Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[laughing dog]

Of course I did not have and do not have any kind of problem with priority groups, as I've already said a dozen times.

Yet you carp about race-based priority group.

You might as well say it's a double standard to object to putting people whose last name has exactly seven letters in a priority group, while approving of age-based priority groups.

It would depend on the rationale.

The evidence for age-based vaccine priority was unmistakeable and clear and every vaccine distribution strategy in the world has included it.

I have no problem in this case with either the age-based or race-based policy of Vermont.

On the other hand, the effect of race appears to be of a similar magnitude as the effect of sex - yet nobody prioritised men over women. And, inexplicably, Asians were included in the race group, even though Asians were either less likely or had the same likelihood of COVID sickness and death.

Oh noes, another "example" of the war against white men.

The history of the State discriminating by age is far less chequered and has far more widespread moral acceptance than the State discriminating by race.

That does not make it morally justified - as you have pointed out many times.

 

[Elixir]

Oh noes, another "example" of the war against white men.

 

[Metaphor]

Another conservo, trying to appoint him/herself arbiter of what is an what is not "justified" grounds for discriminatory prioritization of a finite medical resource's allocation.
It's not that they actually oppose such discrimination, only that they want to be the one saying whether it's justified.

Oy gevalt. All medical triage is discrimination, and nobody is suggesting we stop it.

Are you claiming it had a negative effect upon it?

I'm claiming the State should not discriminate by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies.

 

[Metaphor]

Yet you carp about race-based priority group.

Yes. Is there any ambiguity about this?

It would depend on the rationale.

If it depends on the rationale as to whether it is a double standard, then that applies to my reasoning as well. I think there was an unmistakeable medical justification for discrimination by age, which is why every single jurisdiction I am aware of did that. The same does not apply to discrimination by race.

I have no problem in this case with either the age-based or race-based policy of Vermont.

I don't have a problem with the age-based discrimination for reasons I've already explicated. And it's not a hypocritical 'double standard'.

Oh noes, another "example" of the war against white men.

Do you actually have any dispute with what I said, or did you quote me merely to be nasty?

That does not make it morally justified - as you have pointed out many times.

The State discriminating by race is almost never morally justified, but discrimination by age often is. The two do not have the same prior probabilities of being right or wrong.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The State discriminating by race is almost never morally justified, but discrimination by age often is. The two do not have the same prior probabilities of being right or wrong.

Pretty much no risk factor has the same exact probability of being right or wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

If it depends on the rationale as to whether it is a double standard, then that applies to my reasoning as well. I think there was an unmistakeable medical justification for discrimination by age, which is why every single jurisdiction I am aware of did that. The same does not apply to discrimination by race.

Age discrimination means that older healthy people with a lower probability of infection and death than younger people who have a higher probability. It is the same principle when you railed against race-based priority group.

I don't have a problem with the age-based discrimination for reasons I've already explicated. And it's not a hypocritical 'double standard'.

it is an actual double standard.

Do you actually have any dispute with what I said, or did you quote me merely to be nasty?

Please stop pulling these baseless accusations out of your ass. You trotted out an irrelevant hobby horse, and I pointed it out.
[

]
The State discriminating by race is almost never morally justified, but discrimination by age often is. The two do not have the same prior probabilities of being right or wrong.

Glad to hear you agree that race based discrimination is morally justified depending on the circumstances. Apparently preventing deaths if younger black people is not while preventing death iof older people is in your view.

 

[Toni]

It’s interesting to read that discrimination by race is almost never justified written by someone who does not believe that racial discrimination is a large portion of the reason that most POC in the US experience greater risk from COVID 19–and other medical issues.

I happen to agree that racial discrimination is rarely justified. However, I do believe that extra efforts should be made to ensure that those who have been harmed by such discrimination can access health care, education, clean water, adequate food and housing that should be available to every person in a society and so often is not due to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

 

[Elixir]

Oy gevalt. All medical triage is discrimination, and nobody is suggesting we stop it.

So you're not only the arbiter of justification, you're also the medical expert?
Oy indeed.
Anyone listening to right wingers on morality need only examine their orange icon to ascertain the quality of their "judgments".

 

[Metaphor]

Age discrimination means that older healthy people with a lower probability of infection and death than younger people who have a higher probability. It is the same principle when you railed against race-based priority group.

If the correlation with age was as weak as the correlation with race, I would say that the identified risk factor priorities (e.g. diabetes and obesity) should take precedence. But age was not weakly correlated with COVID sickness and death. It is the single most important predictor.

Glad to hear you agree that race based discrimination is morally justified depending on the circumstances. Apparently preventing deaths if younger black people is not while preventing death iof older people is in your view.

Not quite what I said. I said, the State discriminating by race is almost never morally justified. There are domains (e.g. dating preferences) where discrimination by race requires no moral justification whatever.

 

[Metaphor]

So you're not only the arbiter of justification, you're also the medical expert?

I'm not a medical expert, no. But I do have a background in statistics.

 

[Metaphor]

It’s interesting to read that discrimination by race is almost never justified written by someone who does not believe that racial discrimination is a large portion of the reason that most POC in the US experience greater risk from COVID 19–and other medical issues.

We have evidence that people of colour in the United States have higher incidence of diabetes and obesity. Diabetes and obesity are direct causes of higher COVID-19 risk. Whether diabetes and obesity are the result of 'discrimination' I do not know.

 

[Rhea]

So Metaphor does not think BIPOC were catching COVID at higher rates and had worse outcomes, even though he’s been shown data on it.

Vermont saw the same data and said, “look BIPOC are getting COVID at higher rates and having worse outcomes. We will use that information to prioritize them - that 1.36% of the population in the state - in getting a vaccine.”

Metaphor thought they made a terrible decision and should have let the BIPOC continue to catch COVID at higher rates and suffer worse outcomes including more deaths, while Metaphor waited to have someone prove to him *how* that was happening. Because that was wicked important to him, moreso than stopping the carnage.

There was data that Vermont used justified their action. Their results showed that it did not cause harm to prioritize that 1.36% of the population for a few weeks, and may have caused much good.

Metaphor was outraged, because white males, with their lower risk rate, had to wait in line behind those with a higher risk rate (elderly, medical conditions, and 1.36% of the population with a risk by race). And despite all of the conversation, and all of the data, he remains outraged, unwilling to see that the white men just plain weren’t at as high a risk. Indeed, as Toni points out, that racial bias may be part of what caused BIPOC to be at higher risk in the first place - but they should continue to die in larger numbers because Metaphor doesn’t understand how race affects health outcomes, and if he doesn’t understand, it’s an outrage against wite men.

I don’t have any more to say on the subject. He’ll remain outraged no matter what. And he’ll be outraged again next week for some other imagined slight.



For comparison, NYC data showed the male deaths were 1.6X female deaths. Which is not as bad as BIPOC vs white (1.9x to 2.4x)

 

[laughing dog]

If the correlation with age was as weak as the correlation with race, I would say that the identified risk factor priorities (e.g. diabetes and obesity) should take precedence. But age was not weakly correlated with COVID sickness and death. It is the single most important predictor.

Of course it is - age is correlated with many health factors. So is race. However, it is not easy to identify the relevant health factors for each individual. Which is why proxies are used.


So how strong does a correlation have to be in order to meet your criterion?

Not quite what I said. I said, the State discriminating by race is almost never morally justified.

Which means race based discrimination is morally justified depending on the circumstances. Your statement admits that possibility.

 

[Metaphor]

So Metaphor does not think BIPOC were catching COVID at higher rates and had worse outcomes, even though he’s been shown data on it.

Wrong as can be. I didn't say it and don't believe it.

There was data that Vermont used justified their action. Their results showed that it did not cause harm to prioritize that 1.36% of the population for a few weeks, and may have caused much good.

The data does not show any such thing.

Metaphor was outraged, because white males, with their lower risk rate, had to wait in line behind those with a higher risk rate (elderly, medical conditions, and 1.36% of the population with a risk by race).

I did not say anything about 'white males', but white people. There is also no evidence that a white 48 year old was less at risk than an 18 year old BIPOC. In fact, I can scarcely believe that is the case.

For comparison, NYC data showed the male deaths were 1.6X female deaths. Which is not as bad as BIPOC vs white (1.9x to 2.4x)

Two thirds of COVID fatalities are men, but no jurisdiction that I know of prioritised men over women. Yet, on the same arguments used to prioritise non-white people, men could have been prioritised over women.

 

[Metaphor]

So how strong does a correlation have to be in order to meet your criterion?

It depends - but the justification to discriminate on race would need a higher threshold than discriminating on age.

 

[laughing dog]

Two thirds of COVID fatalities are men, but no jurisdiction that I know of prioritised men over women. Yet, on the same arguments used to prioritise non-white people, men could have been prioritised over women.

Do you have an actual point besides your outrage over the discrimination against white men under the age of 65?

 

[laughing dog]

So how strong does a correlation have to be in order to meet your criterion?

It depends - but the justification to discriminate on race would need a higher threshold than discriminating on age.

Because....?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So you're not only the arbiter of justification, you're also the medical expert?

I'm not a medical expert, no. But I do have a background in statistics.

 

[Metaphor]

Two thirds of COVID fatalities are men, but no jurisdiction that I know of prioritised men over women. Yet, on the same arguments used to prioritise non-white people, men could have been prioritised over women.

Do you have an actual point besides your outrage over the discrimination against white men under the age of 65?

I didn't say men were discriminated against.

 

[Metaphor]

So how strong does a correlation have to be in order to meet your criterion?

It depends - but the justification to discriminate on race would need a higher threshold than discriminating on age.

Because....?

For all the reasons I've already explicated.

The State had and has legitimate reasons to discriminate based on age. Discriminating based on age makes sense in all kinds of medical and nonmedical scenarios.

The State has almost never had a good reason to discriminate based on race. The case for doing so needs to be made far more robust.