Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[ZiprHead]

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…

Next he'll be complaining that people of color are being prioritized at the sickle cell clinic.

 

[Toni]

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…

Indeed.

 

[TomC]

Non: you are not understanding. This was all discussed months ago.

You're missing a crucial point. The authorities didn't have the luxury of time to do studies and parse data. They needed quick action. But there was next to no advance planning.

This is mainly due to the flat footed response of the the White House. The USA could have been planning for this years ago. The increasing threat of a pandemic spreading at jet speed has been recognized for a very long time. The Bush Administration formed a top level committee of experts to monitor for such threats and make advance plans, even for very unlikely scenarios.
The military does the same thing. They're constantly looking for possible threats and making plans for possibilities, even very remote ones. I'm sure that somewhere in the Pentagon is a computer with a continuously updated plan to counter an invasion from Canada.

Bush instituted the committee. Obama continued it. Trump eliminated it.(probably because he thought it smelled of Obama) That was the biggest failure of leadership during his whole term.
And it was a huge disaster for America.

Obviously.
Tom

 

[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.

We already know SOME risk factors, not all of them. Evidence is showing that some populations thought to be ‘safe’ are not safe. We are seeing a increase in COVID19 infections among school children in the US.

What is it that you cannot understand that Vermont prioritized a population that had demonstrated higher than average risk?
And it worked.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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…

Emphasis added.

Indeed. It's also true that because age is a proxy, it means that healthy 80 year olds had a place in scheduling ahead of 48 year olds who for whatever non-understood reason could be more susceptible to covid. The 48 year olds were being discriminated against based solely on the issue of age. The government had to make decisions based on group identity to basically save everyone.

Moreover, consider that when they told 75 year olds (or whichever old group) to schedule for vaccination, not everyone of that age group scheduled. So later on when 65 year olds were allowed to schedule based on first-come, first-serve, they took spots in line before 75 year olds... And then later when 45 year olds (or whichever group) could schedule, they may have been taking spots from 75 or 65 year olds simply because they had better apps or more knowledge about which phone number to call or whatever.

This means that if we're defining discrimination as giving one person a spot in line because of early scheduling release to a demographic ahead of someone else who is higher risk, then the age schedule itself was discriminatory. In order NOT to be discriminatory, they'd have to wait for 100% of 80 year olds to vaccinate before releasing scheduling to 75 year olds...BUT wait, there's more! They let 75 year olds AND 76 year olds schedule at the same time, but 76 year olds have greater risk! So they should have waited until all 76 year olds were vaccinated before allowing 75 year olds to vaccinate. Or maybe they could have looked at birthdays. Everyone born on MM/DD/YYYY should vaccinate before everyone born on MM/DD/YYYY +1 day.

Maybe in between each birthday release, waiting for people to vaccinate who were born on X day, they should also do scientific research so they could determine what is the true root cause of differences in outcome since age was just a proxy.

That would be efficient!

The OTHER interesting thing about the immediate need of the policy was that there was lag in getting BIPOC persons vaccinated and many were not getting vaccinated at all. Because they were incrementally allowing each age group to schedule appts with vaccine, this means that one subpopulation of BIPOC people who were unvaccinated were OLDER than the remaining White people who were unscheduled for vaccine. So, like, for example, suppose 40% of greater than 48 year old Whites had been vaccinated, then maybe something like 20% of greater than 48 year old BIPOCs had been vaccinated with one dose. So when they released scheduling to the next age group, way more older BIPOCs remained unvaccinated than older Whites and the younger group of Whites was getting scheduled before both groups.

Metaphor chooses not to complain about this, but only focus on the single case of younger BIPOCs and older Whites. BUT for whatever reason once they allowed all BIPOCs to schedule it started closing the gap of all BIPOCS, meaning older BIPOCS were also getting scheduled. How could that be?
--could it be that once the government announced this, it helped to solve the issue of distrust of the government and reduced vaccine hesitancy?
--could it be that younger minorities when they take a day off to get vaccinated, also tended to schedule their older generation parent/grandparent for concurrent vaccination?
--is it that as the younger generation went to get vaccinated, there was a transfer of knowledge--an education about the vaccine and debunking conspiracies about government etc?

For whatever reason Metaphor wants to look at a single group member versus some other single group member ONLY in this last instance when all the decisions are based on the same goals--decreasing risk under a tight schedule while not completely understanding all the biological factors. Vermont's goal was to maximize vaccinations across demographic groups in such a way as there would not be pockets or clusters of virus spread.

The future massive deaths of White people will not be because of Vermont...it will be because of some other state or in some other country...because Vermont did its job. And they did it very well.

 

[Metaphor]

Nonsense. There are plenty of elderly people who did not die of COVID.

I don't know in what universe anything I've written would imply otherwise.

It is merely a proxy for other risk factors that we haven’t had time to identify with certainty.

Age predicts hospitalisation and death even when all other known factors are controlled for.

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

No - I did not say the proxy of age. Age on its own is a risk factor.

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

Age is not just a proxy; it has its own effect. But yes: the State discriminating by age is substantially different to the State discriminating by race. Most everybody accepts the former and there is a good reason for it.

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.

Non. The State did not block the access of the vaccine to BIPOC.

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.

Yes, I'm outraged that the State discriminated by race when it distributed life-saving bennies over which it had exclusive control.

 

[Metaphor]

Indeed. It's also true that because age is a proxy, it means that healthy 80 year olds had a place in scheduling ahead of 48 year olds who for whatever non-understood reason could be more susceptible to covid.

There are non-understood reasons for COVID susceptibility, but important ones were identified early - for example age, diabetes and obesity.

The 48 year olds were being discriminated against based solely on the issue of age. The government had to make decisions based on group identity to basically save everyone.

Age is not just a proxy: there is a continuous effect of age on sickness and death. But, if it still accounted for variance after the known factors were controlled for (e.g. diabetes and obesity--it does), then there would be a case to continue to use it.

Moreover, consider that when they told 75 year olds (or whichever old group) to schedule for vaccination, not everyone of that age group scheduled. So later on when 65 year olds were allowed to schedule based on first-come, first-serve, they took spots in line before 75 year olds... And then later when 45 year olds (or whichever group) could schedule, they may have been taking spots from 75 or 65 year olds simply because they had better apps or more knowledge about which phone number to call or whatever.

Yes. There's nothing wrong with people who had an exclusive window at access to life-saving bennies waiting when the window becomes less exclusives and includes other people.

Also, I'm not privy to the specific details of Vermont's booking system. It is possible that clinics in Vermont still further triaged eligible people within clinic booking systems.

This means that if we're defining discrimination as giving one person a spot in line because of early scheduling release to a demographic ahead of someone else who is higher risk, then the age schedule itself was discriminatory. In order NOT to be discriminatory, they'd have to wait for 100% of 80 year olds to vaccinate before releasing scheduling to 75 year olds...BUT wait, there's more! They let 75 year olds AND 76 year olds schedule at the same time, but 76 year olds have greater risk! So they should have waited until all 76 year olds were vaccinated before allowing 75 year olds to vaccinate. Or maybe they could have looked at birthdays. Everyone born on MM/DD/YYYY should vaccinate before everyone born on MM/DD/YYYY +1 day.

Age does indeed have a continuous effect, but logistics imposes practical limits on triaging people by continuous age.

The OTHER interesting thing about the immediate need of the policy was that there was lag in getting BIPOC persons vaccinated and many were not getting vaccinated at all. Because they were incrementally allowing each age group to schedule appts with vaccine, this means that one subpopulation of BIPOC people who were unvaccinated were OLDER than the remaining White people who were unscheduled for vaccine. So, like, for example, suppose 40% of greater than 48 year old Whites had been vaccinated, then maybe something like 20% of greater than 48 year old BIPOCs had been vaccinated with one dose. So when they released scheduling to the next age group, way more older BIPOCs remained unvaccinated than older Whites and the younger group of Whites was getting scheduled before both groups.

But the State was not blocking BIPOC people from getting vaccinated.

Metaphor chooses not to complain about this, but only focus on the single case of younger BIPOCs and older Whites. BUT for whatever reason once they allowed all BIPOCs to schedule it started closing the gap of all BIPOCS, meaning older BIPOCS were also getting scheduled. How could that be?
--could it be that once the government announced this, it helped to solve the issue of distrust of the government and reduced vaccine hesitancy?

I can't help but think that you would not approve of a race-based priority for white people, if they were more likely to believe in vaccine conspiracy theories and therefore needed extra persuasion for their hesitancy.

--could it be that younger minorities when they take a day off to get vaccinated, also tended to schedule their older generation parent/grandparent for concurrent vaccination?
--is it that as the younger generation went to get vaccinated, there was a transfer of knowledge--an education about the vaccine and debunking conspiracies about government etc?

Wouldn't all those reasons apply to people of any race?

For whatever reason Metaphor wants to look at a single group member versus some other single group member ONLY in this last instance when all the decisions are based on the same goals--decreasing risk under a tight schedule while not completely understanding all the biological factors. Vermont's goal was to maximize vaccinations across demographic groups in such a way as there would not be pockets or clusters of virus spread.

The future massive deaths of White people will not be because of Vermont...it will be because of some other state or in some other country...because Vermont did its job. And they did it very well.

I did not criticise Vermont's overall vaccine administration. It had a good foundation to do well. It's a wealthy state with high public expenditure and a smaller land footprint than other states. Vermont did what 99% of other States did--prioritised age groups and frontline workers and people with known health conditions that directly affect COVID sickness and death. But Vermont also did something that only one other state (Oregon) did - discriminate by race. And the State discriminating by race strikes many people as fundamentally suspect.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Toni]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Metaphor]

What is it that you cannot understand that Vermont prioritized a population that had demonstrated higher than average risk?
And it worked.

Non. You have not shown evidence that Vermont prioritized a population that had demonstrated higher than average risk when known factors were held constant.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Of course I did not have and do not have any kind of problem with priority groups, as I've already said a dozen times.

You might as well say it's a double standard to object to putting people whose last name has exactly seven letters in a priority group, while approving of age-based priority groups.

The evidence for age-based vaccine priority was unmistakeable and clear and every vaccine distribution strategy in the world has included it. On the other hand, the effect of race appears to be of a similar magnitude as the effect of sex - yet nobody prioritised men over women. And, inexplicably, Asians were included in the race group, even though Asians were either less likely or had the same likelihood of COVID sickness and death. The history of the State discriminating by age is far less chequered and has far more widespread moral acceptance than the State discriminating by race.

 

[untermensche]

So they did good.

Just not good enough for you.

 

[Elixir]

So they did good.

Just not good enough for you.

And better than anyone else by some relevant metrics. But...
"Waaaaa!"

 

[Metaphor]

So they did good.

Just not good enough for you.

Vermont's discrimination by race was not justified.

 

[Metaphor]

So they did good.

Just not good enough for you.

And better than anyone else by some relevant metrics. But...
"Waaaaa!"

Vermont's discrimination by race was not justified.

 

[Rhea]

Vermont's discrimination by race was not justified.

You’ve been shown evidence that it was. You don’t like the conclusion - one that matches the same “discrimination” used for age, and you’ve tried to argue special cases and excuses for why it is not the same, including asking if we can prove dark skin causes higher risk without relying on correlation, when you accept that age causes higher risk with only correlation.

The facts remain, it was a choice warranted by the medical goals and the data available, and Vermont did an exemplary job of getting nearly their entire population vaccinated faster than anyone else while using this method.

That won’t change.

 

[untermensche]

So they did good.

Just not good enough for you.

Vermont's discrimination by race was not justified.

Says a few nuts.

 

[Metaphor]

Vermont's discrimination by race was not justified.

You’ve been shown evidence that it was.

No: it was not justified. And if it was justified on the evidence used - the higher mortality rate - then Vermont also should have prioritised men.

You don’t like the conclusion - one that matches the same “discrimination” used for age, and you’ve tried to argue special cases and excuses for why it is not the same, including asking if we can prove dark skin causes higher risk without relying on correlation, when you accept that age causes higher risk with only correlation.

Of course I accept the age correlation. The age association is many times stronger than the race correlation. The evidence for the age correlation is so strong and umistakeable I do not know of a single jurisdiction in the entire world that isn't using it.

The facts remain, it was a choice warranted by the medical goals and the data available, and Vermont did an exemplary job of getting nearly their entire population vaccinated faster than anyone else while using this method.

That won’t change.

"Using this method"?

Are you claiming that Vermont's discrimination by race was necessary and sufficient for its vaccine results?

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder what relevant aspects of Vermont's COVID response we should be taking lessons from. Perhaps it is "make sure you live in a low-BIPOC state with a white male Republican governor".

 

[Elixir]

Another conservo, trying to appoint him/herself arbiter of what is an what is not "justified" grounds for discriminatory prioritization of a finite medical resource's allocation.
It's not that they actually oppose such discrimination, only that they want to be the one saying whether it's justified.

Are you claiming that Vermont's discrimination by race was necessary and sufficient for its vaccine results?

No.
Are you claiming it had a negative effect upon it?
The numbers were given, right here in this thread. I'm no expert but at first blush they don't look to me like their method of allocating doses harmed their efforts to control the virus. In fact the effect was obviously small, positive, and makes it appear that the OP is just another manufactured right wing hissy fit.
Correlation is not causation, but exceptionally positive outcomes don't usually bespeak wrong decisions having been made.