4 ms·

> It's a shame to waste perfectly good medicine in a pandemic, but would we feel the same if he had not found anybody vulnerable who was available, and instead

> It's a shame to waste perfectly good medicine in a pandemic, but would we feel the same if he had not found anybody vulnerable who was available, and instead ended up vaccinating his own children, who are fit and healthy? If he'd made an honest attempt at offering it to vulnerable people first and couldn't find any takers, then I'd be fine with him giving it to his healthy children. > What if, instead, he taken the vaccine vial to Beverly Hills and called up the rich and famous to try and find someone who wanted to be vaccinated? That's worse, but I think it's unfair to offer these as the comparisons to what he actually did - offered it to first responders, healthcare workers, and finally the most vulnerable people he could find, all on his own time, money, and effort. > * But the motivation for the prosecution is understandable - a distribution policy exists to protect the equity of society, and bureaucracy is meant to be a guarantee of that equity. * Unfortunately, "equity" is a nebulous term here. The bureaucracy took one look at the list of names, saw a bunch of brown South Asian names and assumed this was unfair - why? Was their net worth written next to them? Could they have taken this step with a latino doctor and all the names were latino names - or with a black doctor? > a distribution policy exists to protect the equity of society Not really - the policy was exists in most places heavily favors the most vulnerable, not equitable racial distribution. There is some overlap between those two groups, for sure.

ivanbakel 6y ago
>I think it's unfair to offer these as the comparisons to what he actually did They're not comparisons. They are hypotheticals, intended to explore the range of possibilities that people would allow or oppose. If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. >Not really - the policy was exists in most places heavily favors the most vulnerable, not equitable racial distribution. I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness".
- valarauko 6y ago
  > If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. I agree that we must consider counterfactuals, but we can still only judge him by his actions, not hypothetical scenarios. Considering counterfactuals should help guide policy, not punishment. > I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness". So how do we determine a particular list of recipients was "equitable" or not? While I agree with the idea that equity should mean fairness, I would offer that unfortunately in America that notion begins and ends with "equitable racial distribution".

ivanbakel 6y ago

>I think it's unfair to offer these as the comparisons to what he actually did They're not comparisons. They are hypotheticals, intended to explore the range of possibilities that people would allow or oppose. If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. >Not really - the policy was exists in most places heavily favors the most vulnerable, not equitable racial distribution. I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness".

valarauko 6y ago
> If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. I agree that we must consider counterfactuals, but we can still only judge him by his actions, not hypothetical scenarios. Considering counterfactuals should help guide policy, not punishment. > I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness". So how do we determine a particular list of recipients was "equitable" or not? While I agree with the idea that equity should mean fairness, I would offer that unfortunately in America that notion begins and ends with "equitable racial distribution".