I live in a Rural county in California. Demographically, it has a larger percentage of elderly than in metro areas. To date, our county has only received the vaccine once and it was a mere pittance compared to those over age 65 who live here. According to the county website, they won't receive any more vaccine for at least 3 more weeks and won't be taking any appointments until they have the vaccine in hand.
In the meantime, the next county over, Sacramento, where the state capital is located, has lots of vaccine available for those 65 and older. Trying to sign up there, it won't go through because they ask my zipcode and since I'm not in-county, I'm rejected. However, I put down my son's zip code who does live in that county and I can easily make an appointment. I won't of course. At the very least, they'll discover my ruse when I show them my ID. I'm guessing one has to prove who they are at some time as well as their qualifying criteria such as age.
But the point in posting is that California is one of the states with the least number of population vaccinated and it's likely because they have the least efficient means of getting it into those communities where the elderly lives. My opinion, but I think the government simply forgets that it has any population to consider outside of their major metropolitan areas such as LA and SF. Or at least they act like the problem to administer to those densely populated areas has be addressed before the outlying areas. It's like a wide spread power outage; the power restoration resources are focused on the areas that have the most likelihood of getting the most lights turned back on, while those in rural areas can wait weeks. Yet those in rural areas are the most vulnerable to the effects of a power outage than those who live in a metro area. In the virus case, we have the least number of ICU beds for example.
It's messed up thinking when disenfranchised are not given same consideration.