4 ms·

> What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? ...the politicization of basic COVID precautions like

> What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? ...the politicization of basic COVID precautions like mask wearing The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for shut downs of pretty much all public spaces (including of red-coded protests), but then turning around and giving the greenlight to BLM protests as critical to public health. Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims.

slg 6y ago
>The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for hard shut downs of pretty much all public spaces, but then turning around and giving the greenlight to densely packed BLM protests as critical to public health. The BLM protests weren't the first protests since the pandemic started. There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests. I will also note that the BLM protesters were much more likely to follow basic precautions like mask wearing and only holding events outside when compared with the lockdown protesters. In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests. >Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims. I don't know what you are talking about here. Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives?
- scarmig 6y ago
  > There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests No. Public health authorities did not greenlight anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have. > In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests. Even if this were the case (I'm skeptical, so I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long as participants masked appropriately. > Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives? See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs... (non-paywall https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-essential-workers-who-should-get-the-coronavirus-vaccine-first-7093624/ https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e...). To jump to the bit in question, ctrl-f "Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death"
  - slg 6y ago
    >No. Public health authorities did not "greenlight" anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have. At this point, I'm not sure what you even mean about public health official greenlighting protests. Both protests were allowed to happen. Both had parts of protests that were preplanned and parts that weren't. Are you just talking about the comments Fauci made in an unofficial capacity? >Even if this were the case (I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long participants masked appropriately. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w27408.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w274... >See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs... (non-paywall https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e...). To jump to the bit in question, ctrl-f "Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death" That appears to be an argument about saving lives versus returning to normal. They aren't arguing that the vaccine should be given to people from diverse backgrounds just because. They are arguing that essential workers getting vaccinated is more important than getting the elderly vaccinated. They are simply noting the essential workers have a "high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers" which means they often aren't valued politically as much as other groups. Either way, they were only talking about recommendations that have no real power in deciding what happens with prioritization.
    - scarmig 6y ago
      > I'm not sure what you even mean about public health official greenlighting protests. I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this topic if you think public health authorities had similar stances on earlier protests and BLM protests. > https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w27408.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w274... Interesting. If corroborated, it indicates that as much as cases rose among protest participants, the non-participant population strongly decreased their willingness to engage in other, non-protest activities. Though presumably that would also apply to the non-BLM protests, which raises the question of why public health authorities said that the non-BLM protests would raise COVID rates among participants without also noting that they would decrease COVID rates among non-participants. > That appears to be an argument about saving lives versus returning to normal. Not really: > Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

slg 6y ago

>The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for hard shut downs of pretty much all public spaces, but then turning around and giving the greenlight to densely packed BLM protests as critical to public health. The BLM protests weren't the first protests since the pandemic started. There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests. I will also note that the BLM protesters were much more likely to follow basic precautions like mask wearing and only holding events outside when compared with the lockdown protesters. In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests. >Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims. I don't know what you are talking about here. Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives?

scarmig 6y ago
> There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests No. Public health authorities did not greenlight anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have. > In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests. Even if this were the case (I'm skeptical, so I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long as participants masked appropriately. > Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives? See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs... (non-paywall https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-essential-workers-who-should-get-the-coronavirus-vaccine-first-7093624/ https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e...). To jump to the bit in question, ctrl-f "Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death"
- slg 6y ago
  >No. Public health authorities did not "greenlight" anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have. At this point, I'm not sure what you even mean about public health official greenlighting protests. Both protests were allowed to happen. Both had parts of protests that were preplanned and parts that weren't. Are you just talking about the comments Fauci made in an unofficial capacity? >Even if this were the case (I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long participants masked appropriately. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w27408.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w274... >See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs... (non-paywall https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e...). To jump to the bit in question, ctrl-f "Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death" That appears to be an argument about saving lives versus returning to normal. They aren't arguing that the vaccine should be given to people from diverse backgrounds just because. They are arguing that essential workers getting vaccinated is more important than getting the elderly vaccinated. They are simply noting the essential workers have a "high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers" which means they often aren't valued politically as much as other groups. Either way, they were only talking about recommendations that have no real power in deciding what happens with prioritization.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    > I'm not sure what you even mean about public health official greenlighting protests. I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this topic if you think public health authorities had similar stances on earlier protests and BLM protests. > https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w27408.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w274... Interesting. If corroborated, it indicates that as much as cases rose among protest participants, the non-participant population strongly decreased their willingness to engage in other, non-protest activities. Though presumably that would also apply to the non-BLM protests, which raises the question of why public health authorities said that the non-BLM protests would raise COVID rates among participants without also noting that they would decrease COVID rates among non-participants. > That appears to be an argument about saving lives versus returning to normal. Not really: > Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”