Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[ZiprHead]

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

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

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

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

Sometimes Black Lives don't Matter.

 

[Toni]

You said:


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

Your response is....non-responsive. I stated WHY women might be over-represented in early vaccination numbers. I never stated that men should receive a lower priority than women.

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

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

I'm not the one with my panties in a bunch or throwing accusations around.

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

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

Being black in Vermont was a risk factor. Being black in Vermont was a greater risk factor than being 48 years old and white in Vermont. Demonstrated by the Vermont dashboard site that provided statistics, which I have linked.

.

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

My emphasis added. That was you, right? You wrote: "There is also no evidence that a white 48 year old was less at risk than an 18 year old BIPOC. In fact, I can scarcely believe that is the case."

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

You said what you said. I've even brought it to my post. Here, I'll quote it again, from your post #274, in reply to Rhea's post

I did not say anything about 'white males', but white people. There is also no evidence that a white 48 year old was less at risk than an 18 year old BIPOC. In fact, I can scarcely believe that is the case.

It's fine if you want to clarify what you originally meant. I'll accept that you weren't as clear as you intended to be in your original claim that it was unbelievable that an 18 year old black person was at greater risk than a 48 year old white person.

However, you would be wrong. Black people in Vermont were many, many, many times more likely to contract COVID and were several times more likely to require hospitalization than were white people. Please see my earlier posts for links to the data.

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

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

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

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

Sure. I won't trouble myself to point out which posts you said what since you can't be bothered yourself. You are correct: there has been a lag in vaccination of males compared with females, initially at least because of the fact that the first two priority groups: 65+ and health care workers are vastly over-represented by females. At the same time that those 65+ were prioritized for vaccination, so were those with comorbidities of obesity, smoking, heart and lung disease, etc, which are over-represented by men. By your argument, they were adequately prioritized or at least that's the argument that you made with regards to black people vs (some)white people. But I'll assume that was an argument you were making to further your belief that men should also be targeted/prioritized for vaccination. I won't disagree. However, the fact is that the discrepancy in vaccination has decreased as more people than those first two priority groups which are significantly over-represented by women have been eligible for vaccination. There is still a lag, yes. However, that lag is significantly LESS than the lag between white people and black people prior to Vermont's targeting black people for vaccination. In fact, in Vermont, men and women were equally likely to die from COVID 19.

Personally, I have no problem with any program that encourages (or frankly, requires) individuals to be vaccinated (assuming there is no medical reason not to be vaccinated). At this point, I think that the rest of the nation should take a note from Vermont and look at specific groups who are refusing vaccination and specifically target them to encourage vaccination. It's urgent that we reach a vaccination rate of at least 70%, and preferably higher.

If you have any suggestions about how to encourage men to take better care of themselves and to be more amenable to getting preventative care, I wish you would share them. It's a significant health concern that is not limited to COVID 19.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't say you said it.

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

Sure Jan. Keep telling yourself that.

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

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

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

The gap is much lower than the gap between BIPOC and white people. According to your standards, the BIPOC was not sufficient for differential treatment. So why bring up the gender gap?

 

[Metaphor]

Your response is....non-responsive. I stated WHY women might be over-represented in early vaccination numbers. I never stated that men should receive a lower priority than women.

I did not claim women were 'over-represented' in vaccine numbers, nor did say men should have been prioritised if they lagged in numbers.

Being black in Vermont was a risk factor. Being black in Vermont was a greater risk factor than being 48 years old and white in Vermont. Demonstrated by the Vermont dashboard site that provided statistics, which I have linked.

Non. You have not shown that.

It's fine if you want to clarify what you originally meant. I'll accept that you weren't as clear as you intended to be in your original claim that it was unbelievable that an 18 year old black person was at greater risk than a 48 year old white person.

48 year old white people are at a higher risk than 18 year old black people.

However, you would be wrong. Black people in Vermont were many, many, many times more likely to contract COVID and were several times more likely to require hospitalization than were white people. Please see my earlier posts for links to the data.

No, I would not be wrong, and your data does not compare healthy 18 year old BIPOC people to healthy 48 year old white people. Note that is what we are talking about. Healthy 18 year old BIPOCs were prioritised ahead of healthy 48 year old white people.

Sure. I won't trouble myself to point out which posts you said what since you can't be bothered yourself. You are correct: there has been a lag in vaccination of males compared with females, initially at least because of the fact that the first two priority groups: 65+ and health care workers are vastly over-represented by females. At the same time that those 65+ were prioritized for vaccination, so were those with comorbidities of obesity, smoking, heart and lung disease, etc, which are over-represented by men. By your argument, they were adequately prioritized or at least that's the argument that you made with regards to black people vs (some)white people.

No: I said if you make the argument that black people deserved priority because of the higher death rate--an argument you made without controlling for any covariates--then by the same reasoning, men ought be prioritised over women.

But I'll assume that was an argument you were making to further your belief that men should also be targeted/prioritized for vaccination.

I have never claimed such a belief. Please stop lying about what I believe. I did not state that men should be prioritised over women. I made the claim that if you believe, based on raw death rates, that black people should be prioritised over white people, then the same arguments with the same evidence applies to men over women.

Personally, I have no problem with any program that encourages (or frankly, requires) individuals to be vaccinated (assuming there is no medical reason not to be vaccinated).

I certainly have a problem with the State forcibly vaccinating people who don't want to be vaccinated.

At this point, I think that the rest of the nation should take a note from Vermont and look at specific groups who are refusing vaccination and specifically target them to encourage vaccination. It's urgent that we reach a vaccination rate of at least 70%, and preferably higher.

I have no problem with targeted campaigns that encourage vaccine-reluctant people to get vaccinated. I had a problem with the State discriminating by race in its distribution of life-saving vaccines.

 

[Metaphor]

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

The gap is much lower than the gap between BIPOC and white people. According to your standards, the BIPOC was not sufficient for differential treatment. So why bring up the gender gap?

Because the people who think it's okay for the State to discriminate by race to attempt to close a 'race gap' do not approve of the State discriminating by sex to close the 'sex gap' (well, they don't approve of the State favouring men at any rate).

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't say you said it.

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

Sure Jan. Keep telling yourself that.

I know my mind better than you know my mind.

 

[Toni]

I did not claim women were 'over-represented' in vaccine numbers, nor did say men should have been prioritised if they lagged in numbers.




Non. You have not shown that.

It's fine if you want to clarify what you originally meant. I'll accept that you weren't as clear as you intended to be in your original claim that it was unbelievable that an 18 year old black person was at greater risk than a 48 year old white person.

48 year old white people are at a higher risk than 18 year old black people.

However, you would be wrong. Black people in Vermont were many, many, many times more likely to contract COVID and were several times more likely to require hospitalization than were white people. Please see my earlier posts for links to the data.

No, I would not be wrong, and your data does not compare healthy 18 year old BIPOC people to healthy 48 year old white people. Note that is what we are talking about. Healthy 18 year old BIPOCs were prioritised ahead of healthy 48 year old white people.

Sure. I won't trouble myself to point out which posts you said what since you can't be bothered yourself. You are correct: there has been a lag in vaccination of males compared with females, initially at least because of the fact that the first two priority groups: 65+ and health care workers are vastly over-represented by females. At the same time that those 65+ were prioritized for vaccination, so were those with comorbidities of obesity, smoking, heart and lung disease, etc, which are over-represented by men. By your argument, they were adequately prioritized or at least that's the argument that you made with regards to black people vs (some)white people.

No: I said if you make the argument that black people deserved priority because of the higher death rate--an argument you made without controlling for any covariates--then by the same reasoning, men ought be prioritised over women.

But I'll assume that was an argument you were making to further your belief that men should also be targeted/prioritized for vaccination.

I have never claimed such a belief. Please stop lying about what I believe. I did not state that men should be prioritised over women. I made the claim that if you believe, based on raw death rates, that black people should be prioritised over white people, then the same arguments with the same evidence applies to men over women.

Personally, I have no problem with any program that encourages (or frankly, requires) individuals to be vaccinated (assuming there is no medical reason not to be vaccinated).

I certainly have a problem with the State forcibly vaccinating people who don't want to be vaccinated.

At this point, I think that the rest of the nation should take a note from Vermont and look at specific groups who are refusing vaccination and specifically target them to encourage vaccination. It's urgent that we reach a vaccination rate of at least 70%, and preferably higher.

I have no problem with targeted campaigns that encourage vaccine-reluctant people to get vaccinated. I had a problem with the State discriminating by race in its distribution of life-saving vaccines.

Unfortunately for your argument, being black is indeed a risk factor for contracting and experiencing serious disease and death from COVID. Actually, being any BIPOC, except in some areas, Asian, is a serious risk factor. We don't know exactly why that is but it is certainly shows up in data. We know some societal factors: generally a lack of access to good health care and a distrust of health care based on historic exploitation of POC in medicine, prevalence of POC being low income and working in service sector jobs which involve a lot of public contact, living in multi-generational housing and in general in poorer quality housing, being more likely to have co-morbidities such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure. But we don't know the whole picture. Vermont looked at its data (have you explored any of the links I posted) and it showed that black people were far, far, far more likely to be infected with COVID 19 and much more likely to require hospitalization AND less likely to be vaccinated. The data demonstrated that in Vermont, race was indeed a predictive factor for adverse outcomes and greater prevalence of COVID 19 infections. So they did what they needed to do in order to get as many people as possible vaccinated: they prioritized black people.

I don't know if the same trends are true throughout the United States or as stark as those in Vermont. In general, BIPOC (except usually Asians) are more likely to become infected and are also less likely to be vaccinated. Those are populations in the US that generally have less access to medical care and less trust of medical community as well. It seems prudent to do our utmost to target programs that help vulnerable populations overcome their reluctance to be vaccinated.

That, btw, includes Fox news viewers. No snark intended. But membership in the GOP and viewership of Fox news are both predictive of significantly lesser vaccination rates. Too bad that Fox cannot be convinced to do the right thing and encourage viewers to be vaccinated.

 

[laughing dog]

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

The gap is much lower than the gap between BIPOC and white people. According to your standards, the BIPOC was not sufficient for differential treatment. So why bring up the gender gap?

Because the people who think it's okay for the State to discriminate by race to attempt to close a 'race gap' do not approve of the State discriminating by sex to close the 'sex gap' (well, they don't approve of the State favouring men at any rate).

You pulled that one right out of your ass.

I know my mind better than you know my mind.

Maybe you do about somethings. Then again, maybe you don't have perfect knowledge about your mind. Most people don't.

 

[Metaphor]

Unfortunately for your argument, being black is indeed a risk factor for contracting and experiencing serious disease and death from COVID. Actually, being any BIPOC, except in some areas, Asian, is a serious risk factor. We don't know exactly why that is but it is certainly shows up in data. We know some societal factors: generally a lack of access to good health care and a distrust of health care based on historic exploitation of POC in medicine, prevalence of POC being low income and working in service sector jobs which involve a lot of public contact, living in multi-generational housing and in general in poorer quality housing, being more likely to have co-morbidities such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure. But we don't know the whole picture. Vermont looked at its data (have you explored any of the links I posted) and it showed that black people were far, far, far more likely to be infected with COVID 19 and much more likely to require hospitalization AND less likely to be vaccinated. The data demonstrated that in Vermont, race was indeed a predictive factor for adverse outcomes and greater prevalence of COVID 19 infections. So they did what they needed to do in order to get as many people as possible vaccinated: they prioritized black people.

Oy gevalt. I have never denied the association between COVID sickness and death and race. I said that the variance is at least partly explained by factors already known to be related to race and those factors were already prioritised. The only people left in the BIPOC group were relatively healthy BIPOC. Any BIPOC who qualified under another factor already qualified.

The same could be true for men versus women. I never said prioritising men was justified; I simply point out that men have higher vaccine reluctance and are more likely to experience high sickness and death, and on the same basis you think it's justified to prioritise black people, it would be justifiable to prioritise men.

I don't know if the same trends are true throughout the United States or as stark as those in Vermont. In general, BIPOC (except usually Asians) are more likely to become infected and are also less likely to be vaccinated. Those are populations in the US that generally have less access to medical care and less trust of medical community as well. It seems prudent to do our utmost to target programs that help vulnerable populations overcome their reluctance to be vaccinated.

If you want to do that, you can do that without the State discriminating by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies.

 

[Metaphor]

Because the people who think it's okay for the State to discriminate by race to attempt to close a 'race gap' do not approve of the State discriminating by sex to close the 'sex gap' (well, they don't approve of the State favouring men at any rate).

You pulled that one right out of your ass.

I know my mind better than you know my mind.

Maybe you do about somethings. Then again, maybe you don't have perfect knowledge about your mind. Most people don't.

I can't be mistaken about what I think I think.

 

[Toni]

Unfortunately for your argument, being black is indeed a risk factor for contracting and experiencing serious disease and death from COVID. Actually, being any BIPOC, except in some areas, Asian, is a serious risk factor. We don't know exactly why that is but it is certainly shows up in data. We know some societal factors: generally a lack of access to good health care and a distrust of health care based on historic exploitation of POC in medicine, prevalence of POC being low income and working in service sector jobs which involve a lot of public contact, living in multi-generational housing and in general in poorer quality housing, being more likely to have co-morbidities such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure. But we don't know the whole picture. Vermont looked at its data (have you explored any of the links I posted) and it showed that black people were far, far, far more likely to be infected with COVID 19 and much more likely to require hospitalization AND less likely to be vaccinated. The data demonstrated that in Vermont, race was indeed a predictive factor for adverse outcomes and greater prevalence of COVID 19 infections. So they did what they needed to do in order to get as many people as possible vaccinated: they prioritized black people.

Oy gevalt. I have never denied the association between COVID sickness and death and race. I said that the variance is at least partly explained by factors already known to be related to race and those factors were already prioritised. The only people left in the BIPOC group were relatively healthy BIPOC. Any BIPOC who qualified under another factor already qualified.

The same could be true for men versus women. I never said prioritising men was justified; I simply point out that men have higher vaccine reluctance and are more likely to experience high sickness and death, and on the same basis you think it's justified to prioritise black people, it would be justifiable to prioritise men.

I don't know if the same trends are true throughout the United States or as stark as those in Vermont. In general, BIPOC (except usually Asians) are more likely to become infected and are also less likely to be vaccinated. Those are populations in the US that generally have less access to medical care and less trust of medical community as well. It seems prudent to do our utmost to target programs that help vulnerable populations overcome their reluctance to be vaccinated.

If you want to do that, you can do that without the State discriminating by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies.

No, you haven't made such arguments. You've made statements but have not backed them up. I have demonstrated that the gap in vaccination between men and women existed primarily because women were overrepresented in the health care industry and also in the 65+ age group and that the gender gap, which never approached the racial gap, is narrowing very significantly. And I provided the receipts.

Prioritizing for vaccination because of comorbidities did NOTHING to close the enormous gap in vaccination seen in Vermont's black community compared with the white community. Prioritizing black and all BIPOC as Vermont did (along with Montana) DID have the desired effect of increasing vaccination rates among this population. Other states are eyeing Vermont's success and are considering ways to target under-vaccinated communities in order to save lives. The fact is that different populations face different levels of access to health care in general, for a variety of reasons, both de facto and de jure.

Why have you focused on the black portion of the prioritization?

 

[laughing dog]

You pulled that one right out of your ass.
Maybe you do about somethings. Then again, maybe you don't have perfect knowledge about your mind. Most people don't.

I can't be mistaken about what I think I think.

That statement is a perfect example that you are mistaken. The mind is still a mystery. Most people do not fully understand themselves (me included). And, of course, there is possibility of self-delusion.

 

[Metaphor]

No, you haven't made such arguments. You've made statements but have not backed them up. I have demonstrated that the gap in vaccination between men and women existed primarily because women were overrepresented in the health care industry and also in the 65+ age group and that the gender gap, which never approached the racial gap, is narrowing very significantly. And I provided the receipts.

Oy gevalt. I never said that men should be prioritised over women because there was a vaccination gap. I said that there was one, and that men die from COVID more than women, and on that basis--which is the same basis you justified racial discrimination--you could prioritise men over women.

Prioritizing for vaccination because of comorbidities did NOTHING to close the enormous gap in vaccination seen in Vermont's black community compared with the white community. Prioritizing black and all BIPOC as Vermont did (along with Montana) DID have the desired effect of increasing vaccination rates among this population.

yes, providing access to a vaccine exclusively to one group and denying it to another is going to increase the takeup in the group that is actually allowed to access it, compared to the group that is not.

Other states are eyeing Vermont's success and are considering ways to target under-vaccinated communities in order to save lives. The fact is that different populations face different levels of access to health care in general, for a variety of reasons, both de facto and de jure.

Why have you focused on the black portion of the prioritization?

Why have you asked the same question a dozen times? I've answered it more than a dozen times.

I don't think the State ought discriminate by race when it provides access to life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control. I can't make this easier for you to understand.

 

[Toni]

Oy gevalt. I never said that men should be prioritised over women because there was a vaccination gap. I said that there was one, and that men die from COVID more than women, and on that basis--which is the same basis you justified racial discrimination--you could prioritise men over women.



yes, providing access to a vaccine exclusively to one group and denying it to another is going to increase the takeup in the group that is actually allowed to access it, compared to the group that is not.

Other states are eyeing Vermont's success and are considering ways to target under-vaccinated communities in order to save lives. The fact is that different populations face different levels of access to health care in general, for a variety of reasons, both de facto and de jure.

Why have you focused on the black portion of the prioritization?

Why have you asked the same question a dozen times? I've answered it more than a dozen times.

I don't think the State ought discriminate by race when it provides access to life-saving bennies over which it has exclusive control. I can't make this easier for you to understand.

So you’re fine with black people dying in disproportionate numbers due to the state distributing like saving bennies preferentially to white people?

Because that’s what has happened in the US for the past 400 years or so.

Now, BIPOC are becoming ill and dying disproportionately at least in part because of centuries of racism—and you think giving the population which is dying so disproportionately priority. Because that group happens to be not white peoples. It was fine to prioritize elderly people because they were the first group identified as at risk for serious risk of serious illness and death—but not if the group is identified by being not white.

White people have been prioritized in this pandemic. It’s just taken as the norm. It IS the norm.

And you’re just fine with that so long as no one says the white part out loud.

Got it.

 

[Metaphor]

So you’re fine with black people dying in disproportionate numbers due to the state distributing like saving bennies preferentially to white people?

No. The idea that you can question whether I'm "fine" with that, after I told you more than a dozen times I don't want the State to discriminate by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies, tells me you don't give a shit what I say and this exchange is rhetorical theatre for you to virtue-signal yourself and demonise me. Also, the State is not prioritising white people.

Because that’s what has happened in the US for the past 400 years or so.

Now, BIPOC are becoming ill and dying disproportionately at least in part because of centuries of racism—and you think giving the population which is dying so disproportionately priority.

Nobody, but fucking nobody, is dying from 'centuries of racism'.

Because that group happens to be not white peoples. It was fine to prioritize elderly people because they were the first group identified as at risk for serious risk of serious illness and death—but not if the group is identified by being not white.

White people have been prioritized in this pandemic. It’s just taken as the norm. It IS the norm.

They were not. What an utterly pants-on-head thing to say. Vermont had a policy specifically prioritising BIPOC people and you claim that in this pandemic, it is white people being prioritised. You live in upside-down land. I wonder what that does to your blood pressure?

And you’re just fine with that so long as no one says the white part out loud.

Got it.

What you've "got", Toni, is a relentlessly deranged worldview and a mania for dog-whistle insinuations.

 

[Toni]

No. The idea that you can question whether I'm "fine" with that, after I told you more than a dozen times I don't want the State to discriminate by race when it has exclusive control over life-saving bennies, tells me you don't give a shit what I say and this exchange is rhetorical theatre for you to virtue-signal yourself and demonise me. Also, the State is not prioritising white people.



Nobody, but fucking nobody, is dying from 'centuries of racism'.

Because that group happens to be not white peoples. It was fine to prioritize elderly people because they were the first group identified as at risk for serious risk of serious illness and death—but not if the group is identified by being not white.

White people have been prioritized in this pandemic. It’s just taken as the norm. It IS the norm.

They were not. What an utterly pants-on-head thing to say. Vermont had a policy specifically prioritising BIPOC people and you claim that in this pandemic, it is white people being prioritised. You live in upside-down land. I wonder what that does to your blood pressure?

And you’re just fine with that so long as no one says the white part out loud.

Got it.

What you've "got", Toni, is a relentlessly deranged worldview and a mania for dog-whistle insinuations.

You are making broad and uninformed declarations about a country you’ve never set foot in—and I’m delusional.

Sure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

No.

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

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


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

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

1) Age is far more of a risk factor. That is the reason I was objecting to it--people should be vaccinated in risk order.

2) Nobody has provided any evidence that race isn't simply a proxy for job exposure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

No.

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

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

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

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

You can't make a perfect determination of risk. I think the policy here of prioritizing retail workers was a better approach than their approach of prioritizing BIPOC, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

However, you would be wrong. Black people in Vermont were many, many, many times more likely to contract COVID and were several times more likely to require hospitalization than were white people. Please see my earlier posts for links to the data.

2 isn't "many, many".