4 ms·

> According to an email sent by a chief resident to other residents, Stanford's leaders explained that an algorithm was used to assign its first allotment of th

> According to an email sent by a chief resident to other residents, Stanford's leaders explained that an algorithm was used to assign its first allotment of the vaccine. The algorithm was said to have prioritized those health care workers at highest risk for COVID infections, along with factors like age and the location or unit where they work in the hospital. Residents apparently did not have an assigned location, and along with their typically young age, they were dropped low on the priority list. So, basically, whoever coded up the algorithm for personal COVID-risk forgot to take care of null-states for the location input. So much for all the outrage over selfish intent. Sure, it's possible that the admins purposefully created this glitch so as to have a reasonable fallback story in the case they got caught, but per Occam's Razor, I think it's much more likely it was a dumb, honest mistake.

root_axis 6y ago
The outrage stems from the fact that they doubled down on it after the problem was pointed out, this is what caused things to escalate to the level it did, which became a PR nightmare and resulted in them reversing their position. Heads should roll over this, not because there was a mistake in the algorithm, but because the leadership cannot be trusted to make correct decisions in the face of obvious errors.
- fairity 6y ago
  > The outrage stems from the fact that they doubled down on it after the problem was pointed out This might be the reason you're outraged, but most outraged people here don't even know the administration doubled down on their position. They're outraged due to assumed selfish intent. I think this assumption is wrong.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    Had they not doubled-down, and instead corrected the allocation error, we wouldn't even be reading about this. So, I'm not sure that it makes a difference if some people—hearing about their screw-up—are angry for the wrong reason. To be clear, I'm with you that this probably wasn't a mustache-twirling attempt to divert vaccinations from the frontline staff. But I don't think that it matters much, given the medical expertise we would expect from an organization like this.
faitswulff 6y ago
There are no dumb honest mistakes when it comes to putting people’s lives at risk. Engineering and algorithmic errors like this and the Boeing 737 max debacle are absolutely worth being outraged over.
- fairity 6y ago
  Agreed that society should be more critical of mistakes that put people's lives at risk. But, this decision scores fairly low by that measure. If I had to guess, 0.00001 residents would have died due to this error. There are many more attention-worthy mistakes to be critical of if this is the main concern. I think the real reason this story is getting attention is because people are assuming selfish intent. I think this assumption is probably wrong.
  - faitswulff 6y ago
    Residents are also frontline workers who would be some of the most effective in stopping the spread of the virus once vaccinated. Second and third order effects should have been considered in a well crafted algorithm. And your conjecture that it was not selfish hasn’t been proven, either.

root_axis 6y ago

The outrage stems from the fact that they doubled down on it after the problem was pointed out, this is what caused things to escalate to the level it did, which became a PR nightmare and resulted in them reversing their position. Heads should roll over this, not because there was a mistake in the algorithm, but because the leadership cannot be trusted to make correct decisions in the face of obvious errors.

fairity 6y ago
> The outrage stems from the fact that they doubled down on it after the problem was pointed out This might be the reason you're outraged, but most outraged people here don't even know the administration doubled down on their position. They're outraged due to assumed selfish intent. I think this assumption is wrong.
- function_seven 6y ago
  Had they not doubled-down, and instead corrected the allocation error, we wouldn't even be reading about this. So, I'm not sure that it makes a difference if some people—hearing about their screw-up—are angry for the wrong reason. To be clear, I'm with you that this probably wasn't a mustache-twirling attempt to divert vaccinations from the frontline staff. But I don't think that it matters much, given the medical expertise we would expect from an organization like this.

faitswulff 6y ago

There are no dumb honest mistakes when it comes to putting people’s lives at risk. Engineering and algorithmic errors like this and the Boeing 737 max debacle are absolutely worth being outraged over.

fairity 6y ago
Agreed that society should be more critical of mistakes that put people's lives at risk. But, this decision scores fairly low by that measure. If I had to guess, 0.00001 residents would have died due to this error. There are many more attention-worthy mistakes to be critical of if this is the main concern. I think the real reason this story is getting attention is because people are assuming selfish intent. I think this assumption is probably wrong.
- faitswulff 6y ago
  Residents are also frontline workers who would be some of the most effective in stopping the spread of the virus once vaccinated. Second and third order effects should have been considered in a well crafted algorithm. And your conjecture that it was not selfish hasn’t been proven, either.