3 ms·

No, emphatically, no, our doctors and our health care institutions did not act to minimize deaths! See for example the distribution of vaccines which did not go

No, emphatically, no, our doctors and our health care institutions did not act to minimize deaths! See for example the distribution of vaccines which did not go to demographics in proportion to their risk. It is totally unimaginable to me that men would ever be prioritized over women even when they are 60% of the fatalities in the US with similar stats for long term hospitalization. I haven’t done the math, but that surely cost us thousands or possibly tens of thousands of lives. Instead, we get endless reports in the media about how the pandemic has been hard on women! I accept that it has been hard on women, but you know, it’s at been fatal to 50% more men! Could you imagine the reporting and response if the situation were reversed? It’s a similar story for distribution to other sub populations as well, and the same basic story over and over - health care in the us is subject to politics and the politics of the health care providers themselves, typically to the detriment of all of us.

Izkata 5y ago
> No, emphatically, no, our doctors and our health care institutions did not act to minimize deaths! Some tried, but yeah, mostly it's been suppressed by politics: The MATH+ protocol would've cut the death rate to about 1/3 what it currently is, but it isn't well-known because of artificial controversy over some of the drugs it uses.
btilly 5y ago
It is worth noting that your facts are basically right. Studies like https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31748-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... say that men die more than women do, and therefore targeting men first would have saved lives. Of course failing to target men more heavily was not as egregious as making it available to essential workers at the same time as older people to create more racial equity in who got the vaccine. Even though the CDC figures said that targeting older people first would have saved more lives, and even more minority lives. See https://reason.com/2020/12/18/vaccine-cdc-essential-workers-elderly-racial-covid-19/ https://reason.com/2020/12/18/vaccine-cdc-essential-workers-... for more on that topic. And, of course, a lot of people simply showed up, said they delivered for DoorDash, and got the vaccine. Knowing that nobody would check up on them. There is an element of sometimes ugly politics to this. :-(
- aplummer 5y ago
  Even in the abstract it says that hypothesis based on risk factors (which are accounted for in distribution) are the underlying cause of this distinction. As well, this is analysis after the fact, and not at the time of the decision making - totally different. So parent is emphatically wrong.
  - btilly 5y ago
    The article that I pointed to predated the vaccines by a number of months. So it is not analysis after the fact. The Reason article that I pointed to is at the same time as the CDC policy, and pointed out that other countries were adopting a different policy at the same time. Again not analysis after the fact. The grandparent comment is more strongly stated than I would agree with. But not wrong.
xf1cf 5y ago
This is correct but a little ranty. Men have consistently surpassed women in both suicide attempts and suicides (see upthread for statistics) but no one seems to care. This "why won't someone think of the women" politicking is all too common these days when in fact focusing on the highest risk group (teenage boys) would probably save more lives on an absolute scale. The same goes for COVID which has an outsized effect on men when compared to women. We are several decades away at this rate from getting our boys better help in school, mental health support, and other things that society seems to think they don't need.

Izkata 5y ago

> No, emphatically, no, our doctors and our health care institutions did not act to minimize deaths! Some tried, but yeah, mostly it's been suppressed by politics: The MATH+ protocol would've cut the death rate to about 1/3 what it currently is, but it isn't well-known because of artificial controversy over some of the drugs it uses.

btilly 5y ago

It is worth noting that your facts are basically right. Studies like https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31748-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... say that men die more than women do, and therefore targeting men first would have saved lives. Of course failing to target men more heavily was not as egregious as making it available to essential workers at the same time as older people to create more racial equity in who got the vaccine. Even though the CDC figures said that targeting older people first would have saved more lives, and even more minority lives. See https://reason.com/2020/12/18/vaccine-cdc-essential-workers-elderly-racial-covid-19/ https://reason.com/2020/12/18/vaccine-cdc-essential-workers-... for more on that topic. And, of course, a lot of people simply showed up, said they delivered for DoorDash, and got the vaccine. Knowing that nobody would check up on them. There is an element of sometimes ugly politics to this. :-(

aplummer 5y ago
Even in the abstract it says that hypothesis based on risk factors (which are accounted for in distribution) are the underlying cause of this distinction. As well, this is analysis after the fact, and not at the time of the decision making - totally different. So parent is emphatically wrong.
- btilly 5y ago
  The article that I pointed to predated the vaccines by a number of months. So it is not analysis after the fact. The Reason article that I pointed to is at the same time as the CDC policy, and pointed out that other countries were adopting a different policy at the same time. Again not analysis after the fact. The grandparent comment is more strongly stated than I would agree with. But not wrong.

xf1cf 5y ago

This is correct but a little ranty. Men have consistently surpassed women in both suicide attempts and suicides (see upthread for statistics) but no one seems to care. This "why won't someone think of the women" politicking is all too common these days when in fact focusing on the highest risk group (teenage boys) would probably save more lives on an absolute scale. The same goes for COVID which has an outsized effect on men when compared to women. We are several decades away at this rate from getting our boys better help in school, mental health support, and other things that society seems to think they don't need.