Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[Metaphor]

Then you are tacitly acknowledging you did not read your link before you posted it. Fine, you were sloppy.

No. I am not tacitly acknowledging that. My statement was not a lie and I was not sloppy.

For the people playing at home, this was my statement:

Originally Posted by Metaphor
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.

I am going to keep re-posting this, not to convince you of your wrongness, but to show everyone else what a recalcitrant, delusional, nasty, and false charge calling the above sentence a 'lie' is.

And there you go again with your nasty false accusations.

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.

BTW, still waiting for you to substantiate your claim of fact with actual evidence that
There are white people who will get sick and die from COVID, who otherwise would not have, because of Vermont's discrimination by race.

It's the inescapable deductive conclusion of Vermont's policy settings. If you don't think so, please tell me which of the following you doubt:

1. The COVID-19 vaccine that Vermont is handing out is effective at reducing COVID-19 risk.
2. Vermont has a vaccination schedule that allows all BIPOC 16+ who do not qualify under any other eligibility category, to get vaccinated.
3. There are white people in Vermont, who from the beginning of vaccinations in March until they became or will become qualified by virtue of their age, did not qualify under any other category to become vaccinated.
4. Some of those people would have gotten the COVID-19 vaccination earlier if they were eligible to do so.
5. Some of those people caught COVID-19 after the vaccine was first available but before they were eligible, and they would not have caught it if they'd become eligible earlier and got vaccinated.

I'm not sure how you can reasonably deny any of these claims, but if you do, which ones?

Vermont's data visualisation is hopeless and does not allow me to select recent cases by race, but about 89% of all COVID infections in Vermont have been of white people (and white people make up 96% of deaths), and Vermont is currently reporting about 40 new cases of COVID per day. Presuming people already vaccinated do not make up any significant portion of the new cases, these new cases are from unvaccinated people. And since white people have shown themselves more willing to get the vaccine compared to BIPOC (despite the increased eligibility of BIPOC), I assume some of those white people who did not qualify under any other eligibility category would have got the vaccination earlier if they could.

What is fascinating about all of your posturing about the perceived (but unsubstantiated) effects on white people is the issue about triage, and, of course, the issue that any attempt triage protocol will mean that those in lower categories are put at higher risk.

First, triage is almost always understood to be in the context of individual presentations, not population risk profiles.

Second, I have not said, anywhere, that Vermont shouldn't prioritise certain groups based on group characteristics.

What I said (and what you inexplicably called 'a lie') is that 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.

I think when the State discriminates by race in handing out life-saving bennies it needs to have a shockingly good reason to do so, and I don't think Vermont has one.

There was a period of time from the start of Vermont's vaccination rollout, where it allowed any BIPOC 16+ to get vaccinated before it allowed any white person who did not qualify under another category to get vaccinated. That triage is a political one: being 45 is a much greater risk factor for sickness and death at the hands of COVID than being BIPOC.

 

[Metaphor]

So what you are acknowledging is that people who were further down the priority list in March can now sign up to be vaccinated.

Huh.

In what universe had I denied such a thing? I have posted multiple links showing the age tiers in Vermont's vaccination schedule, and the dates which white people in those age groups become eligible. (BIPOC people 16+ already being eligible, naturally).

Maybe we are talking past each other?
Can you explain what you mean by being ‘blocked?’

Because to us Americans it looks like people move up in the priority list as time goes on. As priority lists are designed to do.

What on earth could being blocked mean other than the plain meaning of the word????

A story:

It's March 30, and Charmaine and Delia are both 45 year old women in Vermont who want to get vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible. They run through the eligibility category list. They are not frontline workers, and neither of them have any health conditions that would qualify them under that category. But Charmaine is Asian, so she qualifies under the BIPOC category. Delia is white and therefore does not qualify. Charmaine books her appointment and gets vaccinated the next day. Delia is told she must wait until April 5 to book her appointment.

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.

Now imagine the same story, but Charmaine is 19. Charmaine can still get her COVID vaccination but Delia can't, even though a healthy Asian 19 year old is orders of magnitude at less risk of COVID sickness and death than a healthy 45 year old of any race.

 

[Toni]

Maybe we are talking past each other?
Can you explain what you mean by being ‘blocked?’

Because to us Americans it looks like people move up in the priority list as time goes on. As priority lists are designed to do.

What on earth could being blocked mean other than the plain meaning of the word????

A story:

It's March 30, and Charmaine and Delia are both 45 year old women in Vermont who want to get vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible. They run through the eligibility category list. They are not frontline workers, and neither of them have any health conditions that would qualify them under that category. But Charmaine is Asian, so she qualifies under the BIPOC category. Delia is white and therefore does not qualify. Charmaine books her appointment and gets vaccinated the next day. Delia is told she must wait until April 5 to book her appointment.

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.

Now imagine the same story, but Charmaine is 19. Charmaine can still get her COVID vaccination but Delia can't, even though a healthy Asian 19 year old is orders of magnitude at less risk of COVID sickness and death than a healthy 45 year old of any race.

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know if the story you told is a personal invention

It is 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.

Then imagine instead that Delia gets COVID some time after being vaccinated, but had she been vaccinated five days earlier, she'd have passed the 'window' of the vaccine becoming effective. The point is the delay in getting the vaccine as soon as possible.

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.

I did not suggest otherwise. I said that the risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID is much greater in 45 year olds than in 19 year olds. Not 2.4x greater or some multiple like that - orders of magnitude.

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.'

I just explained it. The vaccine is available and Delia is blocked from getting it. Everyone who is not in an eligibility category is blocked from getting it. That they later fall into an eligibility category doesn't mean they weren't blocked. I don't know how else to explain this to you.

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.

She is blocked from the vaccine rollout in March until April 5.

If you have a different meaning to 'blocked' I wish you'd share it.

I think you have a different meaning to the rest of the world. My credit card was once blocked because my credit card company thought there was a suspicious transaction on it. When they rang me to verify the transaction (yes, I in fact was purchasing a DVD from a Canadian website at 2 a.m. Australian Eastern Standard Time), they unblocked it. The block was not somehow not a block because it was temporary.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

The problem is that this looks like catering to the "anti"-discrimination crowd. Is there actually a racial risk to Covid, or is this, as usual, socioeconomic effects? The groups that are dying more are the groups that will be at higher risk of exposure.

What we need is the % of patients dying by race, not the % of people by dying by race.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what you are acknowledging is that people who were further down the priority list in March can now sign up to be vaccinated.

Huh.

In what universe had I denied such a thing? I have posted multiple links showing the age tiers in Vermont's vaccination schedule, and the dates which white people in those age groups become eligible. (BIPOC people 16+ already being eligible, naturally).

Maybe we are talking past each other?
Can you explain what you mean by being ‘blocked?’

Because to us Americans it looks like people move up in the priority list as time goes on. As priority lists are designed to do.

Except for those who died because their shots were delayed.

What they did here was more sensible--once the medical and the like were out of the way they prioritized those in high risk fields such as retail workers. They looked at the real issues rather than discriminate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe we are talking past each other?
Can you explain what you mean by being ‘blocked?’

Because to us Americans it looks like people move up in the priority list as time goes on. As priority lists are designed to do.

What on earth could being blocked mean other than the plain meaning of the word????

A story:

It's March 30, and Charmaine and Delia are both 45 year old women in Vermont who want to get vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible. They run through the eligibility category list. They are not frontline workers, and neither of them have any health conditions that would qualify them under that category. But Charmaine is Asian, so she qualifies under the BIPOC category. Delia is white and therefore does not qualify. Charmaine books her appointment and gets vaccinated the next day. Delia is told she must wait until April 5 to book her appointment.

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.

Now imagine the same story, but Charmaine is 19. Charmaine can still get her COVID vaccination but Delia can't, even though a healthy Asian 19 year old is orders of magnitude at less risk of COVID sickness and death than a healthy 45 year old of any race.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

 

[Toni]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

People only started hysterically screaming about it

"Hysterically screaming".

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

 

[Toni]

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?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

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.

It's the inescapable deductive conclusion of Vermont's policy settings.

A deduction is not evidence of fact.

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.

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.

What I said (and what you inexplicably called 'a lie') is that 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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.