3 ms·

>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 abou

by 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
  You are taking that quote from Schmidt out of context which removes the nuance. He isn't simply saying, "let's give the vaccine to brown people". But if you are going to use the excuse to stop explaining yourself because we'll never see eye to eye than I might as well stop putting any effort into this conversation too.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    I encourage anyone who doubts it to just read the article. The quote is not out of context and is representative. Ctrl-f for "Schmidt." ETA: https://twitter.com/harald_tweets/status/1339212048471908352 https://twitter.com/harald_tweets/status/1339212048471908352 Harald Schmidt: "Vaccine campaign managers have typically paid more attention to the number of lives they can save than the demographic details of those lives. But Covid's outsized effect on people of color is injecting an element of social justice."
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    It's not out of context, and a great many people have observed the same. Here's Yglesias, not exactly known for right-wing takes: > You’re opting for a strategy that leads to more Black deaths and more white deaths than the “vaccinate seniors first” strategy, but deciding that it’s better for equity and this is what ethics requires. https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccinate-elderly https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccinate-elderly
    - scarmig 6y ago
      As a compromise, even "minority elderly first, then non-minority elderly, then the general minority population, then the general non-minority population" would be better than choosing to focus on essential workers just because they're disproportionately minority (which is valuing abstract signalling for support for racial justice over, you know, actual black lives).
    - slg 6y ago
      But this is once again removing context from the initial argument. The goal isn't to minimize Black deaths or even overall deaths. This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning. That is where the essential worker argument comes into play. "Mitigating inequities" is listed as one of three bullet points in one of three categories in the decision making process that favors essential workers. You can't remove that context and pretend it is the overriding factor guiding these decisions.

by slg 6y ago

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
You are taking that quote from Schmidt out of context which removes the nuance. He isn't simply saying, "let's give the vaccine to brown people". But if you are going to use the excuse to stop explaining yourself because we'll never see eye to eye than I might as well stop putting any effort into this conversation too.
- scarmig 6y ago
  I encourage anyone who doubts it to just read the article. The quote is not out of context and is representative. Ctrl-f for "Schmidt." ETA: https://twitter.com/harald_tweets/status/1339212048471908352 https://twitter.com/harald_tweets/status/1339212048471908352 Harald Schmidt: "Vaccine campaign managers have typically paid more attention to the number of lives they can save than the demographic details of those lives. But Covid's outsized effect on people of color is injecting an element of social justice."
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  It's not out of context, and a great many people have observed the same. Here's Yglesias, not exactly known for right-wing takes: > You’re opting for a strategy that leads to more Black deaths and more white deaths than the “vaccinate seniors first” strategy, but deciding that it’s better for equity and this is what ethics requires. https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccinate-elderly https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccinate-elderly
  - scarmig 6y ago
    As a compromise, even "minority elderly first, then non-minority elderly, then the general minority population, then the general non-minority population" would be better than choosing to focus on essential workers just because they're disproportionately minority (which is valuing abstract signalling for support for racial justice over, you know, actual black lives).
  - slg 6y ago
    But this is once again removing context from the initial argument. The goal isn't to minimize Black deaths or even overall deaths. This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning. That is where the essential worker argument comes into play. "Mitigating inequities" is listed as one of three bullet points in one of three categories in the decision making process that favors essential workers. You can't remove that context and pretend it is the overriding factor guiding these decisions.