - confusion about priority groups
Statement on March 1 - resignation that I will never know
I noted that confusion was my initial reaction to the vaccine offer, and I described the challenge of finding publicly available information that would help me understand the decision. A month later and I still haven't found what I was looking for, though I do have something of a digital paper trail for my bewilderment - this article from January 22 notes the contradicting information while a January 23 report states "everyone on [a hospital's] staff" is eligible, as if it was entirely expected, or reasonable, or that such news carried no potential for controversy. This transcript from a January 28 NPR show seems like an appropriate summary - a list of statements related to the situation that fails to explain or understand the decision, though to its credit it does confirm that the state made a choice; I can't help but feel that such reporting is more distracting than helpful, however, particularly when it takes the form of a fact parade that fools the audience into feeling informed without taking that critical step to find the information hiding in the details.
It's telling that the news of my vaccination has surprised every single person I've told about it, including a friend who is a nurse practitioner at a local hospital. Here's what it comes down to - in mid-January, I was at the back of the line, then something changed in the next week that propelled me to the front. So what changed? I feel a lot of people deserve an answer, but the fact that I can hardly find even a bulletin about the decision itself suggests a large segment of the population remains in the dark. These people, having been denied the information required to formulate the question in the first place, are left in a dangerous situation - they will be asked to maintain trust in leadership that, at best, is inconsistent with its collection and distribution of information. The rest of us, or at least those with a sense of discretion, are faced with a different peril - we have to decide, on a conversation by conversation basis, who gets the truth, for in the best-case scenario we'll be asked to defend a decision about which we were never consulted; at worst, well, at least for me, I suppose no one needs an excuse to attack an Asian these days, but even verbal abuse can be an unsettling experience.
I am not of the opinion that this anecdote represents a larger communication concern - my bet is that leadership is focused on larger priorities. Still, I wish it had played out differently. It strikes me as a reckless approach to withhold information, particularly in this moment when many are citing a lack of trust in leadership as an explanation for their concern, hesitation, or outright refusal to take the vaccine; the only consistent outcome of withholding information is that people will wonder about what else is being withheld from them. I worry that each person I surprise with the news regarding my vaccination will lose a little bit of trust in the government, even if this loss is barely perceptible; the long-term side effect I fear the most starts with the erosion of trust.
