Page 33 of 44 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 435

Thread: Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

  1. Top | #321
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,597
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    You are making broad and uninformed declarations about a country you’ve never set foot in—and I’m delusional.

    Sure.
    I don't believe in your declarations of epistemological privilege either.

  2. Top | #322
    Contributor Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    5,560
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    10,100
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    So you’re fine with black people dying in disproportionate numbers due to the state distributing life saving bennies preferentially to white people?
    No. The idea that you can question whether I'm "fine" with that, after I told you more than a dozen times I don't want the State to discriminate by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies, tells me you don't give a shit what I say and this exchange is rhetorical theatre for you to virtue-signal yourself and demonise me. Also, the State is not prioritising white people.
    So you’re fine with the state ignoring data showing a disproportionate risk of death and serious complications from COVID-19 among blacks when it develops plans to distribute life saving bennies?

    You're fine with the state prioritizing vaccine distribution on the basis of age, occupation, gender, left-handedness, preference in hot beverages, etc, but not race?

  3. Top | #323
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,175
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,830
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    No.
    In Vermont, Blacks (234.8/10.000)-much, much, much more likely to be infected with COVID19 compared with whites (35.9/10,000).
    https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/...11-13-2020.pdf


    If you look at my post above #289), you will see that black people in Vermont were infected by COVID19 at MUCH higher rates compared with white people. They also required hospitalization at higher rates compared with white people. Prioritizing black individuals for vaccination was the sensible thing to do in order to best contain the spread of COVID 19 in Vermont.

    Metaphor's assumption and apparently your assumption was that by prioritizing vaccinations for black people over (some) white people, that white people died. Please cite an example of this. I could find no such data.
    1) Age is far more of a risk factor. That is the reason I was objecting to it--people should be vaccinated in risk order.

    2) Nobody has provided any evidence that race isn't simply a proxy for job exposure.
    Age emerged as the first known risk factor, and it is indeed, significant.

    However, race is also a known risk factor. I've cited this several times in this thread, but I'll do so again in case you missed it:

    In Vermont, Blacks (234.8/10.000)-much, much, much more likely to be infected with COVID19 compared with whites (35.9/10,000).
    https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/...11-13-2020.pdf

    Black people in Vermont were infected at a rate of 234.8/10,000
    White people in Vermont were infected at a rate of 35.9/10,000.

    That's an enormous difference in risk. Further, Black people were much more likely to be hospitalized with COVID19 than white people.

    In the case of COVID 19, BIPOC is a known risk factor. Montana also prioritized BIPOC for vaccination because of the outbreaks in Native American communities and other groups of BIPOC.

    We know some reasons that BIPOC might be more at risk: They are more likely to have obesity, heart disease, asthma and other underlying health conditions. They typically have poorer access to health care. They are more likely to work in jobs that involve a lot of public contact. They are more likely to live in intergenerational housing, so younger people who contract the infection might not become seriously ill, but their parents or grandparents living in the same household are at much greater risk because the younger people are bringing it into their homes, unaware.

    Those are some known risks. We do not yet know whether there are genetic factors that make certain populations more (or less) at risk for serious disease. In the US, Asians generally have a lower rate of infection and serious disease but India is currently facing terrible infection rates and many deaths. There is still a lot that we do not need.

    I am 100% for targeting any unvaccinated group and doing what needs to be done to overcome whatever reluctance people have with regards to vaccination. Not everyone can be vaccinated, and some people are much more at risk because vaccination is less effective for them. A dear friend had a serious allergic reaction to her first dose of vaccine and is currently waiting to see if her doctor will approve a second dose. Another friend is a transplant patient, so he is already immunocompromised. I know other people with very serious medical conditions for whom an infection would almost certainly result in their death. We need to get as many people vaccinated as possible.

    Unfortunately, the previous administration did significant damage by not stressing the importance of vaccination, masking or social distancing, although they were themselves vaccinated and had the luxury of the very best health care in the world when they became ill prior to vaccination. So much would be different if they had had the courage and sense of moral obligation to make public their vaccinations and so encourage their followers to become vaccinated. Yes, being a Trump supporter is also a known risk factor in vaccine refusal.

  4. Top | #324
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,597
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    So you’re fine with the state ignoring data showing a disproportionate risk of death and serious complications from COVID-19 among blacks when it develops plans to distribute life saving bennies?
    Did you go to the same school of conveniently faulty logic that Toni attended? In what universe does "I don't want the State to discriminate by race in its distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control" imply "I'm fine with the State ignoring data"? Because it isn't this universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    You're fine with the state prioritizing vaccine distribution on the basis of age, occupation, gender, left-handedness, preference in hot beverages, etc, but not race?
    A State's discrimination by race against her people has not had a good track record. In fact, the record is fucking abysmal. If you are the State and you are going to discriminate by race in providing life-saving bennies over which you have exclusive control, your justification better be rock fucking solid, including a justification for why any alternative plan to achieve the same ends but without discrimination is not feasible.

    This reasoning does not apply to age. The age-related effect of sickness and death from COVID-19 was unmistakeable and extremely unlikely to be completely, or frankly even mostly, explained away by comorbodities such as obesity and diabetes. The State has good reasons to discriminate based on age--such as restricting the old age pension to people of retirement age. In fact, the State probably did not do enough discrimination by age in the past, letting very young children work in dangerous and appalling conditions. But, if all the effect of age on COVID sickness and death can be explained away by easily measurable and already identified comorbidities, then age should not be used as a proxy.

    The State doesn't have much business discriminating by gender, though there are probably situations where discrimination by sex is sensible. For example, if men's vulnerability to COVID 19 was explained away by comorbidities already targeted and easily measurable, sex should not be a proxy. But if instead there was a partial correlation between sex and COVID after all known covariates are controlled for, and that effect was medium or large, sex discrimination might be justified.

    In a general sense, I do not believe in blocking people from something just because there is another group 'lagging' in the uptake. For example, the fact that men are more vaccine-reluctant than women is not sufficient for the State to block women from getting the vaccine in order to encourage men. It might be a reason to have targeted advertising and campaigns, but blocking life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control because one sex chooses to participate less is not a good option.

    EDIT: Also, the data show that people of Asian heritage were either no more likely, or in some cases less likely, to be at risk for COVID sickness and death than white people. Asian inclusion in Vermont's BIPOC prioritisation was solely political, not justified even if you accept all the other reasoning for black and indigenous inclusion.

  5. Top | #325
    Contributor Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    5,560
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    10,100
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    So you’re fine with the state ignoring data showing a disproportionate risk of death and serious complications from COVID-19 among blacks when it develops plans to distribute life saving bennies?
    Did you go to the same school of conveniently faulty logic that Toni attended? In what universe does "I don't want the State to discriminate by race in its distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control" imply "I'm fine with the State ignoring data"? Because it isn't this universe.
    Yes it is.

    You don't want Vermont to discriminate on the basis of race in the distribution of vaccine even when the data the state has collected clearly indicates a heightened risk of death and serious complications due to COVID-19 in black Vermonters. So, either you want the State to ignore the data, or you want it to acknowledge the data but still refuse to prioritize a racial group that it knows is at greater risk of death and serious complications, which is pretty much the same thing.

  6. Top | #326
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,597
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Yes it is.
    It is not. This universe is not beholden to your faulty false dilemma "logic".

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    You don't want Vermont to discriminate on the basis of race in the distribution of vaccine even when the data the state has collected clearly indicates a heightened risk of death and serious complications due to COVID-19 in black Vermonters.
    So, either you want the State to ignore the data, or you want it to acknowledge the data but still refuse to prioritize a racial group that it knows is at greater risk of death and serious complications, which is pretty much the same thing.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

    "Either discriminate against white people or you are ignoring the data".

  7. Top | #327
    Contributor Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    5,560
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    10,100
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Yes it is.
    It is not. This universe is not beholden to your faulty false dilemma "logic".

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    You don't want Vermont to discriminate on the basis of race in the distribution of vaccine even when the data the state has collected clearly indicates a heightened risk of death and serious complications due to COVID-19 in black Vermonters.
    So, either you want the State to ignore the data, or you want it to acknowledge the data but still refuse to prioritize a racial group that it knows is at greater risk of death and serious complications, which is pretty much the same thing.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

    "Either discriminate against white people or you are ignoring the data".
    You are presenting a false dilemma. You are saying that if white people aren't being prioritized for the vaccine but some other group is, that means they're being discriminated against. But those not the only options. There is a third option: that they're not at risk to the same extent as others and are therefore further back in the queue for the vaccine, because the queue was established with risk in mind, not your feelings about having to wait while someone else gets vaccinated.

    Do you want Vermont to ignore the data indicating blacks are at greater risk of death and serious complications from COVID-19 that whites?

  8. Top | #328
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,175
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,830
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post

    It is not. This universe is not beholden to your faulty false dilemma "logic".



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

    "Either discriminate against white people or you are ignoring the data".
    You are presenting a false dilemma. You are saying that if white people aren't being prioritized for the vaccine but some other group is, that means they're being discriminated against. But those not the only options. There is a third option: that they're not at risk to the same extent as others and are therefore further back in the queue for the vaccine, because the queue was established with risk in mind, not your feelings about having to wait while someone else gets vaccinated.

    Do you want Vermont to ignore the data indicating blacks are at greater risk of death and serious complications from COVID-19 that whites?
    And people wonder why some feel the need to declare that Black Lives Matter. Clearly, to some they only matter if white people’s lives are prioritized.

    Metaphor states over and over that he doesn’t believe that the state should use race to prioritize state controlled ‘bennies.’ But refusing to look at the data that clearly demonstrates that black Vermonters are at a dramatically higher risk of becoming ill with COVID-19 and at greater risk of needing hospitalization compare with whites and and refusing to look at that increased risk as a good reason to prioritize vaccination of black Vermonters, indeed, race WOULD BE used to prioritize state controlled vaccinations—in favor of white Vermonters.

    But he seems fine it’s that and criticizes your and my logic as faulty.

  9. Top | #329
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,597
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    You are presenting a false dilemma. You are saying that if white people aren't being prioritized for the vaccine but some other group is, that means they're being discriminated against.
    I did not say it and don't believe it, nor could that be a legitimate inference from anything I've said.

    But those not the only options. There is a third option: that they're not at risk to the same extent as others and are therefore further back in the queue for the vaccine, because the queue was established with risk in mind, not your feelings about having to wait while someone else gets vaccinated.

    Do you want Vermont to ignore the data indicating blacks are at greater risk of death and serious complications from COVID-19 that whites?
    I do not want Vermont, or any government, to "ignore data". However, there is no universe--not this one nor any other--where healthy 18 year old BIPOC are more at risk of COVID-19 sickness and death than healthy 48 year olds of any race.

    EDIT: And I have also, already, in this thread, given multiple examples of possible State responses to some groups lagging in vaccination that do not involve discrimination by race and blocking people from getting the vaccine. These could include targeted advertising and campaigns and the strategic placement of clinics. However, I have also suggested that the raw comparison rate is misleading. At the time Vermont decided to discriminate by race, all people over 50, all frontline workers, and all people with known comorbidities were already eligible. To the extent that black and indigenous people had higher rates of COVID sickness and death because of higher rates of factors already eligible, the policy decision merely added otherwise healthy BIPOC people as young as 16, while relatively healthy white people decades older were blocked from receiving the vaccine.

  10. Top | #330
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,597
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Metaphor states over and over that he doesn’t believe that the state should use race to prioritize state controlled ‘bennies.’ But refusing to look at the data that clearly demonstrates that black Vermonters are at a dramatically higher risk of becoming ill with COVID-19 and at greater risk of needing hospitalization compare with whites and and refusing to look at that increased risk as a good reason to prioritize vaccination of black Vermonters, indeed, race WOULD BE used to prioritize state controlled vaccinations—in favor of white Vermonters.
    When you say I "refuse to look at the data", that is a falsehood. I've looked at it and thought about it and you know that I have, because I've referenced figures in it.

    I have not denied, in any post, on this board, in this universe, or in any other universe (excepting the fantasy universes constructed entirely from fictive flights of fancy in your mind), that the raw rate of elevated sickness and death from COVID is higher in black people than in white people overall.

    What I have questioned, repeatedly, without any acknowledgment from you that you even understand what I'm saying, is the assumption that lower rates of vaccination in one group justify State discrimination by race to 'correct' the rate and that the priority grouping of any BIPOC 16 and older made sense given the age groups that were still blocked from receiving the vaccine. You wildly exaggerated the raw COVID sickness and death factor for BIPOC groups (more correctly: black and indigenous, with Asian included by Vermont solely for political purposes and unjustified even if you accept the arguments made for black and indigenous).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •