Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[Metaphor]

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?

It would possibly be different, but it depends on why left-handed people were prioritised.

Was there something intrinsic to being left-handed that caused them to be more vulnerable than other groups? Or were they more vulnerable because they were higher on factors directly related to COVID sickness and death, like obesity and diabetes? If the latter, then that would be a problem. The factor that causes sickness and death is obesity and diabetes, not left-handedness.

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 you don't see the issue, because you have no problem with the State discriminating by race when it's the races you favour.

Vermont blocked 48 year old white people from receiving the vaccine at the same time it allowed any BIPOC person 16 or older to get a vaccine. That is completely unjustifiable. The data do not support BIPOC 16 year olds as a group being more in danger than 48 year olds.

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

I said Georgia wasn't a control group that you could judge Vermont's policies by, so the vacuous comparison of Georgia to Vermont does not justify Vermont's policies.

 

[Toni]

It would possibly be different, but it depends on why left-handed people were prioritised.

Was there something intrinsic to being left-handed that caused them to be more vulnerable than other groups? Or were they more vulnerable because they were higher on factors directly related to COVID sickness and death, like obesity and diabetes? If the latter, then that would be a problem. The factor that causes sickness and death is obesity and diabetes, not left-handedness.

That is poor reasoning. If being left handed made people more vulnerable than other groups, that is the reason that they should be prioritized. It doesn't really matter whether their risk factors for severe complications were identical to right handed people. Left handed people are more vulnerable, so more likely to become infected and to spread their infection. Because of their higher infection rate, they would create an additional burden on the health care system. Plus, we simply do not know what long term effects result from COVID19. For some individuals, there do seem to be some serious long term effects. Plus: they are more vulnerable so they should be prioritized.

Earlier in the pandemic, one big reason for NOT prioritizing children is that they were thought to be relatively unaffected and unlikely to spread the disease. Brazil is turning that notion upside down. But everywhere, children ARE getting ill and ARE getting very ill. Which is the reason that much more effort needs to be made to ensure the vaccine is safe for children. Because children are little germ factories and share their germs with everyone around them, as any parent or person who works with children knows. The first weeks after school resumes from any significant break results in a massive exchange of germs as everyone gets sick and builds their immunity. Children are notoriously bad at keeping things out of their mouths, keeping their hands to themselves, keeping their germs to themselves. Oh, and being able to remember to wear masks....

Of course you don't see the issue, because you have no problem with the State discriminating by race when it's the races you favour.

I don't favor any race. I do not see a problem with the state prioritizing vaccination or other social good to any group that is not being reached by the effort.

Vermont blocked 48 year old white people from receiving the vaccine atr older to get a vaccine. That is completely unjustifiable. The data do not support BIPOC 16 year olds as a group b the same time it allowed any BIPOC person 16 oeing more in danger than 48 year olds.

Really? Those 48 people are not vaccinated? By your reasoning, I was 'blocked' from receiving vaccine because I wasn't 65 while my husband was vaccinated because he had turned 65.

I said Georgia wasn't a control group that you could judge Vermont's policies by, so the vacuous comparison of Georgia to Vermont does not justify Vermont's policies.

Vermont does not need Georgia to justify its success. Georgia could learn something from Vermont but of course it won't.

You still have not answered WHY you object to blacks being prioritized. That does not make sense to me. Particularly earlier in your post you have just said that it would be OK to prioritize vaccination of left handed people if being left handed was associated with other risks such as obesity and diabetes. In the US, black people are more likely to have obesity and diabetes compared with any other racial group.

 

[Metaphor]

That is poor reasoning. If being left handed made people more vulnerable than other groups, that is the reason that they should be prioritized.

No: a spurious correlation is not a good reason they should be prioritized.

It doesn't really matter whether their risk factors for severe complications were identical to right handed people.

If left-handed people were more vulnerable than right-handed people and it was not explained by factors already known to correlate with sickness and death (age, obesity, diabetes), then left-handedness would be a risk factor.

If all of the variation in left-handed vulnerability is explained by factors already known, then it should not be prioritised. Instead, the factors already known should be, because left-handedness would simply be a poor proxy for them.

Earlier in the pandemic, one big reason for NOT prioritizing children is that they were thought to be relatively unaffected and unlikely to spread the disease. Brazil is turning that notion upside down. ...

No, it isn't. Children are far less likely to catch it, spread it, or even have symptoms from COVID-19. We don't know the long term consequences of the vaccine and getting the vaccine to the most vulnerable age groups should be the priority.

I don't favor any race. I do not see a problem with the state prioritizing vaccination or other social good to any group that is not being reached by the effort.

Well, I do see a problem with the State discriminating by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies.

Really? Those 48 people are not vaccinated?

No: it blocked people in their 40s from getting vaccinated whilst it allowed BIPOC 16 and older to get vaccinated.

By your reasoning, I was 'blocked' from receiving vaccine because I wasn't 65 while my husband was vaccinated because he had turned 65.

Not this shit again, Toni. Why are you unable to process the meanings of simple words like 'blocked'? Yes, you were blocked from getting the vaccine. It isn't that hard to understand. Your husband was allowed to register and get the vaccine and you were not. The State blocked you from getting it at the same time your husband got it.

A few years ago, my credit card company flagged a transaction I had made on the internet as fraudulent and blocked my credit card. It meant I was not able to use that card until it was unblocked.

Vermont does not need Georgia to justify its success. Georgia could learn something from Vermont but of course it won't.

You still have not answered WHY you object to blacks being prioritized.

I have answered you a dozen times in this thread. I object to the State discriminating by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies. I can't make this clearer to you, Toni.

That does not make sense to me. Particularly earlier in your post you have just said that it would be OK to prioritize vaccination of left handed people if being left handed was associated with other risks such as obesity and diabetes.

That was the exact fucking opposite of what I said. The exact fucking opposite. Oh my fucking god. Are you fucking kidding me. Fuck my ass, mouth, and tits.

If the reason left-handed people were more vulnerable was because they had higher rates of diabetes and obesity (which is the actual cause of their vulnerability, not left-handedness), then you should prioritise people with diabetes and obesity.

But if left-handed people were vulnerable because of some unique aspect of left-handedness that caused them to be more vulnerable, and it wasn't explained by factors already known to influence vulnerability (like age, obesity, diabetes), then a case could be made for prioritising them (but not before other more pressing risk factors had already been prioritised).

In the US, black people are more likely to have obesity and diabetes compared with any other racial group.

Yes. And those black people could already be vaccinated alongside people of any race with the same risk factors.

What Vermont did was prioritise 16 year old BIPOC people ahead of white people in their 40s, who were blocked from receiving the vaccine. That makes no sense from a vulnerability perspective. None whatever. Unless you can make a case that the risk to the average 16 year old BIPOC is higher than the risk to the average white person in their 40s, Vermont's policy did not make medical sense.

 

[Toni]

No: a spurious correlation is not a good reason they should be prioritized.



If left-handed people were more vulnerable than right-handed people and it was not explained by factors already known to correlate with sickness and death (age, obesity, diabetes), then left-handedness would be a risk factor.

If all of the variation in left-handed vulnerability is explained by factors already known, then it should not be prioritised. Instead, the factors already known should be, because left-handedness would simply be a poor proxy for them.

Earlier in the pandemic, one big reason for NOT prioritizing children is that they were thought to be relatively unaffected and unlikely to spread the disease. Brazil is turning that notion upside down. ...

No, it isn't. Children are far less likely to catch it, spread it, or even have symptoms from COVID-19. We don't know the long term consequences of the vaccine and getting the vaccine to the most vulnerable age groups should be the priority.

I don't favor any race. I do not see a problem with the state prioritizing vaccination or other social good to any group that is not being reached by the effort.

Well, I do see a problem with the State discriminating by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies.

Really? Those 48 people are not vaccinated?

No: it blocked people in their 40s from getting vaccinated whilst it allowed BIPOC 16 and older to get vaccinated.

By your reasoning, I was 'blocked' from receiving vaccine because I wasn't 65 while my husband was vaccinated because he had turned 65.

Not this shit again, Toni. Why are you unable to process the meanings of simple words like 'blocked'? Yes, you were blocked from getting the vaccine. It isn't that hard to understand. Your husband was allowed to register and get the vaccine and you were not. The State blocked you from getting it at the same time your husband got it.

A few years ago, my credit card company flagged a transaction I had made on the internet as fraudulent and blocked my credit card. It meant I was not able to use that card until it was unblocked.

Vermont does not need Georgia to justify its success. Georgia could learn something from Vermont but of course it won't.

You still have not answered WHY you object to blacks being prioritized.

I have answered you a dozen times in this thread. I object to the State discriminating by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies. I can't make this clearer to you, Toni.

That does not make sense to me. Particularly earlier in your post you have just said that it would be OK to prioritize vaccination of left handed people if being left handed was associated with other risks such as obesity and diabetes.

That was the exact fucking opposite of what I said. The exact fucking opposite. Oh my fucking god. Are you fucking kidding me. Fuck my ass, mouth, and tits.

If the reason left-handed people were more vulnerable was because they had higher rates of diabetes and obesity (which is the actual cause of their vulnerability, not left-handedness), then you should prioritise people with diabetes and obesity.

But if left-handed people were vulnerable because of some unique aspect of left-handedness that caused them to be more vulnerable, and it wasn't explained by factors already known to influence vulnerability (like age, obesity, diabetes), then a case could be made for prioritising them (but not before other more pressing risk factors had already been prioritised).

In the US, black people are more likely to have obesity and diabetes compared with any other racial group.

Yes. And those black people could already be vaccinated alongside people of any race with the same risk factors.

What Vermont did was prioritise 16 year old BIPOC people ahead of white people in their 40s, who were blocked from receiving the vaccine. That makes no sense from a vulnerability perspective. None whatever. Unless you can make a case that the risk to the average 16 year old BIPOC is higher than the risk to the average white person in their 40s, Vermont's policy did not make medical sense.

You aren't understanding: Black people in Vermont WERE NOT GETTING VACCINATED despite the fact that being black is a risk factor for serious illness/death from COVID 19, just as being over 65 is a greater risk.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201.../hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html


Please call up Brazil and explain that children there are not becoming extremely ill with COVID 19. I think they are unclear about that.

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/covid-19-infants-young-children-brazil/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/opinion/Brazil-covid-children.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/brazil-covid-19-children-are-dying-alarmingly-high-rates-2021-5

 

[Rhea]

So the data had been showing, pretty regularly across the country, that BIPOC people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes than white people.

We don’t know for certain whether it is because they have more frontline jobs, whether they have more diabetes, whether they have a harder time getting to a doctor, whether they have a genetic variation that makes them more susceptible, whether they have a different age distribution, whether they have more multi-generational homes or some other reason. But we do know for certain that BIPOC people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes. Not all of them, of course, but at a higher rate than other populations.

The data also showed, pretty regularly across the country, that older people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes than younger people.

We don’t know for certain whether it is because they have more fragile immune systems, whether they have more diabetes, whether they have a harder time getting to a doctor, whether they have a genetic age-degradation that makes them more susceptible, whether they are more likely to live in settings where people come very close to them, or some other reason. But we do know for certain that older people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes. Not all of them, of course, but at a higher rate than other populations.


Metaphor is outraged that Vermont used that information to prioritize those groups.

And that they did it in the state with the highest rate of overall vaccination - where ALL of the residents had an easier time getting vaccinated than in other states, as we can see by the state outcome.

Well, let me re-phrase. He is outraged that they used that information to prioritize ONE of those groups.



And he finds this to be an outrage. He has gone on and on (and on!) about the outrage, while Vermont has kept their citizens safer than almost any other state, because the way Vermont won for everyone included noticing the vulnerability among their BIPOC as well as their elderly.

It’s interesting that he is outraged at Vermont’s success, but dodges discussing the states where people were actually harmed by government choices. It’s almost as if he doesn’t actually care about the health outcome, he only cares that Black people got noticed.

 

[Metaphor]

You aren't understanding: Black people in Vermont WERE NOT GETTING VACCINATED despite the fact that being black is a risk factor for serious illness/death from COVID 19, just as being over 65 is a greater risk.

Non: you are not understanding. This was all discussed months ago. You have not established that being black is a risk factor for serious illness and death. Even the page you link to says:

Race and ethnicity are risk markers for other underlying conditions that affect health, including socioeconomic status, access to health care, and exposure to the virus related to occupation, e.g., frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers.

Why are black people 1.9x more likely to die from COVID? Does dark skin cause you to be more susceptible and experience worse symptoms? I very much doubt it. Instead, race is a risk marker for the actual conditions that are related to vulnerability. Prioritise people (regardless of race) with the actual conditions.

High blood pressure is a risk factor. Black people have higher blood pressure than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people with normal blood pressure more vulnerable than white people with normal blood pressure. So, people with high blood pressure should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Diabetes is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of diabetes than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people without diabetes more vulnerable than white people without diabetes. So, people with diabetes should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Obesity is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of obesity than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make non-obese black people more vulnerable than non-obese white people . So, obese people should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

The page you linked also says "frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers" may be differently distributed by race. So, if it's important to target frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers, target them.

 

[Rhea]

You aren't understanding: Black people in Vermont WERE NOT GETTING VACCINATED despite the fact that being black is a risk factor for serious illness/death from COVID 19, just as being over 65 is a greater risk.

Non: you are not understanding. This was all discussed months ago. You have not established that being black is a risk factor for serious illness and death. Even the page you link to says:

Race and ethnicity are risk markers for other underlying conditions that affect health, including socioeconomic status, access to health care, and exposure to the virus related to occupation, e.g., frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers.

Why are black people 1.9x more likely to die from COVID? Does dark skin cause you to be more susceptible and experience worse symptoms? I very much doubt it. Instead, race is a risk marker for the actual conditions that are related to vulnerability. Prioritise people (regardless of race) with the actual conditions.

High blood pressure is a risk factor. Black people have higher blood pressure than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people with normal blood pressure more vulnerable than white people with normal blood pressure. So, people with high blood pressure should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Diabetes is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of diabetes than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people without diabetes more vulnerable than white people without diabetes. So, people with diabetes should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Obesity is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of obesity than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make non-obese black people more vulnerable than non-obese white people . So, obese people should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

The page you linked also says "frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers" may be differently distributed by race. So, if it's important to target frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers, target them.

And not one word about how they used age as a proxy for risk. It’s almost as if…

 

[Metaphor]

...
And he finds this to be an outrage. He has gone on and on (and on!) about the outrage, while Vermont has kept their citizens safer than almost any other state, because the way Vermont won for everyone included noticing the vulnerability among their BIPOC as well as their elderly.

Non. You have no idea what effect Vermont's discrimination by race had on its overall vaccination success.

It’s interesting that he is outraged at Vermont’s success, but dodges discussing the states where people were actually harmed by government choices. It’s almost as if he doesn’t actually care about the health outcome, he only cares that Black people got noticed.

I care that the State discriminated by race when it had exclusive control over life-saving bennies.

 

[Rhea]

Understanding proxy measures and their usefulness:

Proxy Measure
By: GovEx

A proxy is an indirect measure of the desired outcome which is itself strongly correlated to that outcome. It is commonly used when direct measures of the outcome are unobservable and/or unavailable. An organization should use a proxy measure when there is little or no data available about the program being implemented, but the outcome the program is designed to influence has an existing and commonly accepted proxy.

Proxy measures can be powerful tools for governments who do not have the exact data they want, but know the outcome they are trying to achieve. Infant mortality rates, for example, are a direct measure of healthcare quality but are also a proxy for the economic and social welfare of a community. The unemployment rate is a direct measure of unemployment, but is also a proxy for the overall state of our economy.

“Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good”


The goal is reducing deaths and stopping the spread, and thence further mutation, of the disease.
This effort clearly helped. See Don’s post on the outcome from Vermont.

 

[Rhea]

It’s interesting that he is outraged at Vermont’s success, but dodges discussing the states where people were actually harmed by government choices. It’s almost as if he doesn’t actually care about the health outcome, he only cares that Black people got noticed.

I care that the State discriminated by race when it had exclusive control over life-saving bennies.

But you don’t care that they discriminated by age. It’s almost as if…

 

[Elixir]

Wow. Try harder.

Try harder to do what?

To catch up.
To understand that the success of progressive policies is due to progressive policies.
To understand that regressive conservative/authoritarian policies benefit fewer people.
To understand that "lib'ruls", women, black people, brown people and indigenous people are not the ones putting the hurt on you.

Soooo many things that are beyond your ken...

 

[Toni]

You aren't understanding: Black people in Vermont WERE NOT GETTING VACCINATED despite the fact that being black is a risk factor for serious illness/death from COVID 19, just as being over 65 is a greater risk.

Non: you are not understanding. This was all discussed months ago. You have not established that being black is a risk factor for serious illness and death. Even the page you link to says:

Race and ethnicity are risk markers for other underlying conditions that affect health, including socioeconomic status, access to health care, and exposure to the virus related to occupation, e.g., frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers.

Why are black people 1.9x more likely to die from COVID? Does dark skin cause you to be more susceptible and experience worse symptoms? I very much doubt it. Instead, race is a risk marker for the actual conditions that are related to vulnerability. Prioritise people (regardless of race) with the actual conditions.

High blood pressure is a risk factor. Black people have higher blood pressure than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people with normal blood pressure more vulnerable than white people with normal blood pressure. So, people with high blood pressure should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Diabetes is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of diabetes than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people without diabetes more vulnerable than white people without diabetes. So, people with diabetes should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Obesity is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of obesity than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make non-obese black people more vulnerable than non-obese white people . So, obese people should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

The page you linked also says "frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers" may be differently distributed by race. So, if it's important to target frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers, target them.

As the link stated, it is not known specifically WHY black people (and other persons of color) are more likely to suffer serious illness/death form COVID, just that they ARE.

Any of the reasons you noted are possibly a factor. So is the potential of having a genetic marker that makes them more susceptible. But it's not known at this time.

Vaccination against COVID19 is a race against time.

 

[Metaphor]

Non: you are not understanding. This was all discussed months ago. You have not established that being black is a risk factor for serious illness and death. Even the page you link to says:



Why are black people 1.9x more likely to die from COVID? Does dark skin cause you to be more susceptible and experience worse symptoms? I very much doubt it. Instead, race is a risk marker for the actual conditions that are related to vulnerability. Prioritise people (regardless of race) with the actual conditions.

High blood pressure is a risk factor. Black people have higher blood pressure than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people with normal blood pressure more vulnerable than white people with normal blood pressure. So, people with high blood pressure should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Diabetes is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of diabetes than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people without diabetes more vulnerable than white people without diabetes. So, people with diabetes should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Obesity is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of obesity than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make non-obese black people more vulnerable than non-obese white people . So, obese people should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

The page you linked also says "frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers" may be differently distributed by race. So, if it's important to target frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers, target them.

And not one word about how they used age as a proxy for risk. It’s almost as if…

I have expended hundreds of words on it.

"Age" is not a proxy. It's a direct cause. Hold every other variable constant, and a 70 year old is many times more likely to get sick and die than a 30 year old, from COVID.

And: if it turned out that age was nothing more than a good proxy for easily-identifiable conditions that are the actual sources of vulnerability, then those other easily-identifiable conditions should be the priority and not age itself.

When the State has exclusive control over life-saving bennies, it better make a damn fucking good case if it's going to discriminate by race in distributing them. And claiming Vermont's high vaccination rate as an indicator that it's discrimination by race was justified is a non-starter. You need to make a case for the causal mechanism of discrimination by race leading to a higher vaccination rate for the overall population.

 

[Elixir]

Vaccination against COVID19 is a race against time.

Oh gawd, don't talk about a "race". Every time that word comes up, Meta and the conservotards whimper and whine about how they're losing the race, and trying to invent ways that their hated BIPOCs are cheating. It never occurs to them that they're losing because they're sitting there whimpering and whining instead of working for the common good, while the white billionaire class is picking their pockets..

 

[Metaphor]

Non: you are not understanding. This was all discussed months ago. You have not established that being black is a risk factor for serious illness and death. Even the page you link to says:



Why are black people 1.9x more likely to die from COVID? Does dark skin cause you to be more susceptible and experience worse symptoms? I very much doubt it. Instead, race is a risk marker for the actual conditions that are related to vulnerability. Prioritise people (regardless of race) with the actual conditions.

High blood pressure is a risk factor. Black people have higher blood pressure than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people with normal blood pressure more vulnerable than white people with normal blood pressure. So, people with high blood pressure should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Diabetes is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of diabetes than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people without diabetes more vulnerable than white people without diabetes. So, people with diabetes should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Obesity is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of obesity than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make non-obese black people more vulnerable than non-obese white people . So, obese people should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

The page you linked also says "frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers" may be differently distributed by race. So, if it's important to target frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers, target them.

As the link stated, it is not known specifically WHY black people (and other persons of color) are more likely to suffer serious illness/death form COVID, just that they ARE.
...

Of course some of it is known! You can determine the variance statistically. You already know the underlying distribution of the risk factors in each population.

 

[Toni]

Vaccination against COVID19 is a race against time.

Oh gawd, don't talk about a "race". Every time that word comes up, Meta and the conservotards whimper and whine about how they're losing the race, and trying to invent ways that their hated BIPOCs are cheating. It never occurs to them that they're losing because they're sitting there whimpering and whining instead of working for the common good, while the white billionaire class is picking their pockets..

Sorry. I should have used a better word.

I'm just not sure what word that is.

 

[Toni]

Non: you are not understanding. This was all discussed months ago. You have not established that being black is a risk factor for serious illness and death. Even the page you link to says:



Why are black people 1.9x more likely to die from COVID? Does dark skin cause you to be more susceptible and experience worse symptoms? I very much doubt it. Instead, race is a risk marker for the actual conditions that are related to vulnerability. Prioritise people (regardless of race) with the actual conditions.

High blood pressure is a risk factor. Black people have higher blood pressure than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people with normal blood pressure more vulnerable than white people with normal blood pressure. So, people with high blood pressure should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Diabetes is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of diabetes than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make black people without diabetes more vulnerable than white people without diabetes. So, people with diabetes should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

Obesity is a risk factor. Black people have a higher incidence of obesity than white people, so that makes the group more vulnerable on average. But it doesn't make non-obese black people more vulnerable than non-obese white people . So, obese people should be part of the 'high risk comorbidities' priority group.

The page you linked also says "frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers" may be differently distributed by race. So, if it's important to target frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers, target them.

As the link stated, it is not known specifically WHY black people (and other persons of color) are more likely to suffer serious illness/death form COVID, just that they ARE.
...

Of course some of it is known! You can determine the variance statistically. You already know the underlying distribution of the risk factors in each population.

Some but not all. Particularly when this thread and your outrage started--which was... April.

Vaccination was prioritized by known risk factors. Being black was a risk factor.

 

[Toni]

So the data had been showing, pretty regularly across the country, that BIPOC people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes than white people.

We don’t know for certain whether it is because they have more frontline jobs, whether they have more diabetes, whether they have a harder time getting to a doctor, whether they have a genetic variation that makes them more susceptible, whether they have a different age distribution, whether they have more multi-generational homes or some other reason. But we do know for certain that BIPOC people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes. Not all of them, of course, but at a higher rate than other populations.

The data also showed, pretty regularly across the country, that older people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes than younger people.

We don’t know for certain whether it is because they have more fragile immune systems, whether they have more diabetes, whether they have a harder time getting to a doctor, whether they have a genetic age-degradation that makes them more susceptible, whether they are more likely to live in settings where people come very close to them, or some other reason. But we do know for certain that older people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes. Not all of them, of course, but at a higher rate than other populations.


Metaphor is outraged that Vermont used that information to prioritize those groups.

And that they did it in the state with the highest rate of overall vaccination - where ALL of the residents had an easier time getting vaccinated than in other states, as we can see by the state outcome.

Well, let me re-phrase. He is outraged that they used that information to prioritize ONE of those groups.



And he finds this to be an outrage. He has gone on and on (and on!) about the outrage, while Vermont has kept their citizens safer than almost any other state, because the way Vermont won for everyone included noticing the vulnerability among their BIPOC as well as their elderly.

It’s interesting that he is outraged at Vermont’s success, but dodges discussing the states where people were actually harmed by government choices. It’s almost as if he doesn’t actually care about the health outcome, he only cares that Black people got noticed.

What Rhea said.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course some of it is known! You can determine the variance statistically. You already know the underlying distribution of the risk factors in each population.

Some but not all.

Vaccination was prioritized by known risk factors. Being black was a risk factor.

You have not shown that to be true. And even if it were true, the priority groupings were wrong. An otherwise healthy 48 year old white person should be prioritised ahead of an otherwise healthy 18 year old BIPOC. Age (even if it is a proxy for something else) is a much stronger correlate of vulnerability. Healthy white 48 year olds are much more vulnerable than healthy 18 year old BIPOCs.

 

[Rhea]

And not one word about how they used age as a proxy for risk. It’s almost as if…

I have expended hundreds of words on it.

"Age" is not a proxy. It's a direct cause. Hold every other variable constant, and a 70 year old is many times more likely to get sick and die than a 30 year old, from COVID.

Nonsense. There are plenty of elderly people who did not die of COVID. It is merely a proxy for other risk factors that we haven’t had time to identify with certainty.

And: if it turned out that age was nothing more than a good proxy for easily-identifiable conditions that are the actual sources of vulnerability, then those other easily-identifiable conditions should be the priority and not age itself.

Indeed. ”If it turns out,” he says, willing to give them the benefit of using the proxy of age until they know more detail.

[/B]When the State has exclusive control over life-saving bennies, it better make a damn fucking good case if it's going to discriminate by race in distributing them.

But not age, for that they can use the proxy until they have more detail…

And claiming Vermont's high vaccination rate as an indicator that it's discrimination by race was justified is a non-starter. You need to make a case for the causal mechanism of discrimination by race leading to a higher vaccination rate for the overall population.

Oh, my goodness, did you not read the news? In New York, they distributed the vaccine to various neighborhoods, then found out that white people (a proxy for those with cars and time and money) were driving to the black neighborhoods and BLOCKING the access of BIPOC to the LIFE SAVING BENNIES. So governments tried to enact programs to fight off that additional inequality.


There are many other ways in which it makes sense to identify vulnerable populations as quickly as possible, even when it means using proxies, during a pandemic. Speed is of the essence, here. The GOAL is to limit replication and limit bad health outcomes and limit death. That’s the goal. This policy helped serve that goal since we KNOW that BIPOC people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes than white people.

We KNOW THIS.

We know that BIPOC people were getting covid more often, and also having worse outcomes than white people.

We KNOW THIS.

And you’ve got your penis in a knot because you are outraged by the possibility that one healthy Black person in a small white-majority state half a world away from you may have been given a space in line in front of one healthy white person.

It’s almost as if…