Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 205

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

  1. Top | #111
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    31,409
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    128,161
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Delia gets COVID on April 2 and gets extremely sick from it. If Delia had not been blocked by Vermont from getting the COVID vaccine, she would not have caught COVID. She was blocked solely on account of her race, as her BIPOC friend Charmaine also did not qualify under any other eligibility category but was allowed to register and get the vaccine the next day.
    And if the limited supply was open to all, Charmaine and another BIPOC both get covid and both could have died from not getting the vaccine because women in less risky groups got the the limited supply before Charmaine and aBIPOC.
    And if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.

    We are the ones advocating for vaccinating in risk order. Note that risk order is based both on how serious it is likely to be for you and how likely you are to get it. When you deviate from risk order (such as in this misguided discrimination) you increase the death toll.

  2. Top | #112
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,546
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,287
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Delia gets COVID on April 2 and gets extremely sick from it. If Delia had not been blocked by Vermont from getting the COVID vaccine, she would not have caught COVID. She was blocked solely on account of her race, as her BIPOC friend Charmaine also did not qualify under any other eligibility category but was allowed to register and get the vaccine the next day.
    And if the limited supply was open to all, Charmaine and another BIPOC both get covid and both could have died from not getting the vaccine because women in less risky groups got the the limited supply before Charmaine and aBIPOC.
    And if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.

    We are the ones advocating for vaccinating in risk order. Note that risk order is based both on how serious it is likely to be for you and how likely you are to get it. When you deviate from risk order (such as in this misguided discrimination) you increase the death toll.
    You are operating from false premises and making a bad argument to boot. You are NOT advocating for risk order. Risk order, according to you, is documented medical risk, age, then socio-economic status. But the whole thread is that protected classes are discrimination and therefore unconstitutional, meaning both age and socio-economic status go bye-bye. So your "we"--you and Metaphor--are not in alignment.

    Secondly, having a risk order of 1. documented medical risk, 2. age, 3. race is an IMPROVEMENT over not including race at all. It's a quick and dirty proxy for an amalgam of other factors that are NOT equivalent to merely socio-economic status. For example, Native Americans are not solely lacking access to healthcare because of socio-economic status and African Americans do not mistrust the system more because of socio-economic status but instead because of historical racism. Giving the other groups higher priority after taking into account medical risks and age is COLLECTIVELY better, then.

    Finally, your whole weird claim that this is zero sum game is just that--weird. It's actually a statistical game. Each vaccination is worth more to African Americans or Native Americans than to Whites on a given day because the probability of death is higher among those groups. It's a decimal, not a whole number. Just as a mere example, the vaccine could be worth .005 lives to a senior citizen, .002 lives to a 30 year old Native American, .001 lives to a 30 year old African American, and .0005 lives to a 30 year old White American ON AVERAGE. (These are not actual numbers, just an example) BUT You are saving in total MORE LIVES by having a risk order policy.

    There's no road to hell here...it's a nuance and it's already being done by age across the whole country. People only started hysterically screaming about it when a very small state with a low rate of covid and a small minority population agreed to include race into their system of triage... Because it saves more lives than otherwise not doing it.

  3. Top | #113
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    11,599
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,254
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post

    I don't know if the story you told is a personal invention or not but:

    Being vaccinated against COVID19 on March 30 would not have offered Delia sufficient protection against COVID19 on April 2nd. On April 2nd, she still would have probably gotten ill. In fact, you are not considered to be completely protected until 2-4 weeks after being fully vaccinated. So, depending on the vaccine, about 6 -8 weeks after the initial vaccine unless you are talking about a single dose vaccine such as J&J.

    In any case, it is now past April 5 and fortunately, Delia is eligible for COVID19 vaccination 90 days after her COVID19 infection, according to US protocols.

    Being 19 and otherwise healthy does not guarantee that you will not contract COVID19 and become seriously ill from it. Statistically, you are less likely to become seriously ill from COVID19 but statistics applies across a population, not to a specific individual.

    In your story, Delia is not 'blocked' from getting the vaccine; she just isn't eligible YET. At least as far as I can tell because you still haven't explained what you mean by 'blocked.'

    My understanding of 'blocked' means that one is unable to get vaccinated. In your story (and in reality in Vermont and in all places that I am aware of) Delia isn't 'blocked.' She is just not eligible before April 5.

    If you have a different meaning to 'blocked' I wish you'd share it.
    Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change the fact that sticking Charmaine instead of Delia increased the chance of someone dying.
    When vaccines are limited in quantity, vaccinating person A and not vaccinating Person B will increase the chance that person B becomes ill and perhaps dies. Yes, that’s the reality. The only other choice is to delay vaccinating everyone until everyone can be vaccinated. Of course that’s grossly impractical from a logistical point of view. And of course, more people die waiting until everyone can have their mythological simultaneous fair turn.

    Priority lists are developed, drawing broad categories to minimize morbidity and mortality and in the case of Covid19, to minimize or at least spread out the strain on the health care system.

    Yes, those who must wait for vaccinations are at greater risk for becoming ill until they have been vaccinated. No, no system is perfect. Trends for illness, severity of illness and death vary by region and between individuals. I know a couple of people in their 90’s who became ill with Covid and who have recovered well. And someone who was apparently otherwise very healthy who was ill with Covid, requiring months of hospitalization and who ultimately died from it. Not at all what statistics would have predicted.

    Expecting a priority list to perfectly arrange all individuals according to risk is unrealistically valuing the perfect at the expense of the good.

  4. Top | #114
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,046
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,020
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    People only started hysterically screaming about it
    "Hysterically screaming".

  5. Top | #115
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    24,065
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    27,099
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Delia gets COVID on April 2 and gets extremely sick from it. If Delia had not been blocked by Vermont from getting the COVID vaccine, she would not have caught COVID. She was blocked solely on account of her race, as her BIPOC friend Charmaine also did not qualify under any other eligibility category but was allowed to register and get the vaccine the next day.
    And if the limited supply was open to all, Charmaine and another BIPOC both get covid and both could have died from not getting the vaccine because women in less risky groups got the the limited supply before Charmaine and aBIPOC.
    I didn't suggest opening the limited supply to all. Although, it isn't clear to me how limited the supply is. Is Vermont operating at absolute capacity with its rollout?

    What I asked in the OP was whether the rollout schedule was Constitutional due to the discrimination by race. I haven't received a direct answer to this, but from additional reading I've done since, overall opinion is it is more likely Constitutional than not.

    I'm not sure what your illustration is supposed to say: is a white life worth less than a black life?
    Yes, you did want the limited supply opened to all when you objected to some people being prioritized over others.

    Of course there's a limited supply. That's the entire purpose of triage, directing limited resources to patients most at risk.

    And I'm saying black people are far more at risk from contracting this disease than white people, that's why they are being triaged ahead of white people. You save one white person but two black people could die because of that. Are two black lives worth less than one white life?
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  6. Top | #116
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    24,065
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    27,099
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Delia gets COVID on April 2 and gets extremely sick from it. If Delia had not been blocked by Vermont from getting the COVID vaccine, she would not have caught COVID. She was blocked solely on account of her race, as her BIPOC friend Charmaine also did not qualify under any other eligibility category but was allowed to register and get the vaccine the next day.
    And if the limited supply was open to all, Charmaine and another BIPOC both get covid and both could have died from not getting the vaccine because women in less risky groups got the the limited supply before Charmaine and aBIPOC.
    And if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.

    We are the ones advocating for vaccinating in risk order. Note that risk order is based both on how serious it is likely to be for you and how likely you are to get it. When you deviate from risk order (such as in this misguided discrimination) you increase the death toll.
    What makes you think it's misguided. I've already posted the stat in this thread that shows black people are for more at risk of harm from this disease than white people.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  7. Top | #117
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,054
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change the fact that sticking Charmaine instead of Delia increased the chance of someone dying.
    Show your work? I skimmed the latest posts and reached the opposite conclusion: that "sticking" Charmaine was the percentage play.

  8. Top | #118
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    11,599
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,254
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post

    I didn't suggest opening the limited supply to all. Although, it isn't clear to me how limited the supply is. Is Vermont operating at absolute capacity with its rollout?

    What I asked in the OP was whether the rollout schedule was Constitutional due to the discrimination by race. I haven't received a direct answer to this, but from additional reading I've done since, overall opinion is it is more likely Constitutional than not.

    I'm not sure what your illustration is supposed to say: is a white life worth less than a black life?
    Yes, you did want the limited supply opened to all when you objected to some people being prioritized over others.

    Of course there's a limited supply. That's the entire purpose of triage, directing limited resources to patients most at risk.

    And I'm saying black people are far more at risk from contracting this disease than white people, that's why they are being triaged ahead of white people. You save one white person but two black people could die because of that. Are two black lives worth less than one white life?
    To be fair, I think he just thinks the wrong people were prioritized. I think he thinks it should be white males ages 25-45 first and after that, who cares?

  9. Top | #119
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    18,843
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,786
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post

    No. I am not tacitly acknowledging that. My statement was not a lie and I was not sloppy.
    Of course it was. Your statement was factually incorrect at the time you wrote it. You could have avoided that mistake if you had read your own link before you made that specific response at that time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    You read against the text of my words as soon as I wrote them. It wasn't a false accusation. It was a screamingly obvious true accusation.
    There you go again, doubling down on a nasty and false accusation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post

    It's the inescapable deductive conclusion of Vermont's policy settings.
    A deduction is not evidence of fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    First, triage is almost always understood to be in the context of individual presentations, not population risk profiles.
    I believe you are mistaken about what triage is "almost always understood to be" but it is not really relevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Second, I have not said, anywhere, that Vermont shouldn't prioritise certain groups based on group characteristics.
    You do realize that prioritizing any group means others don't get the vaccine. So basically your complaint is about who is getting vaccinated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    What I said (and what you inexplicably called 'a lie') is that [B]the age effect on COVID death is so large I suspect that vaccinating a 19 year old BIPOC is a much poorer choice than vaccinating a 45 year old person of any race.
    You mischaracterizate. Since you said you did know about the changing priorities, I said then either you knew that 40+s were eligible which meant you lied or you did not actually read your own link and did not know that 40+ were eligible. Then I wrote that since I did not think you would lie, it must be that you were sloppy. That you think it is "inexplicable" reflects on you, not on the reality.

    So, your claim is either the result of more pique-driven sloppiness or you are being dishonest. Right now, I lean towards sloppiness, but further persistence will suggest dishonesty on your part.

  10. Top | #120
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    18,843
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,786
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    But white people where not blocked from the vaccine. Apparently you are mistaken about what “priority” means. It does means go to the front of the line – it does not mean anyone is blocked. Besides, the priority categories included many sorts of white people.
    The standard error of the "anti"-discrimination crowd.

    Every person in your preferred group you benefit means one person in your disadvantaged group is harmed. It's a zero-sum game. Before engaging in any such preferences you need to consider this and confirm that the benefit you confer is greater than the harm you inflict. However, the "anti"-discrimination crowd continually denies that the harm is being done. That only makes sense if you know you're doing harm but think the goal is worth it anyway. In other words, the paving material of the road to hell.
    I am in constant awe at your ability to construct such bullshit straw men so consistently.

Posting Permissions

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