Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So, you don't feel like listing any of the myriad ways that Wyoming is different to Vermont? Like, having a population density one tenth of Vermont's?

Why would this matter? Land isn't catching the disease, people are and so the vast nothingness that is a subset of Wyoming is irrelevant. There are populated areas in each state and remote areas in each state. The populated areas create more risk and so the states decide policy with risky areas in mind. For example, Cheyenne is nearly half the population density of Burlington VT. If Cheyenne is 2000 ppl per mile sq but Burlington is 4000 ppl per mile sq, it's not really that different.

 

[Metaphor]

Why would this matter? Land isn't catching the disease, people are and so the vast nothingness that is a subset of Wyoming is irrelevant.

So, you make a claim that it is irrelevant but and that makes it so? You don't believe population density is a factor in the logistics of vaccine distribution?

If you or Tom or anybody has specific criticisms of Wyoming's vaccine distribution decisions, or that of any state's, you are welcome to start your own thread.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You don't believe population density is a factor in the logistics of vaccine distribution?

Wyoming's deficit is largely due to vaccine hesitancy.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course my principles are not universally held. Neither are yours, neither are the principles of the government of Vermont. That doesn't make them arbitrary.

Never said it did. Try again.

I didn't suggest you knew the answer to your question, I suggested you did not care what the answer was.

As usual, you were wrong.

If I'm promoting an opinion, then so is everyone on this thread who supports Vermont's decision, and so is Vermont itself.

How is that relevant in distinguishing between fact and opinion?

I answered your questions about my reasoning, and then because you evidently did not find enough purchase on that reasoning to explain what was wrong with it, you dismissed my arguments as 'opinion'.

You admitted your position is an opinion. Apparently, you did not understand the idea that correctly distinguishing between fact and opinion is not a dismissal.

 

[Metaphor]

You don't believe population density is a factor in the logistics of vaccine distribution?

Wyoming's deficit is largely due to vaccine hesitancy.

That isn't what I asked. I asked: do you believe population density is a factor in the logistics of vaccine distribution?

 

[Metaphor]

Never said it did. Try again.

No.

How is that relevant in distinguishing between fact and opinion?

It is my opinion that the State should not discriminate by race in the distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control. It is a fact that Vermont did this. There you go.

You admitted your position is an opinion.

It is my opinion that the State should not discriminate by race in the distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control. There are facts about the overall risk of Vermont's priority groupings--including the fact (that I've supported with evidence) that its prioritising of BIPOC 16+ protected a lower-risk group than if it had instead prioritised people 40-49.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You don't believe population density is a factor in the logistics of vaccine distribution?

Wyoming's deficit is largely due to vaccine hesitancy.

That isn't what I asked. I asked: do you believe population density is a factor in the logistics of vaccine distribution?

Population density is a factor in a lot of things involved, more than merely vaccine distribution. MORE than what you are asking, but again vaccine distribution was not the problem. Vaccine hesitancy was the problem. Stop imagining problems that aren't real.

 

[Metaphor]

That isn't what I asked. I asked: do you believe population density is a factor in the logistics of vaccine distribution?

Population density is a factor in a lot of things involved, more than merely vaccine distribution. MORE than what you are asking, but again vaccine distribution was not the problem. Vaccine hesitancy was the problem. Stop imagining problems that aren't real.

What evidence do you have that population density explains nothing about vaccine distribution in Wyoming? Why don't you start a thread about vaccine hesitancy in Wyoming if you think it's interesting to talk about? Why do you accuse me of imagining 'problems that aren't real', when all I did was challenge Tom's selective comparison?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That isn't what I asked. I asked: do you believe population density is a factor in the logistics of vaccine distribution?

Population density is a factor in a lot of things involved, more than merely vaccine distribution. MORE than what you are asking, but again vaccine distribution was not the problem. Vaccine hesitancy was the problem. Stop imagining problems that aren't real.

What evidence do you have that population density explains nothing about vaccine distribution in Wyoming? Why don't you start a thread about vaccine hesitancy in Wyoming if you think it's interesting to talk about? Why do you accuse me of imagining 'problems that aren't real', when all I did was challenge Tom's selective comparison?

No, it isn't all you did. You are engaging in arbitrary non-evidence based apologetics. In the first case, you did it when I brought up Georgia for comparison which has a higher population density than Vermont. Then, you did the same thing to TomC when he brought up Wyoming. These are not whataboutisms as they involve metrics on successful states implementing vaccination programs. A primary factor in getting people vaccinated has been vaccine hesitancy in particular for Trump followers who while they may be more often in rural areas, the fact that they are in rural areas is incidental to the vaccination rates.

The primary metric for success is the state vaccination rate. But a secondary metric for success is vaccination rates among clusters which could be rural areas or even minority neighborhoods or other clusters because you do not want the vaccine to spread in subsets of the greater population, then mutate resistance, and spread back later on to everyone. Vermont has succeeded in BOTH of these metrics, but Georgia and Wyoming failed at both.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it isn't all you did. You are engaging in arbitrary non-evidence based apologetics. In the first case, you did it when I brought up Georgia for comparison which has a higher population density than Vermont.

Did Georgia discriminate by race in its vaccine distribution?

Then, you did the same thing to TomC when he brought up Wyoming. These are not whataboutisms as they involve metrics on successful states implementing vaccination programs.

The thread is not about 'successful' vaccine implementation programs. If you want to start a thread on which states are the most 'successful' and why, please do so.

A primary factor in getting people vaccinated has been vaccine hesitancy in particular for Trump followers who while they may be more often in rural areas, the fact that they are in rural areas is incidental to the vaccination rates.

So....what does that have to do with states discriminating by race in vaccine distribution?

The primary metric for success is the state vaccination rate. But a secondary metric for success is vaccination rates among clusters which could be rural areas or even minority neighborhoods or other clusters because you do not want the vaccine to spread in subsets of the greater population, then mutate resistance, and spread back later on to everyone. Vermont has succeeded in BOTH of these metrics, but Georgia and Wyoming failed at both.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Should Georgia and Wyoming also have discriminated by race in its vaccine distribution?

 

[laughing dog]

No.



It is my opinion that the State should not discriminate by race in the distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control. It is a fact that Vermont did this. There you go.

You admitted your position is an opinion.

It is my opinion that the State should not discriminate by race in the distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control. There are facts about the overall risk of Vermont's priority groupings--including the fact (that I've supported with evidence) that its prioritising of BIPOC 16+ protected a lower-risk group than if it had instead prioritised people 40-49.

We've gone over this that within any two groups there will be individuals in group A that have more risk than one in group B. You continually repeat that example even though you realize there will be a BIPOC 16+ that will be more at risk than one of the middle-aged white person.

 

[Toni]

That isn't what I asked. I asked: do you believe population density is a factor in the logistics of vaccine distribution?

Population density is a factor in a lot of things involved, more than merely vaccine distribution. MORE than what you are asking, but again vaccine distribution was not the problem. Vaccine hesitancy was the problem. Stop imagining problems that aren't real.

What evidence do you have that population density explains nothing about vaccine distribution in Wyoming? Why don't you start a thread about vaccine hesitancy in Wyoming if you think it's interesting to talk about? Why do you accuse me of imagining 'problems that aren't real', when all I did was challenge Tom's selective comparison?

North Carolina and Vermont have nearly identical population densities.

Vermont has a vaccination rate of 80%
North Carolina has a vaccination rate of 44.4%

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Yes you are. You are 100% certain of what I've been saying because I have been saying it for the last 20 pages. I'll say it again. Vermont succeeded because it did very well with the primary goal and pretty decent with secondary goals and it's still going up.

Should Georgia and Wyoming also have discriminated by race in its vaccine distribution?

Have you stopped beating your husband?

No. It's not discrimination when you are being neither prejudicial nor unjust. That means it wasn't discrimination when Vermont prioritized some age groups over others and it wasn't discrimination when they allowed all BIPOC to get vaccinated. And, yes, both Wyoming and Georgia should have implemented programs to get clusters of the high-risk-of-spread sub-populations to vaccinate exactly because that would be good for EVERYONE....though they also needed to work on the larger problem of low vaccination rates and part of the solution would be good political role models...which I already said pages and pages ago...

 

[Metaphor]

No.



It is my opinion that the State should not discriminate by race in the distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control. It is a fact that Vermont did this. There you go.

You admitted your position is an opinion.

It is my opinion that the State should not discriminate by race in the distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control. There are facts about the overall risk of Vermont's priority groupings--including the fact (that I've supported with evidence) that its prioritising of BIPOC 16+ protected a lower-risk group than if it had instead prioritised people 40-49.

We've gone over this that within any two groups there will be individuals in group A that have more risk than one in group B. You continually repeat that example even though you realize there will be a BIPOC 16+ that will be more at risk than one of the middle-aged white person.

Yes, I realise that to be true of all the priority groupings and I have not denied it. There are some 65 year olds more at risk than some 75 year olds. I never suggested that everyone in a priority group had to be more at risk than everyone not in a priority group. But of any two possible priority groupings, the one that is more at risk overall should be selected ahead of one that is less at risk overall.

 

[Metaphor]

What evidence do you have that population density explains nothing about vaccine distribution in Wyoming? Why don't you start a thread about vaccine hesitancy in Wyoming if you think it's interesting to talk about? Why do you accuse me of imagining 'problems that aren't real', when all I did was challenge Tom's selective comparison?

North Carolina and Vermont have nearly identical population densities.

Vermont has a vaccination rate of 80%
North Carolina has a vaccination rate of 44.4%

What does this have to do with anything? In what universe have I suggested that population density is the only factor relevant to vaccine distribution? In what universe have I suggested comparing states by selecting only a single factor that is similar?

What I did was call Tom out on his selective comparison of Vermont and Wyoming. Similar populations, similar-ish race distributions. Yet there are dozens of relevant ways they are different, too - like Wyoming's population density, for example.

Vermont and North Carolina differ in dozens of ways too.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes you are. You are 100% certain of what I've been saying because I have been saying it for the last 20 pages. I'll say it again. Vermont succeeded because it did very well with the primary goal and pretty decent with secondary goals and it's still going up.

Thanks for the tautology, but I'm not interested in hearing 'Vermont succeeded because it succeeded'.

Have you stopped beating your husband?

No. It's not discrimination

Stop. Yes, it's discrimination by race. It is discrimination by definition.

when you are being neither prejudicial nor unjust. That means it wasn't discrimination when Vermont prioritized some age groups over others

Yes, it was.

and it wasn't discrimination when they allowed all BIPOC to get vaccinated.

Yes, it was.

And, yes, both Wyoming and Georgia should have implemented programs to get clusters of the high-risk-of-spread sub-populations to vaccinate exactly because that would be good for EVERYONE....though they also needed to work on the larger problem of low vaccination rates and part of the solution would be good political role models...which I already said pages and pages ago...

So you want Wyoming and Georgia to have discriminated by race, as Vermont did.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Thanks for the tautology, but I'm not interested in hearing 'Vermont succeeded because it succeeded'.

It's NOT a tautology because I've said in context what the specific primary and secondary goals are. Duh!

Stop. Yes, it's discrimination by race. It is discrimination by definition.

No, it isn't.

when you are being neither prejudicial nor unjust. That means it wasn't discrimination when Vermont prioritized some age groups over others

Yes, it was.

No, it wasn't.

and it wasn't discrimination when they allowed all BIPOC to get vaccinated.

Yes, it was.

No, it wasn't.

And, yes, both Wyoming and Georgia should have implemented programs to get clusters of the high-risk-of-spread sub-populations to vaccinate exactly because that would be good for EVERYONE....though they also needed to work on the larger problem of low vaccination rates and part of the solution would be good political role models...which I already said pages and pages ago...

So you want Wyoming and Georgia to have discriminated by race, as Vermont did.

No because it's not discrimination.

 

[Metaphor]

It's NOT a tautology because I've said in context what the specific primary and secondary goals are. Duh!



No, it isn't.

when you are being neither prejudicial nor unjust. That means it wasn't discrimination when Vermont prioritized some age groups over others

Yes, it was.

No, it wasn't.

and it wasn't discrimination when they allowed all BIPOC to get vaccinated.

Yes, it was.

No, it wasn't.

And, yes, both Wyoming and Georgia should have implemented programs to get clusters of the high-risk-of-spread sub-populations to vaccinate exactly because that would be good for EVERYONE....though they also needed to work on the larger problem of low vaccination rates and part of the solution would be good political role models...which I already said pages and pages ago...

So you want Wyoming and Georgia to have discriminated by race, as Vermont did.

No because it's not discrimination.

Fruitful.

 

[laughing dog]

We've gone over this that within any two groups there will be individuals in group A that have more risk than one in group B. You continually repeat that example even though you realize there will be a BIPOC 16+ that will be more at risk than one of the middle-aged white person.

Yes, I realise that to be true of all the priority groupings and I have not denied it. There are some 65 year olds more at risk than some 75 year olds. I never suggested that everyone in a priority group had to be more at risk than everyone not in a priority group. But of any two possible priority groupings, the one that is more at risk overall should be selected ahead of one that is less at risk overall.

No need repeat it - every one gets it: you prefer the policy where a more at risk BIPOC 16+ does not get priority over a middle aged white person. We all get it.

 

[Metaphor]

We've gone over this that within any two groups there will be individuals in group A that have more risk than one in group B. You continually repeat that example even though you realize there will be a BIPOC 16+ that will be more at risk than one of the middle-aged white person.

Yes, I realise that to be true of all the priority groupings and I have not denied it. There are some 65 year olds more at risk than some 75 year olds. I never suggested that everyone in a priority group had to be more at risk than everyone not in a priority group. But of any two possible priority groupings, the one that is more at risk overall should be selected ahead of one that is less at risk overall.

No need repeat it - every one gets it: you prefer the policy where a more at risk BIPOC 16+ does not get priority over a middle aged white person. We all get it.

No. That is the exact opposite of what I've been arguing. At each stage of its vaccine rollout, the grouping next most at risk should be prioritised. Relevant at the time Vermont made its decision, those groupings were "all people 40-49 who were not already eligible" versus "BIPOC 16+ who were not already eligible". I believe it chose the wrong grouping based on the overall risk factors of those groups (I suspect for political reasons).