Whiteness of groups should deprioritise them for COVID vaccine

[RVonse]

Missed in the debate is "what happens if something goes wrong with the vaccine?"

Personally, I think they should be giving the vaccine to the politicians before the front line health care workers. We could afford to lose a few politicians but I do not want to lose any health care workers. And never mind the concern over the liberals being racist again. If the vaccine has problems, they will be the ones who killed off their own golden cows.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, my first thought is that we should be vaccinating the communities in which the spread is happening fastest.

Maybe we should all take a page out of Loren's book: make it about socioeconomics.

Then, we can see Derec and all the rest flip out over it being "racially driven" and then we can use all those SoCiOEcOnOmiCs arguments and they can all hypocritically tear apart their own principles by pointing out that there is little functional difference in the US between being a monority in the US and being poor in the US.

The fact is, we should be vaccinating the poorest people in our country immediately after vaccinating the most vulnerable and the most systematically exposed (essential services).

Functionally, this will amount to minorities getting the vaccine earlier than everyone else. Rhetorically, it's just looking out for the poor.

 

[ZiprHead]

Missed in the debate is "what happens if something goes wrong with the vaccine?"

Personally, I think they should be giving the vaccine to the politicians before the front line health care workers. We could afford to lose a few politicians but I do not want to lose any health care workers. And never mind the concern over the liberals being racist again. If the vaccine has problems, they will be the ones who killed off their own golden cows.

I've only heard of one major problem, a healthcare worker who had an allergic reaction requiring an overnight hospitalization.

 

[Rhea]

People say stupid shit all the time. Now, if these views are seriously debated for policy, then I'd be worried. Since they are not, this is really another nothing burger.

Yes.

If they'd been tumblr nobodies, no doubt you'd have said 'irrelevant people say stupid shit all the time'.

But they're not irrelevant - they are professors at American universities who have been consulted for expert comment.

Er... have you seen who is consulted for “expert comment” these days? That does not make them “prominent academics”.

 

[laughing dog]

People say stupid shit all the time. Now, if these views are seriously debated for policy, then I'd be worried. Since they are not, this is really another nothing burger.

Yes.

If they'd been tumblr nobodies, no doubt you'd have said 'irrelevant people say stupid shit all the time'.

But they're not irrelevant - they are professors at American universities who have been consulted for expert comment.

So the bar for laughing dog's concern has to be raised to 'seriously debated for policy', as if professors solicited for comment were squibs who never influence policy.

And no doubt, when it is 'seriously' debated for policy, laughing dog will raise his concern level to 'if this actually becomes policy, then it's time to be concerned'.

And by then it'll be too late.

That is one ridiculous slippery slope based on the comments of two "nobody" professors. There are thousands of professors in the USA. At least one of them says something stupid every day.
The first professor is an assistant professor. Which suggests he is hardly a recognized expert in his field.

The second is an epidemologist who is opining on matters outside of his field of expertise. And, who placed (according to your linked article) the caveat of if the goal is to reduce health inequities. So, the OP is a bit misleading on that one even if it is par for the "waaah, somebody said something I don't like" course.

Furthermore, the actual article is very interesting. It contains a mini-debate on the issue of whether teachers should be included as essential teachers. And, what I found really interesting is that the group who is making the recommendations is mulling over whether or not to include social justice concerns - something this group has not done before. And whether race should play a role there.

It seems to me your OP focuses on the tip of the tail of that dog.

 

[TomC]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html

Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argued that teachers should not be included as essential workers, if a central goal of the committee is to reduce health inequities.

“Teachers have middle-class salaries, are very often white, and they have college degrees,” he said. “Of course they should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of workers.”

The whiteness of these groups is so vexing. But I don't think the BIPOC who happen to be among the elderly or teachers should suffer because they are even more a minority in these groups than they are in the general population. I think what America should do is simply exclude white people from COVID vaccination, until every BIPOC has been vaccinated.

Do you find this more upsetting than "Flu vaccine at Cornell mandatory...for white students"?
If so, why? If not, why not?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

People say stupid shit all the time. Now, if these views are seriously debated for policy, then I'd be worried. Since they are not, this is really another nothing burger.

Yes.

If they'd been tumblr nobodies, no doubt you'd have said 'irrelevant people say stupid shit all the time'.

But they're not irrelevant - they are professors at American universities who have been consulted for expert comment.

Er... have you seen who is consulted for “expert comment” these days? That does not make them “prominent academics”.

I didn't call them "prominent academics". I said they were professors at American universities.

 

[Metaphor]

People say stupid shit all the time. Now, if these views are seriously debated for policy, then I'd be worried. Since they are not, this is really another nothing burger.

Yes.

If they'd been tumblr nobodies, no doubt you'd have said 'irrelevant people say stupid shit all the time'.

But they're not irrelevant - they are professors at American universities who have been consulted for expert comment.

So the bar for laughing dog's concern has to be raised to 'seriously debated for policy', as if professors solicited for comment were squibs who never influence policy.

And no doubt, when it is 'seriously' debated for policy, laughing dog will raise his concern level to 'if this actually becomes policy, then it's time to be concerned'.

And by then it'll be too late.

That is one ridiculous slippery slope based on the comments of two "nobody" professors. There are thousands of professors in the USA. At least one of them says something stupid every day.
The first professor is an assistant professor. Which suggests he is hardly a recognized expert in his field.

The second is an epidemologist who is opining on matters outside of his field of expertise. And, who placed (according to your linked article) the caveat of if the goal is to reduce health inequities. So, the OP is a bit misleading on that one even if it is par for the "waaah, somebody said something I don't like" course.

Furthermore, the actual article is very interesting. It contains a mini-debate on the issue of whether teachers should be included as essential teachers. And, what I found really interesting is that the group who is making the recommendations is mulling over whether or not to include social justice concerns - something this group has not done before. And whether race should play a role there.

It seems to me your OP focuses on the tip of the tail of that dog.

Well, underneath the tail is the asshole, innit?

Whether teachers are 'essential workers' or not seems to me independent of how 'white' it is. But as you say, the debate includes social justice concerns, and recommending the deprioritisation of groups from a benefit because the group contains too many white people is apparently a social justice strategy.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Er... have you seen who is consulted for “expert comment” these days? That does not make them “prominent academics”.

I didn't call them "prominent academics". I said they were professors at American universities.

It was Derec who said “prominent academics”.

 

[Metaphor]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html





The whiteness of these groups is so vexing. But I don't think the BIPOC who happen to be among the elderly or teachers should suffer because they are even more a minority in these groups than they are in the general population. I think what America should do is simply exclude white people from COVID vaccination, until every BIPOC has been vaccinated.

Do you find this more upsetting than "Flu vaccine at Cornell mandatory...for white students"?
If so, why? If not, why not?
Tom

I find the article in the OP interesting and useful for several reasons. Indeed I missed quoting earlier this:

Historically, the committee relied on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well, noted Lisa A. Prosser, a professor of health policy and decision sciences at the University of Michigan.

“To me the issue of ethics is very significant, very important for this country,” Dr. Peter Szilagyi, a committee member and a pediatrics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the time, “and clearly favors the essential worker group because of the high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers among essential workers.”

The authors of the article do not appear to understand that there is no such thing as being informed by "the science" when making a value judgment. The science can tell you the risks to individuals and therefore groups from dying from COVID-19; the science cannot tell you whether minority lives (or low-income, low-education people) should be valued higher than 'white' lives, or high-income, high-education people), or whether minority individuals should be deprioritised along with white group members instead of just discriminating against white people directly, or whether the correct value is to engage a strategy that is 'social justice blind' but is designed to emerge with the least number of overall lives lost.

The article certainly demonstrates there is now no longer any self-censorship in academia (if indeed there ever had been) about recommending policies that discriminate against white people because they are white. Nor am I sure why epidemiologists are being consulted for their value systems (something entirely outside their positions of expertise) instead of their actual expertise. Having said that, the medical ethicist also recommended discrimination by race - not because that would lead to fewer lives lost, but because he values minority lives higher than white lives.

I think it would not surprise people that I do not want vaccine priority decisions to discriminate by race, whether that be directly (just exclude white people altogether until there is no need for prioritisation) or indirectly (exclude groups that are 'too' white, even though that group will also contain the favoured minority classes). But, at least the former is slightly more honest. If you're going to discriminate by race, you should let people know that's what you're doing.

I expect the article will also bring out the usual suspects on the board who will either support the expressed policies (AF has already done that), or minimise and downplay its impact (even though it's a committee making recommendations to the CDC about immunisation). I think the language expressed in the quotes is too unambiguous for somebody on the board to say I've misunderstood what is being said and nobody is recommending what I think they're recommending - thought Toni has never, ever seen discrimination by race against white people, so she might to try to find an angle to that effect.

This article is significantly more upsetting than Cornell's exemption policy for BIPOC for a variety of reasons.
* Students under Cornell's flu vaccination mandate are younger and healthier than the American population and the flu is nowhere as near contagious as COVID, so who it (Cornell) decides can get out of its vaccine probably won't cost lives either way
* Being forced to do something (get a flu vaccine) is somewhat worse in a general way than being denied something you want to do (get vaccinated against COVID), but at least in the Cornell case you could make the argument that students could simply give up their degree and Cornell can't force them any more
* The COVID vaccination roll-out affects hundreds of millions of Americans

As for who should be prioritised for the vaccine? If I was in charge of America's policy, I would lay out the following value judgments
* All lives will be weighted equally for the 'dependent' variable, whether a person is 90 with a life expectancy of 2 years left, whether they are a newborn with 90 years expectancy left, whether they are able-bodied or disabled, regardless of ethnicity or race or religion or ex-offender status or most anything else (though I would exclude people from consideration if they are in a persistent vegetative state)
* Probably some others that I can't provide an exhaustive list for, but it would probably be that the vaccine will be paid for by the government no matter what your economic circumstances

I would work out a 'points' system determined on an actuarial method, where the more points you have the higher priority you are. The data should be there to make it an accurate system. I imagine a large number of points will be attached to increasing age (e.g. 40 points if you are over 90, 38 points if you are 85-89, etc), to certain medical conditions (e.g. x number of points if you are a type-II diabetic, etc). There might even be points attached to ethnicity even when all other known factors are accounted for.

Finally: my mum is over 75 and I want her to have the vaccine. Because even though I'm a grown-ass man I will never not need her.

 

[laughing dog]

That is one ridiculous slippery slope based on the comments of two "nobody" professors. There are thousands of professors in the USA. At least one of them says something stupid every day.
The first professor is an assistant professor. Which suggests he is hardly a recognized expert in his field.

The second is an epidemologist who is opining on matters outside of his field of expertise. And, who placed (according to your linked article) the caveat of if the goal is to reduce health inequities. So, the OP is a bit misleading on that one even if it is par for the "waaah, somebody said something I don't like" course.

Furthermore, the actual article is very interesting. It contains a mini-debate on the issue of whether teachers should be included as essential teachers. And, what I found really interesting is that the group who is making the recommendations is mulling over whether or not to include social justice concerns - something this group has not done before. And whether race should play a role there.

It seems to me your OP focuses on the tip of the tail of that dog.

Well, underneath the tail is the asshole, innit?

Is there a point there? Because there is nothing underneath the tip of the tail of most dogs except the ground.

Whether teachers are 'essential workers' or not seems to me independent of how 'white' it is. But as you say, the debate includes social justice concerns, and recommending the deprioritisation of groups from a benefit because the group contains too many white people is apparently a social justice strategy.

No, I said the group is debating whether social justice concerns should be included.

In the USA, covid has a disproportionate effect on minorities. If the goal is to reduce the inequality in death rates, then clearly the policy would prioritize vaccinations of minorities. That is the result of the conditional "If the goal is to reduce inequality in death rates". Yes, that would mean an increase in the death rates of white people since that is a clear goal of the policy. That has nothing to do with who is essential or not in terms of services or output provided.

You do realize that rationing the vaccination among competing groups (deserving or not) means some people will die from the lack of access. It is really a moral question for social policy - how to decide who gets access to life-saving vaccinations and who gets to bear the risk of exposure for a longer period of time and possibly die.

Basing priorities on degrees of "essentialness" may have a disparate effect on health outcome by group (however defined). IMO, that ought to be recognized and transparently debated and decided.

 

[Toni]

I’m not sure of the controversy? Sound public health policy suggests that vaccinating essential workers who are both more at risk of exposure and more likely to transmit to others due to the nature of their work is the right move to make.

Pointing out that the majority of these essential workers are not white is recognizing demographics. And our society. Most of us think of medical personnel as white doctors and nurses, PAs, maybe lab techs. But most nursing assistants, nursing home staff, etc. are persons of color and low income. They do difficult work which is physically and emotionally taxing, work most of us would be loathe to perform—indeed, we hire someone to change the diapers of our parents when they can no longer stay in their own homes—or ours.

Other essential workers: all of those involved in the production and distribution of food. Again, these are usually low paying jobs, often held by persons of color. Yet their work is essential to the functioning of society and to the health and well being of each of us. We need them to be healthy because of their capacity to spread a respiratory illness if they were infected, even and especially if they are asymptomatic.

Again, these workers are doing difficult, physically demanding and often risky work that is essential to society, and are poorly compensated for their work, and often have no health care benefits or poor access to health care. If any of them have a respiratory illness such as COVID-19, even if they don’t know they are ill because they are asymptomatic, the opportunity to spread the infection to any of their contacts is enormous.

Without intending any harm to others, especially poor people or persons of color, a lot of white people simply assume that they will be among the first to be vaccinated. After all, they are more likely to have well paying jobs, health insurance, good access to health care. They are used to being able to get what goods and services they need. White people are usually first in line for all good things society offers, including health care. And by they, I mean people like me. And like a lot of people in this thread.

I see some outrage on the internet at the idea that incarcerated persons might be prioritized for vaccination. But from a public health perspective, that makes sense: they live in close quarters and cannot control their environment. Infections are exploding in many jails and prisons. This affects not only the incarcerated who may be incarcerated for relatively minor offenses but also for all prison staff and any individual, including their legal representatives who may be in contact with them. BTW, this includes jurors, police and court officers, witnesses, etc. And their families and community contacts.

I don’t know that a discussion of race belongs in the overreaching discussion of public health policy. Our lives depend on doing this as efficiently as possible.

But we also should start to recognize that there are millions and millions of people who are largely invisible to us, who we largely ignore, underpay and expect to do difficult, dirty, risky work for low pay and no benefits that we ourselves do not want to do nor do we want our kids to do these jobs. These people are less likely to have access to good education, good health care—or any healthcare. They are not people whose calls their congressmen and women or city council members take or whose letters to the editor are published. They are not our neighbors and we don’t belong to the same clubs or organizations or shop at the same places. They are less likely to be white. We don’t think very much about them because they are invisible: We only see the finished product.

But two essential points need to be recognized:

1. They are essential to the very functioning of our society at any time but especially during a pandemic,

2. They are both the most vulnerable to being infected ( something that many of us could give two fucks about) and, for those who care only about self interest, more importantly they have the ability to infect many many many people if they are infected. Maybe one of us. Maybe just so many will be ill that the whole supply chain will collapse. People are losing their minds at not being able to eat inside whatever chain restaurant they want or drink at whatever bar they want. Just think: people might have to cook their own food and clean up after themselves. At least as long as food is still on the shelves....Oh, and of course they do not think about the wait staff or kitchen help who are exposed over and over and over again to serve the luxury of those who prefer not to prepare their own meals or clean up.

We don’t recognize it or acknowledge it but they take care of us. We need to take care of them now. It’s the right thing to do. Plus: Our lives depend on it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is funny.

So, for generations racists (none of whom are on this board, of course) penalized black people for all kinds of things. Voting, organizing, resisting, making too much money, expressing opinions. Racists detrrmined where thery could live, what jobs they could have, who they could marry, what schools they could attend. They undrrfunded their neighborhoods, which were underserved by the city, state, federal agencies.
And someone suggests that if we can identify groups thst still appear to be segregated, maybe penalize them by putting them at thd back of t he line.
Not denying their vaccination. Not lynching, not making them pass a citizenship test to vote.
Not burning crosses in their yards or burning their places of worship.

Just, back of the line.

Christ, it's JUST LIKE the Tulsa Massacre of '21!!

 

[Metaphor]

Is there a point there? Because there is nothing underneath the tip of the tail of most dogs except the ground.

Ah, now it's the tip of the tail you were talking about. Well, I'm glad you went to a (post-hoc clarified) dog metaphor instead of saying "your OPs and focus bore me, but not enough to refrain from posting comments about how much they bore me"

No, I said the group is debating whether social justice concerns should be included.

Sure. And if social justice concerns are included, it is clear that deprioritising white people will figure in such a policy.

In the USA, covid has a disproportionate effect on minorities. If the goal is to reduce the inequality in death rates, then clearly the policy would prioritize vaccinations of minorities. That is the result of the conditional "If the goal is to reduce inequality in death rates". Yes, that would mean an increase in the death rates of white people since that is a clear goal of the policy. That has nothing to do with who is essential or not in terms of services or output provided.

You do realize that rationing the vaccination among competing groups (deserving or not) means some people will die from the lack of access.

Well yes. I already wrote that.

 

[Metaphor]

I’m not sure of the controversy?

You could have ended your post there.

Pointing out that the majority of these essential workers are not white

That's nowhere in the OP, and I doubt it is true that the majority of 'essential workers' are not white.

...
We don’t recognize it or acknowledge it but they take care of us. We need to take care of them now. It’s the right thing to do. Plus: Our lives depend on it.

You appear to have missed the point. There is a case to be made that 'essential workers' should be prioritised ahead of the elderly or other groups for various reasons. But one of those reasons should not be 'because they are less white than the overall population'. And whether teachers are essential workers should be made on the basis of the work teachers do, not based on whether they are more or less white than the overall population.

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, now it's the tip of the tail you were talking about.
Well, I'm glad you went to a (post-hoc clarified) dog metaphor instead of saying "your OPs and focus bore me, but not enough to refrain from posting comments about how much they bore me"

Actually, the last sentence of my post (25) to which your responded was "It seems to me your OP focuses on the tip of the tail of that dog". Your responses would probably improve if you actually read posts with comprehension. Of course, that would not affect your inability to accurately or honestly portray another poster’s position or view.

Sure. And if social justice concerns are included, it is clear that deprioritising white people will figure in such a policy.

No, it is not clear, because there are many dimensions to social justice.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah, now it's the tip of the tail you were talking about.
Well, I'm glad you went to a (post-hoc clarified) dog metaphor instead of saying "your OPs and focus bore me, but not enough to refrain from posting comments about how much they bore me"

Actually, the last sentence of my post (25) to which your responded was "It seems to me your OP focuses on the tip of the tail of that dog". Your responses would probably improve if you actually read posts with comprehension. Of course, that would not affect your inability to accurately or honestly portray another poster’s position or view.

Sure. And if social justice concerns are included, it is clear that deprioritising white people will figure in such a policy.

No, it is not clear, because there are many dimensions to social justice.

Of course it is clear. Deprioritising white people (or more specifically: groups because they are more or less white than average) is specifically mentioned. There also being other dimensions does not make that one disappear.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, the last sentence of my post (25) to which your responded was "It seems to me your OP focuses on the tip of the tail of that dog". Your responses would probably improve if you actually read posts with comprehension. Of course, that would not affect your inability to accurately or honestly portray another poster’s position or view.

No, it is not clear, because there are many dimensions to social justice.

Of course it is clear. Deprioritising white people (or more specifically: groups because they are more or less white than average) is specifically mentioned. There also being other dimensions does not make that one disappear.

There are many possible social justice concerns - some contradict others. So it is not possible to include them all. There is no reason to expect any particular social justice concern will be included.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah, now it's the tip of the tail you were talking about.
Well, I'm glad you went to a (post-hoc clarified) dog metaphor instead of saying "your OPs and focus bore me, but not enough to refrain from posting comments about how much they bore me"

Actually, the last sentence of my post (25) to which your responded was "It seems to me your OP focuses on the tip of the tail of that dog".

You are right. I apologise for misreading and acknowledge that you made it very clear from that post that my OPs and focus are what you regard as peripheral and unimportant.

 

[Toni]

You could have ended your post there.

But then what would you do for fun?

That's nowhere in the OP, and I doubt it is true that the majority of 'essential workers' are not white.

FFS, It's practically the title of YOUR THREAD.

It is not my fault that you are unaware that in the US, most nursing home staff, most food service workers, most workers in the food supply chain are not white. That does not make it any less true. Please do not tell me that you think we have more doctors and nurses than we have nursing assistants, busboys, waitstaff, food prep, meat processing plant workers, etc? You're not that naive. It's just that like most people, you probably don't think much about how many people are involved in getting whatever it is you ate for dinner to your plate. Or who takes care of the elderly who are too frail to live in their own homes.

...
We don’t recognize it or acknowledge it but they take care of us. We need to take care of them now. It’s the right thing to do. Plus: Our lives depend on it.

You appear to have missed the point. There is a case to be made that 'essential workers' should be prioritised ahead of the elderly or other groups for various reasons. But one of those reasons should not be 'because they are less white than the overall population'. And whether teachers are essential workers should be made on the basis of the work teachers do, not based on whether they are more or less white than the overall population.

The reason is NOT that they are less white. The reason is that they are, in fact, more essential--AND also have greater capacity to not only contract COVID19 but to unwittingly spread it and so to collapse the supply chain that the rest of society (especially white people who are less likely to do this type of work).

THAT is why they should be prioritized.

As I wrote in the beginning of my post, which you criticized me for: I'm not sure why race is important to the policy. However I am certain that it is time that society wakes up to recognize just exactly what work is essential and who it is who is doing it. Trust me: the world will turn quite well without billionaires. Get rid of the people who work in a meat processing plant or canning factory or dairy workers or nursing home staff or even nursing assistants and custodial staff at hospitals and now you're talking real problems.

The color of teachers is definitely not a determining factor of whether or not they are essential. That's simply another figment of your inflamed imagination.