Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[Toni]

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



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.

One of the reasons that men were not prioritized over women is that women make up a large portion of front line health care workers, much larger than men.

Frontline health care workers, and indeed, in some places, ALL health care workers, including those working away from patients, were prioritized for vaccination.

Other frontline workers such as store clerks and people in the food service industry are majority female.

I am aware of at least one instance where an outbreak in a meat packing plant, staffed largely by Hispanic people who may or may not have had citizenship or work permits. Then, those workers were prioritized for vaccination because to fail to do so would have created a shortage of food for the rest of the population.

Epidemiologists drew large categories of people and prioritized them by risk, not only risk of becoming ill because of their age and medical condition but also because of their risk of infection and the essential nature of their work, which placed them at greater risk of exposure and also because of the necessity that such workers continue to work in order for society to continue to function.

You've chosen to become outraged over the prioritization for vaccination of a small number of individuals who were demonstrated to have a greater risk of morbidity and death due to COVID 19 over white people. In fact, there is zero evidence that anyone in Vermont became ill with COVID19 because of the outreach to the black community, who, if Vermont is like other states, largely serve in essential jobs such as working as health aides, hospital staff, store clerks, truck drivers, and food service workers. And who also have a greater incidence of diabetes and high blood pressure and obesity, all increased risk factors for poor outcomes if one becomes infected with COVID19.

It boggles the mind that you find this so objectionable. Indeed, I cannot find a single decent reason to explain it.

Upthread, you postulated that no 18 year old black person could be at greater risk of serious illness from COVID 19 than a 48 year old white person. Do you not understand that 18 year olds can have diabetes? Asthma? Obesity? High blood pressure? That a 48 year old white person can be healthy, with an ideal BMI, normal blood pressure, no diabetes or asthma, etc? Sure, it's more common in 48 year olds than in 18 year olds, but all are more common in black people than in white people in the US.

A number of states (not enough, imo) have made specific campaigns to get various high risk groups vaccinated, including Native Americans, Hispanic people and black people because all have shown a greater risk for serious illness if infected with COVID19. Remember, every single person who contracts COVID19 and becomes ill enough to require hospitalization puts a strain on the entire system, resulting in poorer outcomes for those who must wait for cancer treatments and other surgeries or be at higher risk for exposure. Women have been increasingly giving birth without any family around them, again, under the stressful circumstance of having to worry about exposure for themselves and for their newborns.

 

[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?

I didn't say men were discriminated against.

I didn't say you said it. There was no reason to bring up the alleged differential rates between the genders. But it is understandable and consistent with your well-documented obsession with discrimination or unfairness against white men.

 

[Metaphor]

Frontline health care workers, and indeed, in some places, ALL health care workers, including those working away from patients, were prioritized for vaccination.

Other frontline workers such as store clerks and people in the food service industry are majority female.

Let me get this straight.

Despite the fact that men are less likely to be frontline healthcare workers and store clerks, they were STILL 2/3 of COVID 19 deaths? And so, being a frontline worker could not possibly explain why men are more likely to die and in fact would mean men's risk is even higher than their occupation explains, and you think this is a reason men should not be prioritised? Please fucking tell me you are not in an occupation that informs government policy, Toni.

I am aware of at least one instance where an outbreak in a meat packing plant, staffed largely by Hispanic people who may or may not have had citizenship or work permits. Then, those workers were prioritized for vaccination because to fail to do so would have created a shortage of food for the rest of the population.

You mean: the actual people working in a high risk place were prioritised?

Epidemiologists drew large categories of people and prioritized them by risk, not only risk of becoming ill because of their age and medical condition but also because of their risk of infection and the essential nature of their work, which placed them at greater risk of exposure and also because of the necessity that such workers continue to work in order for society to continue to function.

Explain in which post I objected to 'essential workers' being prioritised. Quote the post.

You've chosen to become outraged over the prioritization for vaccination of a small number of individuals who were demonstrated to have a greater risk of morbidity and death due to COVID 19 over white people. In fact, there is zero evidence that anyone in Vermont became ill with COVID19 because of the outreach to the black community,

Non. Blocking higher risk white people (48 year olds, say) over lower-risk POC (18 year olds, say) is not "outreach".

who, if Vermont is like other states, largely serve in essential jobs such as working as health aides, hospital staff, store clerks, truck drivers, and food service workers. And who also have a greater incidence of diabetes and high blood pressure and obesity, all increased risk factors for poor outcomes if one becomes infected with COVID19.

Non. These risk categories (frontline workers, comorbid conditions) were already catered for.

It boggles the mind that you find this so objectionable. Indeed, I cannot find a single decent reason to explain it.

I can't find a single reason to explain your damaged thinking. But, there it is.

Upthread, you postulated that no 18 year old black person could be at greater risk of serious illness from COVID 19 than a 48 year old white person.

Non. I did not say that and don't believe it.

I said: healthy 18 year old POC as a group were less at risk than healthy 48 year old white people as a group.

And by healthy, I mean excluding all the people already prioritised under existing health conditions, such as diabetes and obesity.

Do you not understand that 18 year olds can have diabetes? Asthma? Obesity? High blood pressure? That a 48 year old white person can be healthy, with an ideal BMI, normal blood pressure, no diabetes or asthma, etc? Sure, it's more common in 48 year olds than in 18 year olds, but all are more common in black people than in white people in the US.

I understand that Vermont correctly prioritised health conditions known to be related to COVID sickness and death were already eligible.

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't say men were discriminated against.

I didn't say you said it. There was no reason to bring up the alleged differential rates between the genders. But it is understandable and consistent with your well-documented obsession with discrimination or unfairness against white men.

Of course there was a reason. If proxy measures alone are good enough to justify discrimination by demographic, then it would justify Vermont or any jurisdiction prioritising men over women. Yet no jurisdiction did.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

My mother had four children.

Now I have a background in statistics too.

 

[Toni]

Let me get this straight.

Despite the fact that men are less likely to be frontline healthcare workers and store clerks, they were STILL 2/3 of COVID 19 deaths? And so, being a frontline worker could not possibly explain why men are more likely to die and in fact would mean men's risk is even higher than their occupation explains, and you think this is a reason men should not be prioritised? Please fucking tell me you are not in an occupation that informs government policy, Toni.

Your insult is duly noted. Perhaps you can explain where I said that men should not be prioritized in vaccination schemes?

You mean: the actual people working in a high risk place were prioritised?

The workplace was high risk because people who worked there were not vaccinated, possibly due to their lack of documentation. Also the working conditions. Yes, people where there was an outbreak noticed were prioritized for vaccination and possibly any family members as well. To fail to do so risked the food supply for a large segment of the population.

Epidemiologists drew large categories of people and prioritized them by risk, not only risk of becoming ill because of their age and medical condition but also because of their risk of infection and the essential nature of their work, which placed them at greater risk of exposure and also because of the necessity that such workers continue to work in order for society to continue to function.

Explain in which post I objected to 'essential workers' being prioritised. Quote the post.

Explain to me where I made such a claim that you objected?

You've chosen to become outraged over the prioritization for vaccination of a small number of individuals who were demonstrated to have a greater risk of morbidity and death due to COVID 19 over white people. In fact, there is zero evidence that anyone in Vermont became ill with COVID19 because of the outreach to the black community,

Non. Blocking higher risk white people (48 year olds, say) over lower-risk POC (18 year olds, say) is not "outreach".

Of course it was. Vaccination doses are seriously limited and have a short shelf life. Targeting black people for vaccination temporarily delayed vaccination of some white people who, as you seem to believe, were perfectly well able to be vaccinated if they had some comorbidity or risk factor.

who, if Vermont is like other states, largely serve in essential jobs such as working as health aides, hospital staff, store clerks, truck drivers, and food service workers. And who also have a greater incidence of diabetes and high blood pressure and obesity, all increased risk factors for poor outcomes if one becomes infected with COVID19.

Non. These risk categories (frontline workers, comorbid conditions) were already catered for.

And yet, they were not being vaccinated. So, efforts were made to encourage vaccination.

It boggles the mind that you find this so objectionable. Indeed, I cannot find a single decent reason to explain it.

I can't find a single reason to explain your damaged thinking. But, there it is.

Personal insult duly noted, along with your apparent inability to consider any point of view other than your own.

Upthread, you postulated that no 18 year old black person could be at greater risk of serious illness from COVID 19 than a 48 year old white person.

Non. I did not say that and don't believe it.

I said: healthy 18 year old POC as a group were less at risk than healthy 48 year old white people as a group.
And by healthy, I mean excluding all the people already prioritised under existing health conditions, such as diabetes and obesity.

OK, let me refresh your memory. Your post 274:

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



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.

My emphasis added. That was you, right? You wrote: "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."

Do you not understand that 18 year olds can have diabetes? Asthma? Obesity? High blood pressure? That a 48 year old white person can be healthy, with an ideal BMI, normal blood pressure, no diabetes or asthma, etc? Sure, it's more common in 48 year olds than in 18 year olds, but all are more common in black people than in white people in the US.

I understand that Vermont correctly prioritised health conditions known to be related to COVID sickness and death were already eligible.

And Vermont also noted a pocket of people who were not being vaccinated, who were more likely to be seriously ill or die from COVID 19 (and thus putting an extra strain on medical system, and putting more people, including white people, btw, at risk.) As they should have done and which seems to have been very effective.

You pointed out that men are more likely than women to become seriously ill or die from COVID 19 yet are less likely to be vaccinated than are women. Indeed, there is a gap in vaccination rates. There is also a lag between rates of illness/death and vaccination. As vaccination has increased, serious illness and deaths have dramatically decreased. From the beginning, there have been numerous studies that sought to explain why more men than women die from COVID 19 and how to address that. There are differences in vaccination rates between men and women but that gap has narrowed. Some of the reasons for the gap in vaccination are:

Women, as a group, are more likely to have been vaccinated than are men for a couple of reasons:
1. Women comprise a greater portion of the 65+ population than do men. 65+ was one of the first priorities for vaccination.
2. Women comprise the vast majority of health care workers and also a greater proportion of what were deemed essential workers (which, btw, despite their essential nature, tend to be lower paid jobs).

The gap in vaccination rates has narrowed and continues to narrow as the general population rather than these immediately obvious at risk groups were vaccinated.

Here is an article that addresses some of the reasons that men are vaccinated less often compared with women:
https://time.com/6045671/covid-19-vaccine-men/

The fact that men remain comparatively under-vaccinated may come down to behavior. Women have long been more proactive about health care—during the 2019-20 influenza season, for instance, 52% of U.S. women got their flu shot, compared to just 44% of men, per CDC data. Morgan says this is partly because women often have more contact with the health care system in general—they need to seek sexual and reproductive care from an early age, and are more likely to serve as caregivers for children and older people.

At least some portion of this gap could come down to politics: men are more likely to identify as Republicans, who are less likely to want the vaccine. A March NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that only 50% of Republican men planned to get the vaccine or had already received it, compared to 60% of men generally and 92% of male Democrats. Meanwhile, only 12% of Republicans said they were very concerned about the virus, per an October poll from KFF.

Overall, however, women have been more worried about the risk of being infected themselves, or of someone in their family getting sick. In that same NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, 57% Republican women said that they planned to get the vaccine or had already received it. According to the October KFF poll, 73% of women said that they were at least somewhat worried that they or someone in their family could get COVID-19, compared to 58% of men. Accordingly, women have taken more precautions to protect themselves and the people around them from the virus, such as masking, maintaining physical distance, and seeking medical help, according to a July 2020 review published in Preventing Chronic Disease. These findings suggest women may be more eager to get vaccinated in order to keep themselves and those around them safe.

Should men be targeted to increase vaccination participation rates? That's a valid question.

 

[Toni]

I was able to access Vermont's dashboard which details statistics describing which demographics became ill, and also death rates.

In Vermont, women and men had nearly identical rates of death due to COVID 19.

Lots of information here, including data that shows that black people were much more severely affected compared with white people in Vermont.

https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites...pdf/COVID19-Weekly-Data-Summary-2-19-2021.pdf

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't say men were discriminated against.

I didn't say you said it. There was no reason to bring up the alleged differential rates between the genders. But it is understandable and consistent with your well-documented obsession with discrimination or unfairness against white men.

Of course there was a reason. If proxy measures alone are good enough to justify discrimination by demographic, then it would justify Vermont or any jurisdiction prioritising men over women. Yet no jurisdiction did.

You chose that example out of all the possible ones. There was no evidence of which I am aware that men were more wary of getting vaccinated than women (the wariness of vaccinations was one reason for the BIPOC priority).

Really, you may be fooling yourself, but that is it.

 

[Toni]

Of course there was a reason. If proxy measures alone are good enough to justify discrimination by demographic, then it would justify Vermont or any jurisdiction prioritising men over women. Yet no jurisdiction did.

You chose that example out of all the possible ones. There was no evidence of which I am aware that men were more wary of getting vaccinated than women (the wariness of vaccinations was one reason for the BIPOC priority).

Really, you may be fooling yourself, but that is it.

Actually, you can see some evidence that men are less likely to be vaccinated than women, and reasons this may be true in my earlier post with this link:https://time.com/6045671/covid-19-vaccine-men/


Initial vaccination priorities included those over 65 and health care workers, then other essential workers. All of those are over-represented by women.

The vaccination rate gap between men and women has narrowed significantly over the past few months and is continuing to narrow.

In Vermont, men and women had the same likelihood of dying of COVID19. I haven't seen any stats for hospitalizations due to COVID19 separtaed by sex but men and women had nearly equal rates of infection.

In Vermont, Blacks (234.8/10.000)-much, much, much more likely to be infected with COVID19 compared with whites (35.9/10,000).
https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites...df/COVID19-Weekly-Data-Summary-11-13-2020.pdf

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Of course there was a reason. If proxy measures alone are good enough to justify discrimination by demographic, then it would justify Vermont or any jurisdiction prioritising men over women. Yet no jurisdiction did.

You chose that example out of all the possible ones. There was no evidence of which I am aware that men were more wary of getting vaccinated than women (the wariness of vaccinations was one reason for the BIPOC priority).

Really, you may be fooling yourself, but that is it.

Actually, you can see some evidence that men are less likely to be vaccinated than women, and reasons this may be true in my earlier post with this link:https://time.com/6045671/covid-19-vaccine-men/


Initial vaccination priorities included those over 65 and health care workers, then other essential workers. All of those are over-represented by women.

The vaccination rate gap between men and women has narrowed significantly over the past few months and is continuing to narrow.

In Vermont, men and women had the same likelihood of dying of COVID19. I haven't seen any stats for hospitalizations due to COVID19 separtaed by sex but men and women had nearly equal rates of infection.

In Vermont, Blacks (234.8/10.000)-much, much, much more likely to be infected with COVID19 compared with whites (35.9/10,000).
https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites...df/COVID19-Weekly-Data-Summary-11-13-2020.pdf

WOW!

 

[Elixir]

How is someone claiming a background in statistics so ignorant as to be unaware of front line Med workers’ role in saving lives? I guess the poster is male and is simply pissed that somewhere on the planet, that’s not the most important attribute for prioritizing vaccinations.

 

[TomC]

How is someone claiming a background in statistics so ignorant as to be unaware of front line Med workers’ role in saving lives? I guess the poster is male and is simply pissed that somewhere on the planet, that’s not the most important attribute for prioritizing vaccinations.

There's also this.

I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but I can add 2+2 and get 4.

If the bulk of C19 deaths are amongst the elderly and the bulk of deaths amongst the elderly are the men, then the bulk of the discrepancy between male and female death rates are covered by simply prioritizing the elderly.

Elderly men are more fragile than elderly women. This is born out in a raft of statistical data, like the average life expectancy. Women live years longer than men. While part of this is doubtless due to physiological differences, there are many other factors as well. Men are more likely to be suffering from chronic problems caused by lifestyle choices, such as tobacco, alcohol, and fast food consumption. But the bottom line remains, a 60+ male is more likely to die if infected than a 60+ female. But there's no reason to prioritize men, just prioritize the elderly as a whole.

A well informed person with a background in statistics shouldn't have trouble understanding this.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Age-based discrimination has the same effects on others as race-based discrimination in vaccine policy: the people in the out group are forced to wait for vaccine. Approving of one form while disapproving of another form is an example of a double standard.

No.

What we were advocating is a priority list based on risk. What Vermont did with race put lower risk people ahead of higher risk people, thus it killed people. And note there's no good reason to think race is even a risk factor in the first place--it's probably just a proxy. What we did here was prioritize retail workers rather than any given race, I think that makes a lot more sense.

 

[Toni]

Age-based discrimination has the same effects on others as race-based discrimination in vaccine policy: the people in the out group are forced to wait for vaccine. Approving of one form while disapproving of another form is an example of a double standard.

No.

What we were advocating is a priority list based on risk. What Vermont did with race put lower risk people ahead of higher risk people, thus it killed people. And note there's no good reason to think race is even a risk factor in the first place--it's probably just a proxy. What we did here was prioritize retail workers rather than any given race, I think that makes a lot more sense.

No.
In Vermont, Blacks (234.8/10.000)-much, much, much more likely to be infected with COVID19 compared with whites (35.9/10,000).
https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/...11-13-2020.pdf


If you look at my post above #289), you will see that black people in Vermont were infected by COVID19 at MUCH higher rates compared with white people. They also required hospitalization at higher rates compared with white people. Prioritizing black individuals for vaccination was the sensible thing to do in order to best contain the spread of COVID 19 in Vermont.

Metaphor's assumption and apparently your assumption was that by prioritizing vaccinations for black people over (some) white people, that white people died. Please cite an example of this. I could find no such data.

 

[laughing dog]

Age-based discrimination has the same effects on others as race-based discrimination in vaccine policy: the people in the out group are forced to wait for vaccine. Approving of one form while disapproving of another form is an example of a double standard.

No.

What we were advocating is a priority list based on risk. What Vermont did with race put lower risk people ahead of higher risk people, thus it killed people. And note there's no good reason to think race is even a risk factor in the first place--it's probably just a proxy. What we did here was prioritize retail workers rather than any given race, I think that makes a lot more sense.

As usual, you miss the point. In any prioritization scheme scheme, people in the out group are forced to wait. And in any grouping, there are those in the in-group who are at less risk than some in the outgroup. Hence there is always the issue of a less at risk member of the in group jumping in front of a more at risk person in the outgroup.

In these situations, any variable is going to be a proxy variable, because there is not enough time or information to assess each person on an individual basis in a timely manner. Moreover, age is a proxy variable as well. So why you feel it is okay to use a particular proxy variable over another one is fascinating.

You made a specific claim that Vermont's race-based priority protocols ended up killing people. Do you have actual data to support your claim or is it just your opinion?

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't say you said it.

No, you inferred I was worried about discrimination against white men in particular in the vaccine distribution. Your inference is false. Move on.

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

 

[Metaphor]

How is someone claiming a background in statistics so ignorant as to be unaware of front line Med workers’ role in saving lives? I guess the poster is male and is simply pissed that somewhere on the planet, that’s not the most important attribute for prioritizing vaccinations.

Where did I deny front line medical workers role in saving lives?

 

[Metaphor]

Of course there was a reason. If proxy measures alone are good enough to justify discrimination by demographic, then it would justify Vermont or any jurisdiction prioritising men over women. Yet no jurisdiction did.

You chose that example out of all the possible ones. There was no evidence of which I am aware that men were more wary of getting vaccinated than women (the wariness of vaccinations was one reason for the BIPOC priority).

Really, you may be fooling yourself, but that is it.

There is a persistent gender gap in vaccination between males and females, with males having a lower likelihood of receiving the vaccination.

 

[Metaphor]

Your insult is duly noted. Perhaps you can explain where I said that men should not be prioritized in vaccination schemes?

You said:

One of the reasons that men were not prioritized over women is that women make up a large portion of front line health care workers, much larger than men.

The response is bizarre. There were different vaccination priority groups that got eligibility around the same times, such as the oldest age groups and front line workers.

Explain to me where I made such a claim that you objected?

Why are you carrying on about it then, as if I needed persuasion?

Of course it was. Vaccination doses are seriously limited and have a short shelf life. Targeting black people for vaccination temporarily delayed vaccination of some white people who, as you seem to believe, were perfectly well able to be vaccinated if they had some comorbidity or risk factor.

Age is a risk factor by itself. A healthy 48 year old white person is more at risk than an 18 year old BIPOC.

I said: healthy 18 year old POC as a group were less at risk than healthy 48 year old white people as a group.
And by healthy, I mean excluding all the people already prioritised under existing health conditions, such as diabetes and obesity.

My emphasis added. That was you, right? You wrote: "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."

Yes, I wrote that. Are you suggesting in this entire thread where we've been talking about the relative risk of groups, I suddenly made the claim that every single otherwise healthy white 48 year old was more at risk than every single BIPOC 18 year old? I wouldn't think or make such a claim. My claims are about group risk. The group risk to healthy white 48 year olds is higher than the group risk to healthy BIPOC 18 year olds.

You pointed out that men are more likely than women to become seriously ill or die from COVID 19 yet are less likely to be vaccinated than are women.

I don't specifically recall making a claim that men were less likely to be vaccinated, but that is consistent with the evidence.

Should men be targeted to increase vaccination participation rates? That's a valid question.

I didn't ask the question. I said that using the same criterion that was used to justify BIPOC prioritisation, a case could be made for male prioritisation (higher death rates, lower vaccine participation).

 

[TomC]

What Vermont did with race put lower risk people ahead of higher risk people, thus it killed people.

You confidently assert this as though you have solid data.
I don't think you do.

I don't mean this in the shallow [citation needed] sort of way. I mean it in the "proof is in the pudding" sort of way. Vermont outperformed the USA, much less the lower ability states like Georgia. Maybe the authorities there knew things that y'all don't understand.

Perhaps there are considerations that don't match a simplistic ideological stance. Like race based prioritizing will result in more deaths. Which is what you asserted.
Tom