Vermont prioritises BIPOC over white people for COVID-19 vaccine

[Emily Lake]

And why would you think that statistics for the state that is 97% would yield optimistic estimates for the BIPOC (3%) population?

My point was that 1) prioritizing vaccines on the basis of vulnerability, even if using a proxy variable like race, is an eminently reasonable thing to do and 2) pretty much useless in Vermont where NONE of the populations were particularly vulnerable with respect the the variances seen across the US as a whole.

Except your 2) is an assumption not a fact.

But that doesn't hold true in Vermont.

pretty much useless in Vermont where NONE of the populations were particularly vulnerable

Pardon me, but what makes you an expert on the circumstances of BIPOC, in Vermont, at the depths of the C19 recession? Such an expert that you can mind read the health department authorities, and decide that they're virtue signalling?

The problem is that you're arguing against success. Whatever failures you think they have, they're way out in the lead in vaccination rates. Given that demonstrable data, somebody is gonna have to come up with some serious data demonstrating that their policy was a mistake before I will take that claim seriously.
Tom

Egads. Whatever. If it makes you feel all fuzzy inside to assume that Vermont's lead in vaccination rates is all a result of them prioritizing all 20,000 of the BIPOC residents of that state, then jump to it. I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with it being a geographically small area with the second lowest population in the US. Nope. It's totally because they prioritized BIPOC people.

That's also why Oregon, the only other state to prioritize on the basis of race, is #2, right? Right?

 

[Emily Lake]

Look - I don't give a crap that some states prioritized by race. I generally tend to oppose anything that preferentially divvies up social goods on the basis of race... but for vaccines I don't care. Many states used other metrics of social vulnerability to prioritize locations and outreach for vaccinations. All of those social vulnerability indices are correlated with both age and race, so it's all just fancy terms for "who is most at risk - let's try extra hard to get them vaccinated".

I am, however, frustrated by this discussion. I'm frustrated by Metaphor refusing to give ground to basic common sense on this one, despite principles. And I'm frustrated by several other people somehow assuming that Vermont's prioritization schema is the sole reason for the high vaccination rates in that state, despite the fact that they only have about 20,000 BIPOC people in total! FFS, you could send a cadre of nurses to their houses and have them all vaccinated by now!

And either way, the results by race in Vermont aren't exceptional. They've got a completely average rate of vaccinations for black people, better than average for hispanics, and worse than average for asians.
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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



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



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



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.



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.

WOW. Talk about "grubby!"

Let's review your grubby comments. Here is what you wrote:

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

Once again, D's death rate did not change to 0 in isolation but instead with the change that the other group's death rates were multiples of C's death rates. Here is the version#2:

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.

The death rate of an individual in Group A is 1.3 times the death rate of an individual in Group C. Not D.

So there is no multiplying 1.3 by 0.

I very clearly based my response and mathematics on your original scenario. The scenario you mis-specified then blamed me for responding to and not mind-reading your hidden assumptions.

And then you mentioned when group D was changed to 0% death rate, which was in the edit and the edit contains multipliers by group C's death rates, not group D. Therefore, this is your misunderstanding and eventual mathematical error. There continues to be no such thing as 1.3 x 0% death rate. So just stop already. Wow!

 

[laughing dog]

But that doesn't hold true in Vermont.

pretty much useless in Vermont where NONE of the populations were particularly vulnerable

Pardon me, but what makes you an expert on the circumstances of BIPOC, in Vermont, at the depths of the C19 recession? Such an expert that you can mind read the health department authorities, and decide that they're virtue signalling?

The problem is that you're arguing against success. Whatever failures you think they have, they're way out in the lead in vaccination rates. Given that demonstrable data, somebody is gonna have to come up with some serious data demonstrating that their policy was a mistake before I will take that claim seriously.
Tom

Egads. Whatever. If it makes you feel all fuzzy inside to assume that Vermont's lead in vaccination rates is all a result of them prioritizing all 20,000 of the BIPOC residents of that state, then jump to it. I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with it being a geographically small area with the second lowest population in the US. Nope. It's totally because they prioritized BIPOC people.

That's also why Oregon, the only other state to prioritize on the basis of race, is #2, right? Right?

I made no claim about any of that. I simply pointed out that your conclusions were based on assumptions of fact not on actual fact. Without actual data on BIPOC incomes, etc... in Vermont, your conclusions are simply not validated by Vermont state statistics.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But that doesn't hold true in Vermont.

pretty much useless in Vermont where NONE of the populations were particularly vulnerable

Pardon me, but what makes you an expert on the circumstances of BIPOC, in Vermont, at the depths of the C19 recession? Such an expert that you can mind read the health department authorities, and decide that they're virtue signalling?

The problem is that you're arguing against success. Whatever failures you think they have, they're way out in the lead in vaccination rates. Given that demonstrable data, somebody is gonna have to come up with some serious data demonstrating that their policy was a mistake before I will take that claim seriously.
Tom

Egads. Whatever. If it makes you feel all fuzzy inside to assume that Vermont's lead in vaccination rates is all a result of them prioritizing all 20,000 of the BIPOC residents of that state, then jump to it. I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with it being a geographically small area with the second lowest population in the US. Nope. It's totally because they prioritized BIPOC people.

That's also why Oregon, the only other state to prioritize on the basis of race, is #2, right? Right?

No, after Vermont implemented this policy the disparity went from 13% soon up to 8% and recently it has been as low as 5%. If you look at somewhere like Georgia, though, the disparity remains in the 10% ballpark, perhaps like 13%, hard to tell exactly from a visual, but it seems like the old Vermont disparity.

 

[TomC]

If it makes you feel all fuzzy inside to assume that Vermont's lead in vaccination rates is all a result of them prioritizing all 20,000 of the BIPOC residents of that state, then jump to it.

I said nothing like that.
What I pointed out is that it's part of a winning strategy. If someone thinks it's a detrimental part, the burden of proof is rather on the claimant.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

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



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



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



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.



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:



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.

WOW. Talk about "grubby!"

Let's review your grubby comments. Here is what you wrote:

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

Once again, D's death rate did not change to 0 in isolation but instead with the change that the other group's death rates were multiples of C's death rates. Here is the version#2:

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.

The death rate of an individual in Group A is 1.3 times the death rate of an individual in Group C. Not D.

So there is no multiplying 1.3 by 0.

I very clearly based my response and mathematics on your original scenario. The scenario you mis-specified then blamed me for responding to and not mind-reading your hidden assumptions.

And then you mentioned when group D was changed to 0% death rate, which was in the edit and the edit contains multipliers by group C's death rates, not group D. Therefore, this is your misunderstanding and eventual mathematical error. There continues to be no such thing as 1.3 x 0% death rate. So just stop already. Wow!

I didn't re-do my analysis after your edit, because your edit completely changed the scenario. So just stop already. Wow!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

About 97% of Vermont's population is white.

There are some online statistics for Vermont here:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/VT

This report gives the following racial breakdowns:

• White (only) - 94.2%
• African American (only) - 1.4%
• Native American (only) - .4%
• Asian (only) - 1.9%
• Hispanic - 2%
• Two or more races - 2%
• White only (not Hispanic though) - 92.6%

One can infer that White Hispanic comprises some 1.6% of the population, which means non-White Hispanic is around .4%.

It's also one of the overall wealthier states, with one of the lowest rates of income disparity. So on the whole, BIPOC people in Vermont are unlikely to be poor, to be living in cramped quarters, or to experience the same degree of socioeconomic disparity as one might see elsewhere, and more likely to receive mroe equitable health care.

Based on the way you worded this, I could tell you were using the Gini coefficient. I don't think it is very useful in this instance of understanding a small subpopulation of the state. You really need a breakdown of multiple variables, like by both race and income to be sure. The percent of people below poverty line in Vermont in 2019 was around 10.2%. For example, see here:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205707/poverty-rate-in-vermont/
and here:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/VT/RHI125219

Now due to covid, that could have risen during the pandemic--it is unknown. It's possible in theory that no minority whatsoever lives in poverty in Vermont and it's also possible that 100% of them do because their total numbers are less than those living in poverty. The Gini coefficient doesn't answer this question.

Here is an online chart of that breakdown. It's from 2017 and so the overall poverty rate is slightly different. Even so, you should expect the disparities to be pretty much the same, not deviating too much:

https://www.welfareinfo.org/poverty-rate/vermont/

On the other hand, you are still making an inference here that poverty and healthcare are related. Perhaps you can tell us more about this because I believe you probably know a lot about that subject?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In my opinion, a general approach of prioritizing more vulnerable populations makes sense... but doing so in Vermont is pretty much virtue signaling, as there's little reason to think that the minority population in that state is materially more vulnerable.

This is a very weird assertion to have made considering that when the Governor had announced the change he had cited two statistics of differences, the greater unvaccinated rate of BIPOC (13% more of the BIPOC population was unvaccinated) and the greater risk of hospitalization--I don't have that statistic but it's something the Governor had said...Also, most recently Toni had showed that the (rate of) cases of African Americans were an order of magnitude higher and this debate has advanced to say that in such a case, getting African Americans to vaccinate would also be a benefit to everyone else. In any case, your thesis about virtue signaling seems in error since a lot of data was cited or at least it's superfluous considering it is reasonably explained by differences. I remain more interested in your thoughts about poverty still...because I find this very hidden knowledge about Vermont that is difficult to find interesting....for example, why are minorities way poorer in Vermont than Whites...this was unexpected to me.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I didn't re-do my analysis after your edit, ...

You posted an answer after the edit. Then, you still tried to multiply by D's death rate in commentary as a way to distract everyone. There remains no such thing as 1.3 x 0% IN EITHER VERSION. Stop making excuses!

 

[Metaphor]

You posted an answer after the edit.

I posted an answer based on your original scenario. That you edited the scenario while I was composing my response is not my problem. You also then had the hide to post a 'hurry up and respond to my edited post' post.

Then, you still tried to multiply by D's death rate in commentary as a way to distract everyone. There remains no such thing as 1.3 x 0% IN EITHER VERSION. Stop making excuses!

I will concede that I did not notice that in your edit, you changed the scenario to refer to multiples of C's death rate rather than D's death rate. Perhaps I was majorly distracted by the incredible implausibility of a million times susceptibility with a zero death rate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I will concede that I did not notice that in your edit, you changed the scenario to refer to multiples of C's death rate rather than D's death rate. Perhaps I was majorly distracted by the incredible implausibility of a million times susceptibility with a zero death rate.

Well, at least this time you didn't blame your errors on everyone else in the forum talking about racial segregation. I'll take what I can get. Baby steps.

 

[Metaphor]

I will concede that I did not notice that in your edit, you changed the scenario to refer to multiples of C's death rate rather than D's death rate. Perhaps I was majorly distracted by the incredible implausibility of a million times susceptibility with a zero death rate.

Well, at least this time you didn't blame your errors on everyone else in the forum talking about racial segregation. I'll take what I can get. Baby steps.

Um, no. You did not specify population intermingling and a dynamic change to infection rates for non-D populations. That wasn't my error, it was yours. I read your words, not your mind.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I will concede that I did not notice that in your edit, you changed the scenario to refer to multiples of C's death rate rather than D's death rate. Perhaps I was majorly distracted by the incredible implausibility of a million times susceptibility with a zero death rate.

Well, at least this time you didn't blame your errors on everyone else in the forum talking about racial segregation. I'll take what I can get. Baby steps.

Um, no. You did not specify population intermingling and a dynamic change to infection rates for non-D populations. That wasn't my error, it was yours. I read your words, not your mind.

Right...and yet you still figured out that D was the answer with the edit....and in the process you learned that the real world is bigger than your world.

 

[Toni]

But that doesn't hold true in Vermont.

pretty much useless in Vermont where NONE of the populations were particularly vulnerable

Pardon me, but what makes you an expert on the circumstances of BIPOC, in Vermont, at the depths of the C19 recession? Such an expert that you can mind read the health department authorities, and decide that they're virtue signalling?

The problem is that you're arguing against success. Whatever failures you think they have, they're way out in the lead in vaccination rates. Given that demonstrable data, somebody is gonna have to come up with some serious data demonstrating that their policy was a mistake before I will take that claim seriously.
Tom

Egads. Whatever. If it makes you feel all fuzzy inside to assume that Vermont's lead in vaccination rates is all a result of them prioritizing all 20,000 of the BIPOC residents of that state, then jump to it. I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with it being a geographically small area with the second lowest population in the US. Nope. It's totally because they prioritized BIPOC people.

That's also why Oregon, the only other state to prioritize on the basis of race, is #2, right? Right?

Well, actually it's more like 36,000 BIPOC persons in Vermont, according to the 2020 census.

The poverty rate in Vermont for Black people is 33.4%, 14.3% for Asian Americans, 17.9% for Hispanic people and 9.5% for white people.

Vermont's success in vaccination is quite possibly due in no small part to the fact that they recognized specific populations with a higher rate of infection and lower rate of vaccination and targeted that group. In this case, BIPOC, since that group lagged behind whites.

I wouldn't care if it were auto mechanics or left handed housewives or dock workers or roofers or redheads or people with blue eyes. It was a group of people who weren't getting vaccinated and who were getting sick (definitely a relationship). The right and the expedient thing to do is to prioritize that group for vaccination.

 

[Metaphor]

Um, no. You did not specify population intermingling and a dynamic change to infection rates for non-D populations. That wasn't my error, it was yours. I read your words, not your mind.

Right...and yet you still figured out that D was the answer with the edit....and in the process you learned that the real world is bigger than your world.

D is always the answer.