Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[Metaphor]

So the Vermont policy intends to kill white people

No, the Vermont policy discriminates by race. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

and not the results of the policy that triggers your finely tuned racial sensibilities?

I don't want the State to discriminate by race when distributing life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control.

In both cases, the inoculation centers are set up by geographical areas to serve the underserved population. You provided no evidence that whites were turned away from Vermont inoculation centers.

Whites who showed up and were eligible under some category would not have been turned away. Whites who did not qualify under another category could not even register.

Are you suggesting Vermont did not enforce its own priority categories?

Vermont now has opened its efforts to all people 16+ years old. So they are now killing older people of all races equally now, according to your perspective.

No: now, anyone who wants to register for a vaccine can, unlike before, where Vermont decided that a 19 year old BIPOC person needed the vaccine more than a 45 year old white person.

I don't put any stock in the concept of race as a biological determining factor in any question of society. This is certainly a result of how I was raised by by the most politically conservative parents anyone could have but who weren't racists. As a result, I depend on this forum to set me straight on thinking that I struggle to understand.

So it is the intent and not the results that count. So the intent of the new voter suppression laws in Georgia is to prevent the widespread voter fraud that didn't happen while the result that they will suppress the votes of a segment of the population doesn't matter? Have I got this right now?

No. If you want to discuss Georgia's voting laws start a thread about it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the Vermont policy intends to kill white people and not the results of the policy that triggers your finely tuned racial sensibilities?

As the vaccine is being administered, we are discovering heretofore unknown side effects, such as the J&J clotting issue.

Testing the vaccine on minorities isn't racist against white people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Vermont now has opened its efforts to all people 16+ years old. So they are now killing older people of all races equally now, according to your perspective.

Yup, in some areas we opened the list up too fast. There should not have been any intent to have a date it was available to everybody. Rather, rank groups in order of risk and as the demand starts to drop off you open it to the next group. There should be no calendar beyond that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the Vermont policy intends to kill white people and not the results of the policy that triggers your finely tuned racial sensibilities?

As the vaccine is being administered, we are discovering heretofore unknown side effects, such as the J&J clotting issue.

Testing the vaccine on minorities isn't racist against white people.

The J&J clotting situation is a non-issue. You're much safer with a J&J shot than without. It's just blame avoidance--better to kill 1000 through inaction than one through action.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the Vermont policy intends to kill white people and not the results of the policy that triggers your finely tuned racial sensibilities?

As the vaccine is being administered, we are discovering heretofore unknown side effects, such as the J&J clotting issue.

Testing the vaccine on minorities isn't racist against white people.

The J&J clotting situation is a non-issue. You're much safer with a J&J shot than without. It's just blame avoidance--better to kill 1000 through inaction than one through action.

I'm not making an anti-vax argument. Try again.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Argument not detected.

The argument has already been presented. The government's goal is to achieve R0 and to try to do that in as many sub-communities as possible as well. You are assuming this means that they are minimizing the death rate in the short term amongst Whites but actually they want to maximize vaccinations in each community in order to minimize death rates in the long term. You also keep assuming that you need to compare the same age group across races but in practice that is not how people are getting vaccinated since BIPOC has lag in vaccinations which means a comparison of an older group of BIPOC against a younger group of Whites is warranted. Moreover, there are so many complex things going on here that the best way to analyze how well Vermont has done is to analyze the numbers after vaccinations are over, rather than making ideological or fallacious assumptions as you have.

Emphasis added.

Right now, Vermont is leading the nation in vaccination rates up near 80% of Vermonters have received at least one dose.

Additionally, BIPOC only lags by about 5% behind the White subpopulation, and that disparity started correcting from a 13% disparity after Vermont initiated its policy. This means that Vermont will not have clusters of minority neighborhoods spreading the virus around, mutating it, and pushing those new variants--possibly vaccine resistant--back into the whole population.

So Vermont's policies were good for both minorities AND WHITES in the long-term.

Vermont is crushing it!

Now let's compare how well Vermont is doing to a place like Georgia where some people screaming about White genocide in Vermont are from.

Georgia only has around 41% of its population with at least one dose of vaccine. So, it is only around half of that of Vermont!!! So logically all the people screaming about White genocide should also be screaming about Georgia because they're killing even more white people. Right? Nope, wrong, you won't hear any complaints from the usual crowd about this.

Georgia isn't anywhere near where it needs to be in terms of vaccination rates, but minority neighborhoods are probably even riskier. You can see this if you look at the chart and examine clusters in the White category versus Black or versus Hispanic. Without downloading the .csv and computing numbers, the disparity appears to exceed 10%, never mind the 5% of Vermont. Georgia would have done well to have an education program on the virus and vaccination, good role modeling by politicians, and some kind of policy like Vermont's to eliminate a racial disparity. There could conceivably some other alternative preference or some other policy because some of the disparity has to do with rural versus metro as well...imagine adding many more rural vaccination clinics with free rides or something similar, for example.

Instead, we get...

When you consider that the Delta variant is now spreading in the US and comprises some 6% of cases, this makes a state like Georgia and minority neighborhoods ripe for the next mutation level--i.e., an Epsilon variant. Even less of the population has both (2) doses, like 33%-35%. Some 8% or so that is 1-dosed will provide selection pressure for the next mutation to add to the virus' vaccine resistance. The Delta variant ALREADY has begun mutating some resistance because Pfizer is 88% effective but 1 dose is only 33% effective. AZ 2 doses is far worse in the 60% range of effectiveness against Delta.

In any case, when you consider the people from Georgia screaming about how Vermont is killing white people, even if an Epsilon variant develops somewhere else like Alabama or Scotland, Vermont's policies made sense at the time and continue to make sense. They have minimized risk by educating their public and creating policies that engender trust and reduce spread across neighborhood types.

 

[Elixir]

What is the deal with all the bed wetting by some people?

I really don't know, but it's impressive.

Vermont is crushing it!

Yeah, that's probably a lot of what bothers them.

 

[Rhea]

Well look at that. Reality-based policies achieve stated goals, contrary to screams of those bad at math.

Just as was predicted.

 

[Metaphor]

Argument not detected.

The argument has already been presented. The government's goal is to achieve R0 and to try to do that in as many sub-communities as possible as well. You are assuming this means that they are minimizing the death rate in the short term amongst Whites but actually they want to maximize vaccinations in each community in order to minimize death rates in the long term. You also keep assuming that you need to compare the same age group across races but in practice that is not how people are getting vaccinated since BIPOC has lag in vaccinations which means a comparison of an older group of BIPOC against a younger group of Whites is warranted. Moreover, there are so many complex things going on here that the best way to analyze how well Vermont has done is to analyze the numbers after vaccinations are over, rather than making ideological or fallacious assumptions as you have.

Emphasis added.

Right now, Vermont is leading the nation in vaccination rates up near 80% of Vermonters have received at least one dose.

Additionally, BIPOC only lags by about 5% behind the White subpopulation, and that disparity started correcting from a 13% disparity after Vermont initiated its policy. This means that Vermont will not have clusters of minority neighborhoods spreading the virus around, mutating it, and pushing those new variants--possibly vaccine resistant--back into the whole population.

So Vermont's policies were good for both minorities AND WHITES in the long-term.

Vermont is crushing it!

Now let's compare how well Vermont is doing to a place like Georgia where some people screaming about White genocide in Vermont are from.

Georgia only has around 41% of its population with at least one dose of vaccine. So, it is only around half of that of Vermont!!! So logically all the people screaming about White genocide should also be screaming about Georgia because they're killing even more white people. Right? Nope, wrong, you won't hear any complaints from the usual crowd about this.

Georgia isn't anywhere near where it needs to be in terms of vaccination rates, but minority neighborhoods are probably even riskier. You can see this if you look at the chart and examine clusters in the White category versus Black or versus Hispanic. Without downloading the .csv and computing numbers, the disparity appears to exceed 10%, never mind the 5% of Vermont. Georgia would have done well to have an education program on the virus and vaccination, good role modeling by politicians, and some kind of policy like Vermont's to eliminate a racial disparity. There could conceivably some other alternative preference or some other policy because some of the disparity has to do with rural versus metro as well...imagine adding many more rural vaccination clinics with free rides or something similar, for example.

Instead, we get...

When you consider that the Delta variant is now spreading in the US and comprises some 6% of cases, this makes a state like Georgia and minority neighborhoods ripe for the next mutation level--i.e., an Epsilon variant. Even less of the population has both (2) doses, like 33%-35%. Some 8% or so that is 1-dosed will provide selection pressure for the next mutation to add to the virus' vaccine resistance. The Delta variant ALREADY has begun mutating some resistance because Pfizer is 88% effective but 1 dose is only 33% effective. AZ 2 doses is far worse in the 60% range of effectiveness against Delta.

In any case, when you consider the people from Georgia screaming about how Vermont is killing white people, even if an Epsilon variant develops somewhere else like Alabama or Scotland, Vermont's policies made sense at the time and continue to make sense. They have minimized risk by educating their public and creating policies that engender trust and reduce spread across neighborhood types.

Okay, apart from the multiple apples and oranges comparison problems here, are you suggesting that Vermont's discrimination by race caused it to have a higher overall vaccination rate than Georgia?

 

[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

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Emphasis added.

Right now, Vermont is leading the nation in vaccination rates up near 80% of Vermonters have received at least one dose.

Additionally, BIPOC only lags by about 5% behind the White subpopulation, and that disparity started correcting from a 13% disparity after Vermont initiated its policy. This means that Vermont will not have clusters of minority neighborhoods spreading the virus around, mutating it, and pushing those new variants--possibly vaccine resistant--back into the whole population.

So Vermont's policies were good for both minorities AND WHITES in the long-term.

Vermont is crushing it!

Now let's compare how well Vermont is doing to a place like Georgia where some people screaming about White genocide in Vermont are from.

Georgia only has around 41% of its population with at least one dose of vaccine. So, it is only around half of that of Vermont!!! So logically all the people screaming about White genocide should also be screaming about Georgia because they're killing even more white people. Right? Nope, wrong, you won't hear any complaints from the usual crowd about this.

Georgia isn't anywhere near where it needs to be in terms of vaccination rates, but minority neighborhoods are probably even riskier. You can see this if you look at the chart and examine clusters in the White category versus Black or versus Hispanic. Without downloading the .csv and computing numbers, the disparity appears to exceed 10%, never mind the 5% of Vermont. Georgia would have done well to have an education program on the virus and vaccination, good role modeling by politicians, and some kind of policy like Vermont's to eliminate a racial disparity. There could conceivably some other alternative preference or some other policy because some of the disparity has to do with rural versus metro as well...imagine adding many more rural vaccination clinics with free rides or something similar, for example.

Instead, we get...

When you consider that the Delta variant is now spreading in the US and comprises some 6% of cases, this makes a state like Georgia and minority neighborhoods ripe for the next mutation level--i.e., an Epsilon variant. Even less of the population has both (2) doses, like 33%-35%. Some 8% or so that is 1-dosed will provide selection pressure for the next mutation to add to the virus' vaccine resistance. The Delta variant ALREADY has begun mutating some resistance because Pfizer is 88% effective but 1 dose is only 33% effective. AZ 2 doses is far worse in the 60% range of effectiveness against Delta.

In any case, when you consider the people from Georgia screaming about how Vermont is killing white people, even if an Epsilon variant develops somewhere else like Alabama or Scotland, Vermont's policies made sense at the time and continue to make sense. They have minimized risk by educating their public and creating policies that engender trust and reduce spread across neighborhood types.

Okay, apart from the multiple apples and oranges comparison problems here, ....

Wow. Try harder.

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

No, I demonstrated what Vermont was doing from the get-go and then showed with numbers that is what they did and how not doing that increases risk.

 

[Metaphor]

Wow. Try harder.

Try harder to do what?

No, I demonstrated what Vermont was doing from the get-go and then showed with numbers that is what they did and how not doing that increases risk.

How not doing what increases risk? Discriminating by race?

 

[Toni]

Wow. Try harder.

Try harder to do what?

No, I demonstrated what Vermont was doing from the get-go and then showed with numbers that is what they did and how not doing that increases risk.

How not doing what increases risk? Discriminating by race?

From Don's post:

Additionally, BIPOC only lags by about 5% behind the White subpopulation, and that disparity started correcting from a 13% disparity after Vermont initiated its policy. This means that Vermont will not have clusters of minority neighborhoods spreading the virus around, mutating it, and pushing those new variants--possibly vaccine resistant--back into the whole population.

In other words, Vermont's policy of prioritizing a population that is less likely to be vaccinated (for whatever reason) has worked extremely well both for that prioritized population and for Vermont's population as a whole.

Contrast with Georgia (still from Don's post):

Georgia isn't anywhere near where it needs to be in terms of vaccination rates, but minority neighborhoods are probably even riskier. You can see this if you look at the chart and examine clusters in the White category versus Black or versus Hispanic. Without downloading the .csv and computing numbers, the disparity appears to exceed 10%, never mind the 5% of Vermont. Georgia would have done well to have an education program on the virus and vaccination, good role modeling by politicians, and some kind of policy like Vermont's to eliminate a racial disparity. There could conceivably some other alternative preference or some other policy because some of the disparity has to do with rural versus metro as well...imagine adding many more rural vaccination clinics with free rides or something similar, for example.

And he goes on to discuss the increased danger to the entire population as the virus, uncurbed by vaccinations, mutates, possibly creating variants that will not be curbed by current vaccination.

Vermont pursued a policy of attempting to get its entire population vaccinated, and prioritized populations that had a smaller rate of vaccination.

Georgia pursued a policy of publicly minimizing the risk of the virus while simultaneously ensuring that its more wealthy citizens were given priority in vaccination. This priority was not explicitly stated but it was obvious when one considers the location of vaccination clinics, potential barriers to accessing vaccines, etc. As a result, they have half the vaccination rate of Vermont and are indeed at an increased risk of even more deadly variants arising.

Unfortunately, Georgia and other states who have not made good efforts to encourage all citizens to be vaccinated and made it easier to be vaccinated are also putting the rest of the US and the rest of the world at risk because people move across state lines and international lines all the time.

 

[Metaphor]

In other words, Vermont's policy of prioritizing a population that is less likely to be vaccinated (for whatever reason) has worked extremely well both for that prioritized population and for Vermont's population as a whole.

Non. It has not been proved that discriminating by race ("prioritizing a population') was the cause of Vermont's overall vaccination results. In fact, it may be neither sufficient nor necessary.

Contrast with Georgia

Non. Why did Don pick Georgia? There are 50 United States.

There are many differences between Vermont and Georgia. Vermont is significantly wealthier and smaller than Georgia. The State spending per person in Vermont is significantly higher than in Georgia. There are 12,000 black people in Vermont and 3.4 million black people in Georgia.

Vermont discriminating by race in its vaccine distribution is only one among many differences between those States. The only other state that discriminated by race (as far as I know) was Oregon.

If Vermont discriminating by race in its vaccine rollout contributed to its vaccine success rate, and there was no other reasonably equivalent way to achieve it that did not involve the State discriminating by race, then that would be an argument in support of the discrimination. But comparisons of Vermont to Georgia do not support that.

 

[Toni]

In other words, Vermont's policy of prioritizing a population that is less likely to be vaccinated (for whatever reason) has worked extremely well both for that prioritized population and for Vermont's population as a whole.

Non. It has not been proved that discriminating by race ("prioritizing a population') was the cause of Vermont's overall vaccination results. In fact, it may be neither sufficient nor necessary.

Contrast with Georgia

Non. Why did Don pick Georgia? There are 50 United States.

There are many differences between Vermont and Georgia. Vermont is significantly wealthier and smaller than Georgia. The State spending per person in Vermont is significantly higher than in Georgia. There are 12,000 black people in Vermont and 3.4 million black people in Georgia.

Vermont discriminating by race in its vaccine distribution is only one among many differences between those States. The only other state that discriminated by race (as far as I know) was Oregon.

If Vermont discriminating by race in its vaccine rollout contributed to its vaccine success rate, and there was no other reasonably equivalent way to achieve it that did not involve the State discriminating by race, then that would be an argument in support of the discrimination. But comparisons of Vermont to Georgia do not support that.

Vermont was targeting a demographic group that was not getting vaccinated at the same rate as the rest of the population of that state. In the case of Vermont, this group happened to be black people. It could have easily been people over the age of 70 or people residing in a particular part of the state or rural vs urban or from a certain income level or disabled people or divorced men or a lot of different groups. Their epidemiologists found that black people were lagging in vaccination and so a concerted effort was made to reach out and ensure that they were able to be vaccinated.

Is the problem you are having is that the demographic group was black people? If so, why is that a problem? What difference does it make which demographic was lagging? Rather than putting more white people at risk because there was a (slight) delay in vaccinating some white people, almost all of Vermont residents have received at least one dose of vaccine--meaning that everyone is safer.

Vermont has one of the highest rates of vaccination. Georgia has one of the lowest. It seems pertinent to me to examine the differences in strategies for vaccinating populations to see if one can determine which strategies are most effective..

 

[Metaphor]

Is the problem you are having is that the demographic group was black people?

How many more years are you going to continue with your obvious ridiculousness?

I have a problem with the State discriminating by race. I don't think I could have made this any clearer. There are almost no reasons I can think of that justify the State discriminating by race, but I can't rule out every possible scenario.

Now, in the case where the State has exclusive control over life-saving bennies (like a COVID-19 vaccine), the threshold for discrimination should be even higher.

If so, why is that a problem? What difference does it make which demographic was lagging? Rather than putting more white people at risk because there was a (slight) delay in vaccinating some white people, almost all of Vermont residents have received at least one dose of vaccine--meaning that everyone is safer.

Vermont has one of the highest rates of vaccination. Georgia has one of the lowest. It seems pertinent to me to examine the differences in strategies for vaccinating populations to see if one can determine which strategies are most effective..

I absolutely agree that a statistical examination of the factors that lead to high vaccine takeup and effective rollout should be conducted. Note that discriminating by race was only practised by two states - Vermont and Oregon - which is not ideal in terms of separating out the effect (if any).

 

[Toni]

Is the problem you are having is that the demographic group was black people?

How many more years are you going to continue with your obvious ridiculousness?

I have a problem with the State discriminating by race. I don't think I could have made this any clearer. There are almost no reasons I can think of that justify the State discriminating by race, but I can't rule out every possible scenario.

Now, in the case where the State has exclusive control over life-saving bennies (like a COVID-19 vaccine), the threshold for discrimination should be even higher.

So, it does not matter that for this particular issue (COVID 19 vaccination), there was a noted disparity between black people and white people in terms of vaccination rates? Why is RACE not to be recognized when something such as age, or marital status, or rural vs urban? In Vermont, the fact is that in a state that was performing very well in terms of vaccinating its citizens, a particular group was lagging and that demographic group happened to be black people. If it had been men or had been women or had been single vs married or Asian vs White or any other group, that would have merited the same efforts, particularly if that group also tended to have associated with it other risk factors that would increase the chances of contracting and/or becoming seriously ill compared with those who do not have the same risk factors.

BTW, your insult is duly noted.

If so, why is that a problem? What difference does it make which demographic was lagging? Rather than putting more white people at risk because there was a (slight) delay in vaccinating some white people, almost all of Vermont residents have received at least one dose of vaccine--meaning that everyone is safer.

Vermont has one of the highest rates of vaccination. Georgia has one of the lowest. It seems pertinent to me to examine the differences in strategies for vaccinating populations to see if one can determine which strategies are most effective..

I absolutely agree that a statistical examination of the factors that lead to high vaccine takeup and effective rollout should be conducted. Note that discriminating by race was only practised by two states - Vermont and Oregon - which is not ideal in terms of separating out the effect (if any).

It's not ideal if you are studying the effect of prioritizing THAT particular group, no. But it is worth examining how effective it is to target a group, no matter the determining characteristics of that group.

What Vermont has demonstrated is that it is very effective to target a group that is not accessing vaccine at the same rate as the general population. This is very useful information. Surely, the ways that under represented groups can be effectively targeted varies a great deal by the characteristics of that group in that setting but it's extremely worthwhile to note that it works. And to study why Vermont was so successful.

 

[Metaphor]

So, it does not matter that for this particular issue (COVID 19 vaccination), there was a noted disparity between black people and white people in terms of vaccination rates?

That fact alone would not be sufficient justification for the State to discriminate by race.

Why is RACE not to be recognized when something such as age, or marital status, or rural vs urban?

For many reasons, but in terms of a COVID-19 vaccination that the State has exclusive control over

i) The State was completely justified in discriminating by age. The absolute strongest demographic predictor of sickness and death for COVID-19 is age. The State almost got this completely right until it started vaccinating people under 16, which has no medical justification whatsoever.

ii) If the State discriminated by marital status for the COVID-19 vaccine, could you please explain how and why this occurred?

iii) The State has a good reason to prioritise vaccinations for people in "hotspot/high risk" geographical areas versus lower risk areas, and if that falls along rural/urban lines then so be it.

iv) If there was evidence that certain races (probably more correctly: certain ethnicities/ethnic backgrounds) were more susceptible to sickness and death from COVID-19 due to being that ethnicity and race (and not because of comorbidities that could explain it), then the State would be justified in prioritising them.

But if, for example, one ethnicity is more at risk because they are more obese, and it's actually obesity that is the risk factor, then obesity should be prioritised, not race.

The same for sex. If men are more at risk than women because of something intrinsic to being male, then they should be prioritised over women. But if it's something else that is causing the disparity (e.g. men are more obese and more likely to be smokers) then target the obese and smokers, because it's that that's causing the disparity.

In Vermont, the fact is that in a state that was performing very well in terms of vaccinating its citizens, a particular group was lagging and that demographic group happened to be black people. If it had been men or had been women or had been single vs married or Asian vs White or any other group, that would have merited the same efforts, particularly if that group also tended to have associated with it other risk factors that would increase the chances of contracting and/or becoming seriously ill compared with those who do not have the same risk factors.

BTW, your insult is duly noted.

It beggars belief that you can openly insinuate I'm racist then feel affronted by my calling you out on your ridiculous behaviour.

What Vermont has demonstrated is that it is very effective to target a group that is not accessing vaccine at the same rate as the general population.

No such thing has been demonstrated. You have no control group that is similar to, let alone identical, on other aspects.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Vermont is almost certain to be at herd levels and the only state there. And someone is actually complaining that Vermont’s vax plans were discriminatory? How does a state get to that level and that be true?

Might as well claim the Edmonton Oilers in the mid 80s scored too much to be champions.

 

[Toni]

That fact alone would not be sufficient justification for the State to discriminate by race.



For many reasons, but in terms of a COVID-19 vaccination that the State has exclusive control over

i) The State was completely justified in discriminating by age. The absolute strongest demographic predictor of sickness and death for COVID-19 is age. The State almost got this completely right until it started vaccinating people under 16, which has no medical justification whatsoever.

ii) If the State discriminated by marital status for the COVID-19 vaccine, could you please explain how and why this occurred?

iii) The State has a good reason to prioritise vaccinations for people in "hotspot/high risk" geographical areas versus lower risk areas, and if that falls along rural/urban lines then so be it.

iv) If there was evidence that certain races (probably more correctly: certain ethnicities/ethnic backgrounds) were more susceptible to sickness and death from COVID-19 due to being that ethnicity and race (and not because of comorbidities that could explain it), then the State would be justified in prioritising them.

But if, for example, one ethnicity is more at risk because they are more obese, and it's actually obesity that is the risk factor, then obesity should be prioritised, not race.

The same for sex. If men are more at risk than women because of something intrinsic to being male, then they should be prioritised over women. But if it's something else that is causing the disparity (e.g. men are more obese and more likely to be smokers) then target the obese and smokers, because it's that that's causing the disparity.

In Vermont, the fact is that in a state that was performing very well in terms of vaccinating its citizens, a particular group was lagging and that demographic group happened to be black people. If it had been men or had been women or had been single vs married or Asian vs White or any other group, that would have merited the same efforts, particularly if that group also tended to have associated with it other risk factors that would increase the chances of contracting and/or becoming seriously ill compared with those who do not have the same risk factors.

BTW, your insult is duly noted.

It beggars belief that you can openly insinuate I'm racist then feel affronted by my calling you out on your ridiculous behaviour.

What Vermont has demonstrated is that it is very effective to target a group that is not accessing vaccine at the same rate as the general population.

No such thing has been demonstrated. You have no control group that is similar to, let alone identical, on other aspects.

I asked a question--which you did not answer, btw. There was no intention to insinuate that you are racist. I honestly do not understand why it is a problem that a particular demographic was targeted and that demographic happened to be black people in VT. Would it be different if it were left handed people?

The hotspot was: black people. That was it. That was a determining factor. Now, perhaps that correlated highly with a certain geographic region, or a certain socioeconomic level or education level or occupation. We don't really know. That data isn't provided us. The number of black people in Vermont might be sufficiently small that breaking it down further might too closely identify which people were not getting vaccinated in violation of their privacy. I don't know. I'm not an epidemiologist and I haven't studied the methods used in Vermont.

WHY is it unacceptable to you that, once noticed that this was a discreet group that happened to be black people, there was an effort to reach out to that group (which happened to be black people)? WHY? What is it about black people being prioritized that has you so upset? I honestly do not see the issue.

Of COURSE there was no control group! This is a brand new emergency. The virus behaves in some ways the way other viruses behaves and behaves differently in other ways. We're all playing a game of catch up and people's lives are at stake. It would be not only irresponsible but reprehensively so to create some control group where vaccine was withheld from some demographic. Not just because of whichever people comprised that demographic but because