Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[Toni]

Maybe it would be different if we could hear your voice say it out loud. To be very honest, it reads like you’re grasping at straws/making excuses in an attempt to justify your inexplicable position that it’s ok to discriminate by any risk factor except race.

What is the "it"?

To be very honest, you saying it's "grasping at straws" to talk about population density as a factor in vaccine distribution, reads like you're grasping at straws to contradict every single utterance I make just to contradict it. For fuck's sake, you treated my example of a relevant way Wyoming is different to Vermont as if I had made the utterance that it was the only factor that mattered. If instead I'd chosen to say "Wyoming's median age is younger than Vermont's", would you have then pretended that I implied age profile is the only factor that mattered?

It is exhausting dealing with this bad faith shit on a continual basis. Even now, you've chosen to ignore every utterance I've made about why the State discriminating by race is materially different to the State discriminating based on other demographics.

"It" refers to your posts and their contents.

I don't ignore what you write, even when it is often badly written and even when you don't clarify when others do not interpret your words as you intend them. Like others in this thread, I make a good faith effort to understand your point of view. I feel no obligation to agree with you where I think your logic fails or where I can see that you are not nearly as well informed as you think that you are. I fully give you credit for what you think you know but I also know that you do not really know what you are talking about when you compare two states. You cite one measure to draw a conclusion. Someone cites another, more apt comparison and points out that your conclusion fails base on the measure you yourself chose to cite. This is followed by insults and claims that others have all sorts of character flaws and are attacking you. And insistence that your claims are correct.

I admit that I missed exactly WHY it is that you believe that discriminating on the basis of race is different than discriminating on the basis of any other demographic. I readily admit that I don't read much past the first insult. So, please explain as concisely as possible why it is wrong to use race to discriminate when it is fine to discriminate by age, by sex, by gender, by country of origin, by religion, by location of primary residence, etc.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

Yes, it's discrimination by race. And yes, it's discrimination by age. And both are justified.

And thanks for the tautology.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Gospa moja. It does. It's why you had to edit it: because I read your words and not your mind.



Non. You failed to specify the parameters of your scenario.

It's fascinating how many variables there are instead of just one, isn't it?

There could be a billion variables affecting a billion outcome measures.

Yes, I did. And you correctly understood the implication that D's death rate was > 0, otherwise I would not have said they were multiples. That's one reason you said D was the answer. But you failed to consider the additional enormous loss of life in other groups had D not been chosen first....

Nothing in your scenario suggested D's susceptibility rate had implications for the transmission to non-D populations. If you wanted to convey that, you failed.

Your math is wrong again. In scenario#2, you multiply by C, not D.

My math is not wrong, let alone "again". Everybody's death rate was a function of D's death rate. You said it, and I'll quote you:

Group A dies at 1.3 times Group D. Group B dies at 1.2 times Group D. Group C dies at 1.1 times Group D.

Stop what you are doing. Just stop it. Stop the blatant falsehoods. It is fucking exhausting dealing with them.

So now you are making excuses

They are not excuses. Excuses are for when I did something wrong. They are reasons I did the thing in the way I did.

for your mistaken thinking that you declared BEFORE I WROTE THE SCENARIO AT ALL. I wrote the scenario because you explained the incorrect way to measure risk.

Non. Since different risks can be defined, there are different ways to measure it.

But it's everyone else's fault because evil leftists always scare you with segregation talk. That is the worst excuse you ever came up with around here and anyone can read your posts to see your errors before version 1 even existed.

It isn't an excuse. Excuses are for when you've done something wrong.

No, it is not changed significantly. The answer is D in both cases because D creates far greater exponential growth of the virus. You not only couldn't conceive of this, but you also made math errors and then tried to blame everyone else. Because. Segregation.

I made no errors of math. I'm glad the original non-edited scenario is preserved for impartial readers to see what a shitshow scenario you created and then refused to own.

I am not throwing a hissy fit. I am watching you fail miserably, make math errors, blame everyone else, flailingly attack me. No hisses here. I think it's hillarious how bad you failed in front of everyone.

I made no errors of math. You failed to specify a scenario. Because of that failure, I made assumptions to answer the scenario. If those assumptions were not something you meant, the error is yours, not mine.

WOW. Talk about "grubby!"

Let's review your grubby comments. Here is what you wrote:

When you change D's death rate to zero, everyone's death rate is zero. 1.3 times zero is zero.

Once again, D's death rate did not change to 0 in isolation but instead with the change that the other group's death rates were multiples of C's death rates. Here is the version#2:

Assume group A, B, C, and D. Group A dies at 1.3 times Group C. Group B dies at 1.2 times Group C. Group C dies at like 1%. Group D NEVER dies from it, but gets it at 1,000,000 times the rate as any other group.

The death rate of an individual in Group A is 1.3 times the death rate of an individual in Group C. Not D.

So there is no multiplying 1.3 by 0.

 

[laughing dog]

I did no such thing. Claiming an accurate description of the consequence as dishonest framing is a baseless accusation. It is evident that you are protest too much over a slight that exists in your mind, not on the screen.

It was not an accurate description of the consequences of my principles. It's a dishonest one, implying I'm glad when the policy sometimes means a lower-risk person is favoured over a higher-risk person, and that that is the usual outcome of the policy (instead of the actual consequence: most of the time, higher-risk people will be treated to lower-risk people, even though sometimes, a lower-risk person is treated when a higher-risk person goes untreated - as would be the case with any priority groupings). I'll leave it up to the reader to decide for herself what your framing implied, and to decide why you framed it that way.

I flipped the frame in your "And in this particular scenario, Vermont's rules means a healthy 45 year old who is white is lower priority than a healthy 17 year old who is black, even though the former is dozens of times more likely to die from COVID." in post 25 to show a consequence of your preferred policy. Did anyone accuse of dishonest framing? No.

I did not imply anything - you cannot read my mind. If I had meant to imply it, I would have used the term "because" in the characterization, but I did not.

Your tendency to fling baseless accusations anytime your nose gets bent out of joint reflects much more poorly on you than it does on the innocent target of your nasty insinuations and accusations.

The framing in my comment is as accurate as yours was in post 25. I realize that fact will not stop your baseless accusations, but it does reveal your double standard.

 

[TomC]

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.

Here's the problem with this opinion.
Vermont health authorities have a goal. It is not a race blind society. It's not even vaccination really. It's protecting the people from a viral pandemic, as best they can given the limitations. So while I agree that race blind state policies should be the norm, that might not be true in this particular case. I'm certain that it isn't.

Given U.S. culture, race blind healthcare policies are guaranteed to leave pockets of C19. Communities where the virus can grow and mutate. Targeting demographics that help prevent this is best for everyone. This is a well established problem amongst BIPOC.

You'll get the occasional anomalies, like a healthy 20ish woman getting prioritized because she's half Asian while her 45 white dad has to wait a month. But the big picture is getting rid of those breeding grounds for C19 the policy is aimed at, not individual results. And the policies are extremely temporary. As soon as supply caught up with demand all those prioritizing policies went away.

Here in my state, Indiana, somebody is paying for an advertising campaign aimed at giving away vaccination. Indiana is altogether too much like Wyoming.

My opinion is that whatever works for protecting the people from C19 is the right thing to do. I don't care about anybody's particular ideological bent.

Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

are you suggesting that Vermont's discrimination by race caused it to have a higher overall vaccination rate than Georgia?

I doubt it.
Far more plausible is that Vermont has a generally more informed and cooperative population than Georgia. That caused both higher vaccination rates and a policy that prioritized a group at statistically higher risk.
Tom

Also plausible that Georgia having 17 times the population of Vermont might have something to do with it too.

 

[TomC]

are you suggesting that Vermont's discrimination by race caused it to have a higher overall vaccination rate than Georgia?

I doubt it.
Far more plausible is that Vermont has a generally more informed and cooperative population than Georgia. That caused both higher vaccination rates and a policy that prioritized a group at statistically higher risk.
Tom

Also plausible that Georgia having 17 times the population of Vermont might have something to do with it too.

It's not impossible for total population to be an issue. It probably would be if vaccine were still in short supply. But it isn't.

New York has a much bigger population than Georgia, and it's over 50% vaccinated. States like Georgia, Texas, Wyoming, and(sadly) my home of Indiana are in the under 40% category.

It definitely looks to me like the biggest at risk group, keeping infection rates up and economic recovery down, is TeaParty Republicans.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

There are days when I kind of want to bang my head on the desk out of sheer exhaustion. This is one of those days, and this is one of those topics. I feel like a lot of basic common sense is being lost in an ideological morass - on both sides of this argument. So... here's my take.

COVID had a higher rate of infection and a higher level of damage among black, hispanic, and first nations populations. The reasons for this aren't crystal clear, but there are some reasonable inferences that we can draw.

First Nations were hit really hard, especially the Navajo nation. Part of the reason among FN populations is likely related to the moderately segregationist nature of reservation land, combined with that land often being fairly rural, and with limited medical access (most FN have their own separate medical support via IHS). Some of it may be comorbid with the very high rate of smoking , as well as heart disease and diabetes that have disproportionately high rates among FN people.

Black and hispanic people tend to reside largely in more densely populated urban areas, and also tend to have larger numbers of people living in each home. Black and hispanic people also have a bit of a double-edged sword when it comes to health care - culturally, both populations tend to seek medical care less frequently, and later in the progression of illness... and both populations suffer from an errant stereotype that views them (especially men) as being stronger, healthier, and as having higher pain tolerances than white people. This has resulted in a very well documented treatment disparity for hispanic and black americans.

All three populations are over-represented in terms of poverty.

All of those factors lead to those groups being more vulnerable to COVID, and thus, prioritizing vulnerable groups makes sense in aggregate.

But that doesn't hold true in Vermont.

Vermont has a low overall population, and of that population an incredibly low proportion of minorities. About 97% of Vermont's population is white. It's also one of the overall wealthier states, with one of the lowest rates of income disparity. So on the whole, BIPOC people in Vermont are unlikely to be poor, to be living in cramped quarters, or to experience the same degree of socioeconomic disparity as one might see elsewhere, and more likely to receive mroe equitable health care.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In my opinion, a general approach of prioritizing more vulnerable populations makes sense... but doing so in Vermont is pretty much virtue signaling, as there's little reason to think that the minority population in that state is materially more vulnerable.

 

[laughing dog]

There are days when I kind of want to bang my head on the desk out of sheer exhaustion. This is one of those days, and this is one of those topics. I feel like a lot of basic common sense is being lost in an ideological morass - on both sides of this argument. So... here's my take.

COVID had a higher rate of infection and a higher level of damage among black, hispanic, and first nations populations. The reasons for this aren't crystal clear, but there are some reasonable inferences that we can draw.

First Nations were hit really hard, especially the Navajo nation. Part of the reason among FN populations is likely related to the moderately segregationist nature of reservation land, combined with that land often being fairly rural, and with limited medical access (most FN have their own separate medical support via IHS). Some of it may be comorbid with the very high rate of smoking , as well as heart disease and diabetes that have disproportionately high rates among FN people.

Black and hispanic people tend to reside largely in more densely populated urban areas, and also tend to have larger numbers of people living in each home. Black and hispanic people also have a bit of a double-edged sword when it comes to health care - culturally, both populations tend to seek medical care less frequently, and later in the progression of illness... and both populations suffer from an errant stereotype that views them (especially men) as being stronger, healthier, and as having higher pain tolerances than white people. This has resulted in a very well documented treatment disparity for hispanic and black americans.

All three populations are over-represented in terms of poverty.

All of those factors lead to those groups being more vulnerable to COVID, and thus, prioritizing vulnerable groups makes sense in aggregate.

But that doesn't hold true in Vermont.

Vermont has a low overall population, and of that population an incredibly low proportion of minorities. About 97% of Vermont's population is white. It's also one of the overall wealthier states, with one of the lowest rates of income disparity. So on the whole, BIPOC people in Vermont are unlikely to be poor, to be living in cramped quarters, or to experience the same degree of socioeconomic disparity as one might see elsewhere, and more likely to receive mroe equitable health care.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In my opinion, a general approach of prioritizing more vulnerable populations makes sense... but doing so in Vermont is pretty much virtue signaling, as there's little reason to think that the minority population in that state is materially more vulnerable.

Your analysis is based on assumptions about the conditions of the Vermont BIPOC population. Why you would have such optimistic assumptions is a valid question. I suspect the state of Vermont probably did not rely on assumptions about the conditions of its BIPOC population in making its policy, but my suspicions could be wrong.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your analysis is based on assumptions about the conditions of the Vermont BIPOC population. Why you would have such optimistic assumptions is a valid question. I suspect the state of Vermont probably did not rely on assumptions about the conditions of its BIPOC population in making its policy, but my suspicions could be wrong.

Nah. I actually looked it up and investigated it - Vermont has one of the lower GINI scores in the US, relatively high median and average incomes, as well as one of the lowest overall populations, and one of the lowest percentages of BIPOC residents. I just didn't link to any of them, because I honestly didn't expect there to be push-back against stuff that pretty much everyone should know. It's not like it's a surprise.

My point was that 1) prioritizing vaccines on the basis of vulnerability, even if using a proxy variable like race, is an eminently reasonable thing to do and 2) pretty much useless in Vermont where NONE of the populations were particularly vulnerable with respect the the variances seen across the US as a whole.

 

[laughing dog]

Your analysis is based on assumptions about the conditions of the Vermont BIPOC population. Why you would have such optimistic assumptions is a valid question. I suspect the state of Vermont probably did not rely on assumptions about the conditions of its BIPOC population in making its policy, but my suspicions could be wrong.

Nah. I actually looked it up and investigated it - Vermont has one of the lower GINI scores in the US, relatively high median and average incomes, as well as one of the lowest overall populations, and one of the lowest percentages of BIPOC residents. I just didn't link to any of them, because I honestly didn't expect there to be push-back against stuff that pretty much everyone should know. It's not like it's a surprise.

And why would you think that statistics for the state that is 97% would yield optimistic estimates for the BIPOC (3%) population?

My point was that 1) prioritizing vaccines on the basis of vulnerability, even if using a proxy variable like race, is an eminently reasonable thing to do and 2) pretty much useless in Vermont where NONE of the populations were particularly vulnerable with respect the the variances seen across the US as a whole.

Except your 2) is an assumption not a fact.

 

[TomC]

But that doesn't hold true in Vermont.

pretty much useless in Vermont where NONE of the populations were particularly vulnerable

Pardon me, but what makes you an expert on the circumstances of BIPOC, in Vermont, at the depths of the C19 recession? Such an expert that you can mind read the health department authorities, and decide that they're virtue signalling?

The problem is that you're arguing against success. Whatever failures you think they have, they're way out in the lead in vaccination rates. Given that demonstrable data, somebody is gonna have to come up with some serious data demonstrating that their policy was a mistake before I will take that claim seriously.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Given U.S. culture, race blind healthcare policies are guaranteed to leave pockets of C19. Communities where the virus can grow and mutate. Targeting demographics that help prevent this is best for everyone. This is a well established problem amongst BIPOC.

I didn't say Vermont had to be race blind. I said it shouldn't discriminate by race in the distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control.

Since everyone 12+ in Vermont is eligible now so the "priority" groupings are no longer an issue as you say. But if Vermont finds that certain demographics are not as vaccinated as they could be, Vermont can take steps to target that demographic. This could be targeted advertising campaigns or increasing accessibility at places the demographic is more likely to be.

 

[Metaphor]

You cite one measure to draw a conclusion.

Jesus titty fucking Christ. Fuck my tits, ass, and mouth. You cannot be fucking saying this again. You can-fucking-not be. I did not fucking draw any fucking conclusions except that just as Vermont and Wyoming are similar in total population, they are different in population density. Fuck me deep with a metre of barbed wire.

Someone cites another, more apt comparison and points out that your conclusion fails base on the measure you yourself chose to cite.

What do you think my conclusion was, Toni? How can you just ignore everything I've already written? You are quoting a post where I've told you exactly how you are wrong and instead of saying "I'm sorry I misunderstood", you've tripled down. Perhaps if I had grown up with your level of self-esteem and confidence my entire life would be different.

This is followed by insults and claims that others have all sorts of character flaws and are attacking you. And insistence that your claims are correct.

My claim that Wyoming has one tenth the population density of Vermont is correct.

A claim that population density is the only factor that matters in vaccine distribution is false, but I did not make that claim. You have conjured it from whole cloth.

I admit that I missed exactly WHY it is that you believe that discriminating on the basis of race is different than discriminating on the basis of any other demographic. I readily admit that I don't read much past the first insult. So, please explain as concisely as possible why it is wrong to use race to discriminate when it is fine to discriminate by age, by sex, by gender, by country of origin, by religion, by location of primary residence, etc.

No, I'm not going to do it again. I've done it and elaborated on it in several places already.

I also have no faith that you would read it properly, since you draw conclusions unrelated to the arguments being made and I have never witnessed you changing your mind or apologising for the heinous insinuations you repeatedly make about me.

 

[TomC]

I said it shouldn't discriminate by race in the distribution of life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control.

But you don't say why, except to refer to your personal ideology. One that I generally agree with, but not always.

Not in this case. If Vermont policies resulted in a safer Vermont for all then they did the right thing. You've given no reason to believe differently.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Jesus titty fucking Christ. Fuck my tits, ass, and mouth. You cannot be fucking saying this again. You can-fucking-not be. I did not fucking draw any fucking conclusions except that just as Vermont and Wyoming are similar in total population, they are different in population density. Fuck me deep with a metre of barbed wire.



What do you think my conclusion was, Toni? How can you just ignore everything I've already written? You are quoting a post where I've told you exactly how you are wrong and instead of saying "I'm sorry I misunderstood", you've tripled down. Perhaps if I had grown up with your level of self-esteem and confidence my entire life would be different.

This is followed by insults and claims that others have all sorts of character flaws and are attacking you. And insistence that your claims are correct.

My claim that Wyoming has one tenth the population density of Vermont is correct.

A claim that population density is the only factor that matters in vaccine distribution is false, but I did not make that claim. You have conjured it from whole cloth.

I admit that I missed exactly WHY it is that you believe that discriminating on the basis of race is different than discriminating on the basis of any other demographic. I readily admit that I don't read much past the first insult. So, please explain as concisely as possible why it is wrong to use race to discriminate when it is fine to discriminate by age, by sex, by gender, by country of origin, by religion, by location of primary residence, etc.

No, I'm not going to do it again. I've done it and elaborated on it in several places already.

I also have no faith that you would read it properly, since you draw conclusions unrelated to the arguments being made and I have never witnessed you changing your mind or apologising for the heinous insinuations you repeatedly make about me.

I still have the pms I sent to you, apologizing for any misunderstanding and your replies refusing my apologies.

You repeatedly insult me, engage in over emotional hyperbole and seem unwilling to engage in anything remotely like civil discourse.

It’s time to knock it off.

 

[Metaphor]

Gospa moja. It does. It's why you had to edit it: because I read your words and not your mind.



Non. You failed to specify the parameters of your scenario.



There could be a billion variables affecting a billion outcome measures.



Nothing in your scenario suggested D's susceptibility rate had implications for the transmission to non-D populations. If you wanted to convey that, you failed.

Your math is wrong again. In scenario#2, you multiply by C, not D.

My math is not wrong, let alone "again". Everybody's death rate was a function of D's death rate. You said it, and I'll quote you:

Group A dies at 1.3 times Group D. Group B dies at 1.2 times Group D. Group C dies at 1.1 times Group D.

Stop what you are doing. Just stop it. Stop the blatant falsehoods. It is fucking exhausting dealing with them.

So now you are making excuses

They are not excuses. Excuses are for when I did something wrong. They are reasons I did the thing in the way I did.

for your mistaken thinking that you declared BEFORE I WROTE THE SCENARIO AT ALL. I wrote the scenario because you explained the incorrect way to measure risk.

Non. Since different risks can be defined, there are different ways to measure it.

But it's everyone else's fault because evil leftists always scare you with segregation talk. That is the worst excuse you ever came up with around here and anyone can read your posts to see your errors before version 1 even existed.

It isn't an excuse. Excuses are for when you've done something wrong.

No, it is not changed significantly. The answer is D in both cases because D creates far greater exponential growth of the virus. You not only couldn't conceive of this, but you also made math errors and then tried to blame everyone else. Because. Segregation.

I made no errors of math. I'm glad the original non-edited scenario is preserved for impartial readers to see what a shitshow scenario you created and then refused to own.

I am not throwing a hissy fit. I am watching you fail miserably, make math errors, blame everyone else, flailingly attack me. No hisses here. I think it's hillarious how bad you failed in front of everyone.

I made no errors of math. You failed to specify a scenario. Because of that failure, I made assumptions to answer the scenario. If those assumptions were not something you meant, the error is yours, not mine.

WOW. Talk about "grubby!"

Let's review your grubby comments. Here is what you wrote:

When you change D's death rate to zero, everyone's death rate is zero. 1.3 times zero is zero.

Once again, D's death rate did not change to 0 in isolation but instead with the change that the other group's death rates were multiples of C's death rates. Here is the version#2:

Assume group A, B, C, and D. Group A dies at 1.3 times Group C. Group B dies at 1.2 times Group C. Group C dies at like 1%. Group D NEVER dies from it, but gets it at 1,000,000 times the rate as any other group.

The death rate of an individual in Group A is 1.3 times the death rate of an individual in Group C. Not D.

So there is no multiplying 1.3 by 0.

I very clearly based my response and mathematics on your original scenario. The scenario you mis-specified then blamed me for responding to and not mind-reading your hidden assumptions.

 

[Metaphor]

I did no such thing. Claiming an accurate description of the consequence as dishonest framing is a baseless accusation. It is evident that you are protest too much over a slight that exists in your mind, not on the screen.

It was not an accurate description of the consequences of my principles. It's a dishonest one, implying I'm glad when the policy sometimes means a lower-risk person is favoured over a higher-risk person, and that that is the usual outcome of the policy (instead of the actual consequence: most of the time, higher-risk people will be treated to lower-risk people, even though sometimes, a lower-risk person is treated when a higher-risk person goes untreated - as would be the case with any priority groupings). I'll leave it up to the reader to decide for herself what your framing implied, and to decide why you framed it that way.

I flipped the frame in your "And in this particular scenario, Vermont's rules means a healthy 45 year old who is white is lower priority than a healthy 17 year old who is black, even though the former is dozens of times more likely to die from COVID." in post 25 to show a consequence of your preferred policy. Did anyone accuse of dishonest framing? No.

I did not imply anything - you cannot read my mind. If I had meant to imply it, I would have used the term "because" in the characterization, but I did not.

Your tendency to fling baseless accusations anytime your nose gets bent out of joint reflects much more poorly on you than it does on the innocent target of your nasty insinuations and accusations.

The framing in my comment is as accurate as yours was in post 25. I realize that fact will not stop your baseless accusations, but it does reveal your double standard.

No, your framing was dishonest. You said:

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.

I wrote:

And in this particular scenario, Vermont's rules means a healthy 45 year old who is white is lower priority than a healthy 17 year old who is black, even though the former is dozens of times more likely to die from COVID."

Your framing of my position speaks of the exception--the healthy BIPOC 16+ who happens to be more at risk than the healthy white 40-49 year old, but in the usual case, healthy white people 40-49 are in general more at risk than healthy BIPOC 16+.

The words you quoted from me that you claim you merely "flipped" are different: because they are talking about the usual consequence of the policy I prefer. Since I believe that healthy 40-49 year olds are more at risk than healthy BIPOC 16-49, it follows that it is an exception when a more at-risk BIPOC is denied over the 40-49 year old.

You either deliberately framed the dishonesty, or you are blind to your own machinations of language. Either way I don't expect you to recognise and apologise for it.

 

[laughing dog]

I flipped the frame in your "And in this particular scenario, Vermont's rules means a healthy 45 year old who is white is lower priority than a healthy 17 year old who is black, even though the former is dozens of times more likely to die from COVID." in post 25 to show a consequence of your preferred policy. Did anyone accuse of dishonest framing? No.

I did not imply anything - you cannot read my mind. If I had meant to imply it, I would have used the term "because" in the characterization, but I did not.

Your tendency to fling baseless accusations anytime your nose gets bent out of joint reflects much more poorly on you than it does on the innocent target of your nasty insinuations and accusations.

The framing in my comment is as accurate as yours was in post 25. I realize that fact will not stop your baseless accusations, but it does reveal your double standard.

No, your framing was dishonest. You said:

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.

I wrote:

And in this particular scenario, Vermont's rules means a healthy 45 year old who is white is lower priority than a healthy 17 year old who is black, even though the former is dozens of times more likely to die from COVID."

Your framing of my position speaks of the exception--the healthy BIPOC 16+ who happens to be more at risk than the healthy white 40-49 year old, but in the usual case, healthy white people 40-49 are in general more at risk than healthy BIPOC 16+.

The words you quoted from me that you claim you merely "flipped" are different: because they are talking about the usual consequence of the policy I prefer. Since I believe that healthy 40-49 year olds are more at risk than healthy BIPOC 16-49, it follows that it is an exception when a more at-risk BIPOC is denied over the 40-49 year old.

Wrong. The exception is a possible consequence of your preferred policy just like your belief of the "usual consequence" is a consequence of Vermont's policy. I realize you will say anything to defend your nasty accusations, but your response is incredibly pathetic.

You either deliberately framed the dishonesty, or you are blind to your own machinations of language.

You are wrong (see above). Thank you for confirming your double standard and your persistence in making baseless accusations.

 

[Metaphor]

] Wrong. The exception is a possible consequence of your preferred policy just like your belief of the "usual consequence" is a consequence of Vermont's policy. I realize you will say anything to defend your nasty accusations, but your response is incredibly pathetic.

Of course the exception is a possible consequence of my preferred policy, but it is not the usual consequence. To say I prefer a policy where [exception] happens is a deliberately dishonest framing.