Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[ZiprHead]

The Biden admin just announced that vaccines will be available for all on the 19th of this month.

 

[Metaphor]

Nothing unconstitutional abut medical experts saying who should be vaccinated first.

So if they concluded that straight White guys should go first, you'd be okay with that?

I would.

I'm assuming that the health authorities are trying to prioritize the highest risk groups, while on the way to enough vaccinated folks to start providing the protection of herd immunity.

In other words, start at the beginning and work your way towards the goal as efficiently as possible.

I don't think that concept would be difficult to grasp if there weren't so many people, like you and the OP, looking for ideological straws to grasp. Ways to whine about how straight white males are really the one's being discriminated against.

That's what I see.

Tom

What is it about the OP that makes you think I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision?

 

[ZiprHead]

What is it about the OP that makes you think I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision?

That you posted the OP.

 

[Metaphor]

Caveat: I just skipped like five pages of this thread.

Met - the inclusion of ethnicity in this triage list is a reflection of ethnic minorities in general having lower access to health care and being lower income. These are populations that have materially lower levels of health treatment. The reasons for that are complicated and multifaceted. Some of it is due to racially differential treatment practices in medicine, some of it is due to poverty and income, and some of it is due to cultural variances in how medicine is approached (particularly with first nations).

That would apply if Asians were excluded from the priority list. Instead, they are included, despite having a similar or lower death rate than white people. (These charts are shown earlier in the thread).

Bear in mind that the first priority included first responders and senior citizens - and that the age effect that was noted early in this thread is largely coming from the difference in impact between senior aged males and senior aged females.

Do you have this data separated by sex and age? Could you link it please, I would like to see it. If it's true that the sex effect is located entirely in older age groups, then males in certain age groups ought be given preference to females in the same age groups.

An additional consideration is that the prioritization here is extremely unlikely to result in discriminatory treatment toward white people.

It is already codified discrimination. It could not be more systemic. The government
* has a total monopoly on this resource
* is giving it away for free
* is discriminating by race in whom it gives it to.

Even if it sounds like it on paper...

It doesn't 'sound' like it. It is it.

the actual effect of this really ends up being to encourage BIPOC people to actually get in earlier.

I know that. That's the entire point of the vaccine priority groups: they get the benefit earlier.

I would be willing to bet that if you tracked the actual vaccination patterns, you'd still end up seeing BIPOC people getting vaccinated at a lower rate than white people, and getting vaccinated later in the season. The prioritization doesn't do much more than marginally shift the timing for those people.

That a BIPOC group doesn't take the benefits offered to them when they could have does not mean the government didn't discriminate by race.

 

[Metaphor]

What is it about the OP that makes you think I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision?

That you posted the OP.

So, noting that the government of Vermont is discriminating by race shows I don't understand why the government of Vermont is discriminating by race?

 

[Metaphor]

Caveat: I just skipped like five pages of this thread.

Met - the inclusion of ethnicity in this triage list is a reflection of ethnic minorities in general having lower access to health care and being lower income. These are populations that have materially lower levels of health treatment. The reasons for that are complicated and multifaceted. Some of it is due to racially differential treatment practices in medicine, some of it is due to poverty and income, and some of it is due to cultural variances in how medicine is approached (particularly with first nations).

Bear in mind that the first priority included first responders and senior citizens - and that the age effect that was noted early in this thread is largely coming from the difference in impact between senior aged males and senior aged females. For younger and middle-aged people, the variance in outcomes between males and females is very small.

An additional consideration is that the prioritization here is extremely unlikely to result in discriminatory treatment toward white people. Even if it sounds like it on paper... the actual effect of this really ends up being to encourage BIPOC people to actually get in earlier. I would be willing to bet that if you tracked the actual vaccination patterns, you'd still end up seeing BIPOC people getting vaccinated at a lower rate than white people, and getting vaccinated later in the season. The prioritization doesn't do much more than marginally shift the timing for those people.

But without this outrageous race-based prioritization, there vaccination rate for BIPOC people would be lower and there'd be more sick and dead BIPOCs and fewer sick and dead white people!!! Don'cha get it? It is part of the war against white people.

The prioritisation of BIPOC people over white people in the timing of vaccination will mean that some white people will contract COVID when they otherwise wouldn't have if the policy had not discriminated by race.

 

[ZiprHead]

What is it about the OP that makes you think I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision?

That you posted the OP.

So, noting that the government of Vermont is discriminating by race shows I don't understand why the government of Vermont is discriminating by race?

The government is discriminating by health priorities.

 

[Metaphor]

So, noting that the government of Vermont is discriminating by race shows I don't understand why the government of Vermont is discriminating by race?

The government is discriminating by health priorities.

The government is discriminating by age, by race, by presence of health condition, etc.

Discrimination is not wrong just because it is discrimination. But to deny it is discrimination by race when it very clearly is smacks of ideological blindness.

 

[marc]

The government is discriminating by health priorities.

I believe the word would be triaged.

 

[Emily Lake]

So, noting that the government of Vermont is discriminating by race shows I don't understand why the government of Vermont is discriminating by race?

The government is discriminating by health priorities.

The government is discriminating by age, by race, by presence of health condition, etc.

Discrimination is not wrong just because it is discrimination. But to deny it is discrimination by race when it very clearly is smacks of ideological blindness.

I'm not denying that they're discriminating on race. I'm elaborating that race is being used as a proxy for a set of other factors that historically create a lower level of access to health care for those races.

 

[ZiprHead]

The government is discriminating by health priorities.

I believe the word would be triaged.

Yes, I've already brought that up.

 

[TomC]

I would.

I'm assuming that the health authorities are trying to prioritize the highest risk groups, while on the way to enough vaccinated folks to start providing the protection of herd immunity.

In other words, start at the beginning and work your way towards the goal as efficiently as possible.

I don't think that concept would be difficult to grasp if there weren't so many people, like you and the OP, looking for ideological straws to grasp. Ways to whine about how straight white males are really the one's being discriminated against.

That's what I see.

Tom

What is it about the OP that makes you think I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision?

Your whole OP.
Which included asking a bot about Constitutional law.

Also other threads you've started like the one where you claimed that Cornell was "clownworld". Claimed that Cornell was giving vaccination exemptions to BIPOC, without providing any evidence that Cornell gave any exemptions to anybody at all.

That's the context. That's why I'm not inclined to accept your implausible and unsupported claims about racism towards white men. And makes me think that you don't understand the reasoning behind Vermont's very temporary policy.

At least, it's a start on my opinions about your claims on TFT.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Your whole OP.

That's a non-answer.

Which included asking a bot about Constitutional law.

You don't seriously think I asked a bot expecting to get a useful answer?

Also other threads you've started like the one where you claimed that Cornell was "clownworld". Claimed that Cornell was giving vaccination exemptions to BIPOC, without providing any evidence that Cornell gave any exemptions to anybody at all.

The evidence for Cornell's flu exemptions was given in that thread, based on Cornell's wording on its vaccination details site. You can say you found it unconvincing and I was mistaken about the wording, but I did not manufacture Cornell's website. As for what actually happened at Cornell, we will never know what individual exemptions Cornell provided and whether any of them were on the basis of race.

That's the context. That's why I'm not inclined to accept your implausible and unsupported claims about racism towards white men.

I made a claim in the title and OP that Vermont is discriminating by race in giving out the COVID vaccine. It is. I don't know how my 'history' on this site can make the claim not true.

And makes me think that you don't understand the reasoning behind Vermont's very temporary policy.

So, in the multiple posts where I discuss the reasoning in detail, that's not evidence for you that I understand the reasoning?

 

[laughing dog]

Caveat: I just skipped like five pages of this thread.

Met - the inclusion of ethnicity in this triage list is a reflection of ethnic minorities in general having lower access to health care and being lower income. These are populations that have materially lower levels of health treatment. The reasons for that are complicated and multifaceted. Some of it is due to racially differential treatment practices in medicine, some of it is due to poverty and income, and some of it is due to cultural variances in how medicine is approached (particularly with first nations).

Bear in mind that the first priority included first responders and senior citizens - and that the age effect that was noted early in this thread is largely coming from the difference in impact between senior aged males and senior aged females. For younger and middle-aged people, the variance in outcomes between males and females is very small.

An additional consideration is that the prioritization here is extremely unlikely to result in discriminatory treatment toward white people. Even if it sounds like it on paper... the actual effect of this really ends up being to encourage BIPOC people to actually get in earlier. I would be willing to bet that if you tracked the actual vaccination patterns, you'd still end up seeing BIPOC people getting vaccinated at a lower rate than white people, and getting vaccinated later in the season. The prioritization doesn't do much more than marginally shift the timing for those people.

But without this outrageous race-based prioritization, there vaccination rate for BIPOC people would be lower and there'd be more sick and dead BIPOCs and fewer sick and dead white people!!! Don'cha get it? It is part of the war against white people.

The prioritisation of BIPOC people over white people in the timing of vaccination will mean that some white people will contract COVID when they otherwise wouldn't have if the policy had not discriminated by race.

That was obvious from my post. Why do you feel the need to repeat it?

 

[Metaphor]

The prioritisation of BIPOC people over white people in the timing of vaccination will mean that some white people will contract COVID when they otherwise wouldn't have if the policy had not discriminated by race.

That was obvious from my post. Why do you feel the need to repeat it?

No, that is not what your post said. Your post was a snarky trashing of concerns about discrimination by race, treating it as a complete nonissue and implying that noting the discrimination is making a claim about a 'war against white people'. Your tone also implies that the loss and suffering of white people who get sick and/or die from COVID do not count as much as the loss and suffering of a BIPOC.

You also make two unsupported claims:
"there vaccination rate for BIPOC people would be lower"

and
"there'd be more sick and dead BIPOCs"

The first claim would be true if the vaccine demand is at or beyond capacity at a particular date between the first rollout of the vaccine but before the vaccine is available to white people qua white people. If the rollout is at capacity then yes, including white people qua white people would displace some BIPOC from the queue and the vaccination rate for BIPOC at a particular date would be lower than it would have been had white people not been included.

The second claim being true depends on the first claim, but the exclusion of white people does not necessarily lead to a "symmetry"--it is not the case that the total number of lives saved (BIPOC+white) will be equal under each policy. Indeed, 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.

 

[laughing dog]

No, that is not what your post said.

It is to people with normal reading comprehension in English.

Your post was a snarky trashing of concerns about discrimination by race, treating it as a complete nonissue and implying that noting the discrimination is making a claim about a 'war against white people'. Your tone also implies that the loss and suffering of white people who get sick and/or die from COVID do not count as much as the loss and suffering of a BIPOC.

My tone made no such implication whatsoever. You came to that conclusion all by yourself.

You also make two unsupported claims:
"there vaccination rate for BIPOC people would be lower"

and
"there'd be more sick and dead BIPOCs"

They are not unsupported to anyone familiar with the data. Before the priority, BIPOCS had a lower vaccination rate. It is up to you to show that miraculously their vaccination would have increased even without the priority.

A lower vaccination rate means more will get covid (i.e. get sick) of which some will die. Now, you made that implicit argument for white people, but for some reason, you deny it for BIPOC. Hmmm.

As to the rest of your response - it was dealing straw men - I made no statement or implication about some symmetrical effect.

Indeed, 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.

The Vermont guidelines place 40 years old + in the prioritization cue with BIPOC. Please read your own links.

 

[Metaphor]

They are not unsupported to anyone familiar with the data. Before the priority, BIPOCS had a lower vaccination rate. It is up to you to show that miraculously their vaccination would have increased even without the priority.

It is not up to me to do anything of the kind. That BIPOC appear to have a lower tendency to vaccinate compared to white people does not mean excluding white people for a time will increase BIPOC vaccination, unless the reason that BIPOC rates are lower is because white people crowded out BIPOC people and were given systematic preference in previous vaccinations for other diseases.

A lower vaccination rate means more will get covid (i.e. get sick) of which some will die. Now, you made that implicit argument for white people, but for some reason, you deny it for BIPOC. Hmmm.

I can scarcely believe you read anything I write when you write this kind of response.

There is no evidence that excluding white people qua white people will increase BIPOC vaccination rates, although I explained how it might increase them at a particular point in time compared to no race exclusions (for example, vaccinations are at capacity and every single person vaccinated uses up a slot which excludes someone else from getting vaccinated).

The Vermont guidelines place 40 years old + in the prioritization cue with BIPOC. Please read your own links.

At the time of the OP, I pasted the different priority groups and the age was 50+. You can see it in the OP. I assume since then, people 40+ have now been let in to the queue, and after that people 30+, and so on, until one day the vaccine will be open to all groups. You accuse me of not reading my own sources. You haven't even read the OP.

But to reiterate:

Vermont's policy discriminates by race, and for what I can only assume are political reasons, it includes Asians in the group given priority, even though the evidence is that Asians get COVID less often and die from it less often or equal to white people.

There are white people who will get sick and die from COVID, who otherwise would not have, because of Vermont's discrimination by race.

There are other groups, such as men, who have a higher mortality rate compared to a 'general' reference group, and nobody (including you, I assume) appears to think that a higher mortality rate should prioritise men over women.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not up to me to do anything of the kind. That BIPOC appear to have a lower tendency to vaccinate compared to white people does not mean excluding white people for a time will increase BIPOC vaccination, unless the reason that BIPOC rates are lower is because white people crowded out BIPOC people and were given systematic preference in previous vaccinations for other diseases.

Riight because it would never even occur to you that placing them as a priority might provide an extra incentive to them.

I can scarcely believe you read anything I write when you write this kind of response.

Now you have a clue how many people react to your response.

At the time of the OP, I pasted the different priority groups and the age was 50+.

If you say so.

You can see it in the OP. I assume since then, people 40+ have now been let in to the queue, and after that people 30+, and so on, until one day the vaccine will be open to all groups. You accuse me of not reading my own sources. You haven't even read the OP.

Of course I read the OP. But I also read the link - apparently it never occurred to you in this ever-changing covid environment to check it before starting one of your bloviations.

There are white people who will get sick and die from COVID, who otherwise would not have, because of Vermont's discrimination by race.

In the same response to me you wrote "There is no evidence that excluding white people qua white people will increase BIPOC vaccination rates," which means there is no evidence to support your claim about the effect on white people.

 

[Metaphor]

Riight because it would never even occur to you that placing them as a priority might provide an extra incentive to them.

What was the "incentive" structure to get vaccinated in Vermont, before the COVID vaccine existed? Are BIPOC reluctant to get vaccinated unless they get priority over white people?

If you say so.

You're right, laughing dog. It's a conspiracy between myself and the mods. We have always been at war with Eastasia, and on April 12, we will discover that Vermont will always have allowed 30+ year olds into the vaccine queue.)

(For those following this interested in honesty, which laughing dog does not appear to be, the Vermont vaccination page shows a timeline of different groups becoming eligible.)

Of course I read the OP. But I also read the link - apparently it never occurred to you in this ever-changing covid environment to check it before starting one of your bloviations.

Apparently what never occurred to me? That Vermont was progressively making more groups eligible for the vaccine? Of course I fucking knew that, that's the entire basis of the O-fucking-P.

You accuse me of not having read the link in my OP when not only had I read it, I copied and fucking pasted from it. And then you imply that because it is now the case that 45 year olds qua 45 year olds are eligible for the vaccine, it was never the case that they were not eligible while all BIPOC 16+ were.

In the same response to me you wrote "There is no evidence that excluding white people qua white people will increase BIPOC vaccination rates," which means there is no evidence to support your claim about the effect on white people.

No, you are mistaken. I'm certain you're not arguing in good faith, but I'll explain it to you again anyway.

Blocking white people from accessing the vaccine qua white people is certain to have resulted in the sickness and death of some white people from COVID who would not have caught COVID had they been allowed to access the vaccine on the same basis as BIPOC 16+. This is true whether the vaccine rollout is at capacity or not.

Blocking white people from accessing the vaccine does not necessarily result in a higher take-up rate by BIPOC of the COVID vaccine, because there is no evidence that lower BIPOC vaccination rates (for non-COVID vaccines) are the result of white people having the same priority as BIPOC (that is, no discrimination by race) for non-COVID vaccines.

 

[laughing dog]

What was the "incentive" structure to get vaccinated in Vermont, before the COVID vaccine existed? Are BIPOC reluctant to get vaccinated unless they get priority over white people?

Putting a group in priority status is recognition that they matter. Duh.

You're right, laughing dog. It's a conspiracy between myself and the mods. We have always been at war with Eastasia, and on April 12, we will discover that Vermont will always have allowed 30+ year olds into the vaccine queue.)

(For those following this interested in honesty, which laughing dog does not appear to be, the Vermont vaccination page shows a timeline of different groups becoming eligible.)

What prompted that outpouring of bile?

Apparently what never occurred to me? That Vermont was progressively making more groups eligible for the vaccine? Of course I fucking knew that, that's the entire basis of the O-fucking-P.

And yet, you did not know that 40+ was a priority.

You accuse me of not having read the link in my OP when not only had I read it, I copied and fucking pasted from it. And then you imply that because it is now the case that 45 year olds qua 45 year olds are eligible for the vaccine, it was never the case that they were not eligible while all BIPOC 16+ were.

No, I did not imply it. You keep confusing "inference" with implication. I pointed out your claim was wrong when you wrote it and that if you had read your link (as you say, you know the priorities are changing, so there is no reason other than sloppiness to not check before responding) before responding, you'd have known it.

I guess it is unreasonable for me to try to hold you to the very same standards you hold anyone with whom you disagree.

No, you are mistaken. I'm certain you're not arguing in good faith, but I'll explain it to you again anyway.

Blocking white people from accessing the vaccine qua white people is certain to have resulted in the sickness and death of some white people from COVID who would not have caught COVID had they been allowed to access the vaccine on the same basis as BIPOC 16+. This is true whether the vaccine rollout is at capacity or not.

But if there is no evidence that the BIPOC vaccination rate increased (your claim), then there is no evidence that the prioritization induced any BIPOC vaccinations that would have not otherwise occurred. Which means that there is no evidence that any white person was blocked from getting a vaccination.

That is basic reasoning. So please stop with your boring and predictable passive aggressive accusations of dishonest or bad faith arguing.