Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[laughing dog]

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

No. That is the exact opposite of what I've been arguing.

No, it is not. It is a consequence of what you are arguing.

At each stage of its vaccine rollout, the grouping next most at risk should be prioritised. Relevant at the time Vermont made its decision, those groupings were "all people 40-49 who were not already eligible" versus "BIPOC 16+ who were not already eligible". I believe it chose the wrong grouping based on the overall risk factors of those groups (I suspect for political reasons).

Right, and if Vermont had chosen your preferred policy, a less at risk person in the more prioritized group would receive a vaccine before while a much more at risk person in the non-prioritized group man. That is a consequence of using groupings. You have admitted it. You cannot honestly deny that your preferred sequence of groupings means that a more at risk BIPOC 16+ would get a vaccine after a more healthier less at risk middle-aged white person.

One can attribute a political motive for any prioritization, including the putting the elderly first. But for some reason, you only think prioritizing BIPOC was political. Hmmm.

 

[Metaphor]

You cannot honestly deny that your preferred sequence of groupings means that a more at risk BIPOC 16+ would get a vaccine after a more healthier less at risk middle-aged white person.

Your framing was deliberately dishonest. You said:

you prefer the policy where a more at risk BIPOC 16+ does not get priority over a middle aged white person.

As if my preference was that white people at lower risk should be preferred to BIPOC people at higher risk, as if my preference was based on simply prefering white people. Your framing is grubby.

One can attribute a political motive for any prioritization, including the putting the elderly first. But for some reason, you only think prioritizing BIPOC was political. Hmmm.

Yes, I believe it's political, because I believe Vermont chose a lower risk group over a higher risk group, whether because they think the optics would look sympathetic, or because they believe the lower-risk group is somehow more deserving of protection.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

No. That is the exact opposite of what I've been arguing. At each stage of its vaccine rollout, the grouping next most at risk -

Full Stop. "At risk" of what?

Here are four choices and there could be more and they might not be mutually exclusive:
a. Getting it
b. Spreading it
c. Getting very sick from it
d. Dying from it

Note that depending on rates, getting it and spreading it choices may contribute to exponential growth and therefore may have feedback into other risks to other people.

 

[Metaphor]

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

No. That is the exact opposite of what I've been arguing. At each stage of its vaccine rollout, the grouping next most at risk -

Full Stop. "At risk" of what?

Here are four choices and there could be more and they might not be mutually exclusive:
a. Getting it
b. Spreading it
c. Getting very sick from it
d. Dying from it

Note that depending on rates, getting it and spreading it choices may contribute to exponential growth and therefore may have feedback into other risks to other people.

I would rate D and C highest priority outcomes. I would not rate B and A at all (in a statistical model to examine risk and provide a framework for vaccine priority), except for their effects on elevating D and C.

Unlike the grubby framings by some on this thread of my motives, I believe a COVID-reduction strategy should focus on reduction in suffering and death, with each human valued at 1. (Note that not all epidemiological models do this, with some models taking into account quality-adjusted life expectancy--e.g. a medicine that saves a 20 year old is more valuable than a medicine that saves a 70 year old).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Full Stop. "At risk" of what?

Here are four choices and there could be more and they might not be mutually exclusive:
a. Getting it
b. Spreading it
c. Getting very sick from it
d. Dying from it

Note that depending on rates, getting it and spreading it choices may contribute to exponential growth and therefore may have feedback into other risks to other people.

I would rate D and C highest priority outcomes. I would not rate B and A at all (in a statistical model to examine risk and provide a framework for vaccine priority), except for their effects on elevating D and C.

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

If you had to pick a group to vaccinate first, which would it be?

 

[Toni]

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

North Carolina and Vermont have nearly identical population densities.

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

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

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

Vermont and North Carolina differ in dozens of ways too.

So, you ‘called TomC out,’ huh?

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

 

[laughing dog]

Your framing was deliberately dishonest....

There you go again with these baseless accusations. Y

As if my preference was that white people at lower risk should be preferred to BIPOC people at higher risk, as if my preference was based on simply prefering white people. Your framing is grubby.

I accurately described a consequence of your preferred policy. It appears that consequence embarrasses you.

Yes, I believe it's political, because I believe Vermont chose a lower risk group over a higher risk group, whether because they think the optics would look sympathetic, or because they believe the lower-risk group is somehow more deserving of protection.

That someone with such an active and suspicious imagination
would not think that there was a political motivation to prioritize the group that has the highest turnout rate in elections is truly fascinating.

 

[Metaphor]

Full Stop. "At risk" of what?

Here are four choices and there could be more and they might not be mutually exclusive:
a. Getting it
b. Spreading it
c. Getting very sick from it
d. Dying from it

Note that depending on rates, getting it and spreading it choices may contribute to exponential growth and therefore may have feedback into other risks to other people.

I would rate D and C highest priority outcomes. I would not rate B and A at all (in a statistical model to examine risk and provide a framework for vaccine priority), except for their effects on elevating D and C.

Assume group A, B, C, and D. Group A dies at 1.3 times Group D. Group B dies at 1.2 times Group D. Group C dies at 1.1 times Group D. But Group D gets it at 1,000,000 times the rate as any other group.

If you had to pick a group to vaccinate first, which would it be?

It depends on whether your death rates are conditional or unconditional. Are your denominators the people in the group that gets the disease, or the people in the group?

For the avoidance of doubt, I ran through your scenario (using different less grossly unwieldy numbers for the sake of presentation, but with the same spirit as your scenario)

Each population has 5 million people.
The change of getting the disease is .0001 in pops A, B, C and 0.1 in D (1,000x more likely to get it in pop D)
Chance of dying if you have the disease is .13 in A, .12 in B, .11 in C, .10 in D
Total expected deaths (unconditional) per group A-D respectively: 65(A) -- 60(B) -- 55(C) -- 50,000(D)
Total death percentage: about 0.0012% of people in A-C die, while 1% of people in group D die.

Group D should be prioritised over A-C because of the total death rate risk

 

[Metaphor]

I accurately described a consequence of your preferred policy. It appears that consequence embarrasses you.

No: your dishonest framing of the consequence is what I find grubby. You framed it as if the policy I preferred was chosen on the race of the people favoured.

That someone with such an active and suspicious imagination
would not think that there was a political motivation to prioritize the group that has the highest turnout rate in elections is truly fascinating.

It's true I don't live in a country with voluntary voting, so it did not readily occur to me. Sorry that I was not sufficiently cynical enough for you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Assume group A, B, C, and D. Group A dies at 1.3 times Group D. Group B dies at 1.2 times Group D. Group C dies at 1.1 times Group D. But Group D gets it at 1,000,000 times the rate as any other group.

If you had to pick a group to vaccinate first, which would it be?

It depends on whether your death rates are conditional or unconditional. Are your denominators the people in the group that gets the disease, or the people in the group?

For the avoidance of doubt, I ran through your scenario (using different less grossly unwieldy numbers for the sake of presentation, but with the same spirit as your scenario)

Each population has 5 million people.
The change of getting the disease is .0001 in pops A, B, C and 0.1 in D (1,000x more likely to get it in pop D)
Chance of dying if you have the disease is .13 in A, .12 in B, .11 in C, .10 in D
Total expected deaths (unconditional) per group A-D respectively: 65(A) -- 60(B) -- 55(C) -- 50,000(D)
Total death percentage: about 0.0012% of people in A-C die, while 1% of people in group D die.

Group D should be prioritised over A-C because of the total death rate risk

No, I noticed you weren't getting it and so I changed it to isolate the issues. That way you would understand. Like > 20 minutes ago while I did not observe you in the thread:

You are wrong on probabilities of getting it. It is not static but dependent on the population that is sick with it.

So WAY more A, B, C, and D get it from group D while D is unvaccinated.

Look at the edit I made > 20 minutes ago. Understand why the answer is still D?

 

[laughing dog]

I accurately described a consequence of your preferred policy. It appears that consequence embarrasses you.

No: your dishonest framing of the consequence is what I find grubby. You framed it as if the policy I preferred was chosen on the race of the people favoured.

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

It's true I don't live in a country with voluntary voting, so it did not readily occur to me. Sorry that I was not sufficiently cynical enough for you.

On the contrary, your deeply cynical imputation of political motives for the BIPOC priority was truly revealing and makes your apology appear less than sincere.

 

[Metaphor]

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

What is the "it"?

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

On the contrary, your deeply cynical imputation of political motives for the BIPOC priority was truly revealing and makes your apology appear less than sincere.

I'm glad you noticed my apology was not sincere, because it was not. I am not actually sorry that I forgot voting was voluntary in the USA.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...Group D should be prioritised over A-C because of the total death rate risk

...

Look at the edit I made > 20 minutes ago. Understand why the answer is still D?

^
?

 

[Metaphor]

Assume group A, B, C, and D. Group A dies at 1.3 times Group D. Group B dies at 1.2 times Group D. Group C dies at 1.1 times Group D. But Group D gets it at 1,000,000 times the rate as any other group.

If you had to pick a group to vaccinate first, which would it be?

It depends on whether your death rates are conditional or unconditional. Are your denominators the people in the group that gets the disease, or the people in the group?

For the avoidance of doubt, I ran through your scenario (using different less grossly unwieldy numbers for the sake of presentation, but with the same spirit as your scenario)

Each population has 5 million people.
The change of getting the disease is .0001 in pops A, B, C and 0.1 in D (1,000x more likely to get it in pop D)
Chance of dying if you have the disease is .13 in A, .12 in B, .11 in C, .10 in D
Total expected deaths (unconditional) per group A-D respectively: 65(A) -- 60(B) -- 55(C) -- 50,000(D)
Total death percentage: about 0.0012% of people in A-C die, while 1% of people in group D die.

Group D should be prioritised over A-C because of the total death rate risk

No, I noticed you weren't getting it and so I changed it to isolate the issues. That way you would understand. Like > 20 minutes ago while I did not observe you in the thread:

You are wrong on probabilities of getting it. It is not static but dependent on the population that is sick with it.

So WAY more A, B, C, and D get it from group D while D is unvaccinated.

Look at the edit I made > 20 minutes ago. Understand why the answer is still D?

Your edit completely changes the scenario. It does it in a way that turns an already implausible situation (a subpopulation with a million times more susceptibility, and some non-zero factor of being a transmission vector) but then adds zero chance of death for the subpopulation. You also neglected to specify how much population intermingling there was and you neglected to specify the infection rate.

Now, what you appear to be saying is that population D should be prioritised, because of all the priority possibilties - e.g.ABCD, BACD, CABD....DCBA, ones where 'D' comes first lowers the total death rate overall because 'D' are no longer 'superspreaders'. That accords with my original principle, that getting it and spreading it should only matter based on how much it affects serious sickness and death from it.

Yes, in that scenario, it would be justified to prioritise D. In fact it might be justified to force a vaccine on them (even though the government forcing medical procedures on her population is generally among the worst atrocities a State can commit), if only because they could be used as a near-perfect bioweapon by an enemy State or non-State actors.

 

[Metaphor]

...Group D should be prioritised over A-C because of the total death rate risk

...

Look at the edit I made > 20 minutes ago. Understand why the answer is still D?

^
?

I posted my first response before that edit was complete. Otherwise, the quote function would have quoted your edit.

Please be patient as I also have to address grubby attacks on my character from laughing dog and Toni.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, I noticed you weren't getting it and so I changed it to isolate the issues. That way you would understand. Like > 20 minutes ago while I did not observe you in the thread:

You are wrong on probabilities of getting it. It is not static but dependent on the population that is sick with it.

So WAY more A, B, C, and D get it from group D while D is unvaccinated.

Look at the edit I made > 20 minutes ago. Understand why the answer is still D?

Your edit completely changes the scenario.

My edit does NOT completely change the scenario. Picking D first has the most impact to deaths in nearly the same way in both scenarios, you just did not think about it in version#1. You only applied D's properties to D, not considering any kind of interactivity which is a PRIMARY way humans act.

It does it in a way that turns an already implausible situation (a subpopulation with a million times more susceptibility, and some non-zero factor of being a transmission vector) but then adds zero chance of death for the subpopulation. You also neglected to specify how much population intermingling there was and you neglected to specify the infection rate.

Obviously. This is because I know you are going to get the point that your statement was incorrect regardless of specifying every parameter or not, some of which you left out.

Now, what you appear to be saying is that population D should be prioritised, because of all the priority possibilties - e.g.ABCD, BACD, CABD....DCBA, ones where 'D' comes first lowers the total death rate overall because 'D' are no longer 'superspreaders'.

Yes, in that scenario, it would be justified to prioritise D. In fact it might be justified to force a vaccine on them (even though the government forcing medical procedures on her population is generally among the worst atrocities a State can commit), if only because they could be used as a near-perfect bioweapon by an enemy State or non-State actors.

So what you just proved is that depending on other variables (some you did not even name) and because there are group interactions (not all completely understood or quantified), a group can and should be prioritized sometimes even if their death rate may be slightly less or a lot less than another group. You probably should have already known this. Consider that healthcare workers were pretty much in front of the vaccination line and it is not because their risk of death is greater than 90 year olds, but instead because their absence would have a devastating effect on everyone else. So, in conclusion, a better way to frame how to decide who to prioritize in vaccination is by risk to society and that of course includes death counts of various groups including the one being vaccinated but not necessarily merely just them but everyone else as well and not merely right at the exact time of vaccination administration either but over an extended time.

 

[Metaphor]

My edit does NOT change the scenario.

It changes it utterly. But in fact, you still haven't made it clear. Group D gets it at 1,000,000x the rate but do they then have a rate (as a spreader) similar to that multiple to other groups?

Picking D first has the most impact to deaths in exactly the same way in both scenarios, you just did not think about it in version#1.

No, it doesn't. In your original scenario, which is quoted for everyone to see, you said groups A-C had death rates as a multiple of D's. When you change D's death rate to zero, everyone's death rate is zero. 1.3 times zero is zero.

You only applied D's properties to D, not considering any kind of interactivity which is a PRIMARY way humans act.

Given all the continual bluster about how groups segregate themselves in America, and given you did not provide any information on group D as a transmission vector, I really had no other choice except to interpret it the way you wrote it.

Obviously. This is because I know you are going to get the point that your statement was incorrect regardless of specifying every parameter or not, some of which you left out.

No: You wrote a vague scenario, leaving out important details which I filled in in good faith, you then changed that scenario significantly and are now having a hissy fit that I read your words instead of your mind. No deal.

So what you just proved is that depending on other variables (some you did not even name) and because there are group interactions (not all completely understood or quantified), a group can and should be prioritized sometimes even if their death rate may be slightly less or a lot less than another group.

Of course I haven't named all the variables that might be relevant in your hypothetical. In fact, you didn't even tell me how sick people get from the disease in your hypothetical. Once infected, do all the groups suffer equally badly?

You probably should have already known this. Consider that healthcare workers were pretty much in front of the vaccination line and it is not because their risk of death is greater than 90 year olds, but instead because their absence would have a devastating effect on everyone else. So, in conclusion, a better way to frame how to decide who to prioritize in vaccination is by risk to society and that of course includes death counts of various groups including the one being vaccinated but not necessarily merely just them but everyone else as well and not merely right at the exact time of vaccination administration either but over an extended time.

So...what, exactly? Am I to take it on faith that Vermont prioritising otherwise healthy BIPOC 16+ led to fewer deaths overall than if they had instead prioritised otherwise healthy 40-49 year olds? I don't believe that and I have seen no evidence that that's the case.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It changes it utterly.

Be honest. It doesn't. In both versions, Group D impacted the other groups. You failed to even consider this which is very weird.

But in fact, you still haven't made it clear. Group D gets it at 1,000,000x the rate but do they then have a rate (as a spreader) similar to that multiple to other groups?

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

No, it doesn't. In your original scenario, which is quoted for everyone to see, you said groups A-C had death rates as a multiple of D's.

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

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

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

You only applied D's properties to D, not considering any kind of interactivity which is a PRIMARY way humans act.

Given all the continual bluster about how groups segregate themselves in America, and given you did not provide any information on group D as a transmission vector, I really had no other choice except to interpret it the way you wrote it.

So now you are making excuses for your mistaken thinking that you declared BEFORE I WROTE THE SCENARIO AT ALL. I wrote the scenario because you explained the incorrect way to measure risk. But it's everyone else's fault because evil leftists always scare you with segregation talk. That is the worst excuse you ever came up with around here and anyone can read your posts to see your errors before version 1 even existed.

Obviously. This is because I know you are going to get the point that your statement was incorrect regardless of specifying every parameter or not, some of which you left out.

No: You wrote a vague scenario, leaving out important details which I filled in in good faith, you then changed that scenario significantly...

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

... and are now having a hissy fit that I read your words instead of your mind. No deal.

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

So what you just proved is that depending on other variables (some you did not even name) and because there are group interactions (not all completely understood or quantified), a group can and should be prioritized sometimes even if their death rate may be slightly less or a lot less than another group.

Of course I haven't named all the variables that might be relevant in your hypothetical. In fact, you didn't even tell me how sick people get from the disease in your hypothetical. Once infected, do all the groups suffer equally badly?

And yet you still proved yourself wrong.

You probably should have already known this. Consider that healthcare workers were pretty much in front of the vaccination line and it is not because their risk of death is greater than 90 year olds, but instead because their absence would have a devastating effect on everyone else. So, in conclusion, a better way to frame how to decide who to prioritize in vaccination is by risk to society and that of course includes death counts of various groups including the one being vaccinated but not necessarily merely just them but everyone else as well and not merely right at the exact time of vaccination administration either but over an extended time.

So...what, exactly? Am I to take it on faith that Vermont prioritising otherwise healthy BIPOC 16+ led to fewer deaths overall than if they had instead prioritised otherwise healthy 40-49 year olds?

I don't believe in faith. You can try to prove or disprove that question, but personally I might consider instead what kinds of mathematical estimates they were making.

I don't believe that and I have seen no evidence that that's the case.

Depends on how you define evidence. Imagine you have two sides. You may have some facts that tend to support one side over the other. I'd call that evidence but not proof. For example, there were significantly higher case rates of African Americans. Another example: the lag itself which also reduced significantly. But for a proof, you need more than that.

 

[Metaphor]

Be honest. It doesn't.

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

In both versions, Group D impacted the other groups. You failed to even consider this which is very weird.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So now you are making excuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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