6 ms·

“We rationed medical care based on race, excluding elderly Whites from needed care based purely on race, and now they don’t trust us as an establishment.” http

“We rationed medical care based on race, excluding elderly Whites from needed care based purely on race, and now they don’t trust us as an establishment.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/race-based-covid-rationing-ideology/621405/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/race-based... Really? — being racist to people makes them distrust you? If only people had been screaming racism is wrong for decades — maybe even the same political party who advocated for race-based privilege in medicine.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tryptophan 5y ago
And people wonder why anti-intellectualism is on the rise... What do you expect when your "experts" spend their time on nonsense like this? Can't even count how many "science has proven white people are racist" papers I have seen over the past few years. Ofcourse there is no alternative perspective, because that would get you fired at a university.
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  I have a different interpretation: People are becoming more intellectual across a wider range of society — driven partly by how effective the internet is. What I see as precipitating this distrust in institutions is that people on average are more connected and more engaged and reading more information. So we see the fallout as parents getting engaged, informed, and organized to protest CRT; or young men getting engaged, informed, and organized over the heart problems caused by the second dose of certain vaccines. Which is why the response has been to censor community platforms like Discord, in an attempt to regulate the information flow. This is the debt of our intellectuals systemically lying to us, eg the persistent denials of CRT praxis or attempts to hide Pfizer clinical data, which shows the second dose causes elevated risk to the heart for young men. What we’re seeing isn’t anti-intellectualism, but pro-intellectualism challenge a lying orthodoxy.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > What we’re seeing isn’t anti-intellectualism, but pro-intellectualism challenge a lying orthodoxy. When you get to this point that there's just this big lying orthodoxy instead of complicated interactions, goals, realities, and that orthodox institutions like the NIH, Harvard, FCC, FDA, etc. are all just lying or something you throw the entire house out with the bath water. I see this in people who are inclined to believe conspiracies and those who are religious. There's always some "entity" that's "doing something" and we must "oppose/believe/support" that entity. It's a fear reflex that you're not in control. The list of entities is huge. CIA. "Wall Street" "Hedge Funds" "The Deep State" "Them" "The Other" "Liberals" "Moon landings" "Fauci" "FEMA". This is actually a strain of anti-intellectualism. You're not intellectual or empowered, you're just wrong. I do think people feel more empowered to be informed but we definitely have not developed enough social skepticism and responsibility. This is evident by people watching pundits like Tucker Carlson talk about US bioweapons labs and "believing" that this somehow matters even if it were completely true. You yourself make a clear example of this with your "heart problems" assertion, without the proper context about the risk of catching COVID, long-term health effects caused by COVID, etc. It's dishonesty couched in intellectualism. Let's do a simple exercise. Exactly how many people have died from heart problems caused by the second dose of "certain" vaccines? Meanwhile, the worst case in America is around a million excess deaths have occured due to COVID-19. Don't believe those "liberal" numbers? Ok. 10% of that number. 100k people. Compared to... how many have these so-called heart problems? You are completely failing at understanding risk and cost-benefit analysis. Completely. I have a very negative reaction to your post here because it's cynical and sinister and whether intentionally or not it undermines everything we have with no discernible benefit. The logical conclusion of your comments is something akin to burning down Harvard and the NIH and the SEC and replacing them with nothing and then pretending you are somehow "empowered" and "intellectual". You're not. All you've done is destroyed everything.
  - infamia 5y ago
    I think both you and the parent are both probably correct (from a US perspective) to varying degrees. There is less trust in institutions because information is more quickly and widely disseminated. Thus we more often see through attempts at dissembling and manipulation by large institutions (e.g. government, universities, corporations, etc.) that would have been quietly covered up in an earlier age. Simultaneously, some of our institutions are becoming increasingly invested in identity-based politics and more prone to intolerance and silencing dissent which breeds another layer of distrust and resentment.
- Latty 5y ago
  Maybe because people buy nonsense opinion pieces that twist the truth to try and imply experts spend their time on nonsense as described? What actually happened, if you read the sources, is a Catholic healthcare company set some wrong parameters when deciding who should get the treatment. No "woke left" racism against white people, a Catholic company that actively protests contraceptive use (about as far from "woke" as you can get) messed up, and then changed it as soon as someone pointed it out.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    Respectfully, no, you're the one who's been misinformed here. The Atlantic article describes a large number of independent organizations doing this, including at least three state health departments in Minnesota, Utah, and New York. New York in particular didn't change this even after it was pointed out, and still has published guidance (https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/12/prioritization_of_mabs_during_resource_shortages_20211229.pdf https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/202...) that "Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity" should be considered a risk factor for prioritization purposes.
    - Latty 5y ago
      Except the examples they give of absurdly high weighting are from the case I mentioned. It being a factor is not unreasonable, there are lots of risk factors for diseases and race is often one of them, clearly for COVID-19 age is an extremely important one. Plenty of diseases are much more common for certain races—it's imperfect as all indicators are, but that's hardly a new or unique problem.
      - oh_sigh 5y ago
        > Minnesota’s Department of Health used a scoring calculator that counted “BIPOC status” as equivalent to being 65 years and older in its risk assessment. That seems like an absurdly high weighting, and is from the article and is not from the specific case you mentioned.
      - 5y ago
vkou 5y ago
I didn't realize that all of a sudden, the primary overriding concern of Americans (and white Americans in particular) is total equality of access to medicine. I'm assuming all of these concerned people will now be lobbying hard for single payer, and we'll see it on both party ballots in 2024? Or is that a bit too much equality?
- FFRefresh 5y ago
  Not sure if that was an attempt at a steelman or a strawman, but I think you are missing critical distinctions for the group that you are addressing. People, in general, don't enjoy when powerful monopolistic entities directly ration access to goods & services based on immutable characteristics such as race. Groups not receiving the positive discrimination experience by said powerful entities will of course be frustrated. My read is the exact opposite on the group you are addressing: I would not expect the concerned people to be lobbying hard for single payer. Why would they want to give more power to an entity that shows it's willing to discriminate based on immutable characteristics such as race?
  - vkou 5y ago
    Ah, but rationing based on mutable characteristics, like how much money and access to professional opportunities that your parents were born with, and whether or not you grew up in a broken home[1], or whether you grew up in a redlined apartment with lead dust peeling off the walls is fine? [1] Because dad's in prison for a crime that the right kind of people get community service for. And he wasn't the right kind of person.
    - FFRefresh 5y ago
      I'm sensing a theme here in creating strawmen. My advice to you would be attempt to steelman opposing views. Attempt to find synthesis between your initial notions and the best parts of the opposing views. To answer you question at a high-level: Rationing based on things people have ZERO control over seems worse to me than rationing based on things people have SOME (even if a little) control over. And there of course will be a litany of hypothetical/real scenarios that we could drum up for each rationing strategy that shows people losing out (it's rationing, no matter what some people will not end up with access!). And highlighting one side of the costs doesn't immediately mean that the other side isn't more ethical.
boplicity 5y ago
Why are you quoting a random op-ed, as opposed to the scientific article linked in the OP? They have very different tones, arguments, and data.
- hanselot 5y ago
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  - PeePeePooPooMan 5y ago
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Details of how people highlight and act on Covid racial disparities in practice seems like important context for interpreting a scientific article about the potential effects of doing so.
Latty 5y ago
This feels like you read the headline and didn't even read the conclusion, and are just injecting another issue. This paper suggests when told that there are racial health disparities, white people felt less worried about it (as they felt less at risk), and so rejected control measures more. To take the bait a little and address the article you linked, calling a Catholic healthcare company that is actively against contraception the "woke left" pushing race-based treatment (that company claims they used an outdated set of metrics by mistake and changed it as soon as it was noted) is clearly a massive stretch to reach a conclusion the author wants. Looks to me like one (very conservative) company made a bad decision about how to judge need for a treatment, not some left-wing woke conspiracy to deny white people healthcare.
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  I brought up a second topic related to the first — the impact of the medical establishment focusing on racial disparities during COVID. I felt it was topical because the heavy focus on racial disparities led to other outcomes which also impacted the same ethnic group’s perception of events. If the context had been black perception of the same events, then I would have posted an editorial about how mandates caused distrust and comparisons to previous experiments on ethnic minorities. But that wasn’t topical this time.
wwfn 5y ago
- Latty 5y ago
  It's very clear to me, clicking through to sources, the author came into that piece with a conclusion and worked back to the data from their. The case they cite was instantly changed when pointed out, and the company said it was a mistake. This is a valid complaint to have, the way formulas and algorithms are applied (often opaquely) to important aspects of our lives is a real concern we should deal with, not just because of the potential for mistakes like this. Jumping from that to "the woke left want to deny white people healthcare" is more than an astronomic leap, when citing a mistake by a Catholic healthcare company that objects to providing contraceptives. I don't think blaming that on the "woke" crowd holds up to any scrutiny.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  The definition of racism until very recently was basically identical to “racial prejudice”. The alternative definition that requires systematic power over another group is a very recent and not the definition most commonly used by the general public now or historically, and by the way not even by highly educated people in universities in the past. The connection of that word with systematic power developed in the 1980s and beyond. That new definition is convenient for some people because it means that for example what would clearly have been racism by the old definition is not, when applied to the majority group using the new definition. This new definition is being taught to university students and lately even earlier than that. It has changed a neutral definition of racism that meant exactly “racial prejudice”, to one that is more useful for certain social aims of its proponents.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tryptophan 5y ago

And people wonder why anti-intellectualism is on the rise... What do you expect when your "experts" spend their time on nonsense like this? Can't even count how many "science has proven white people are racist" papers I have seen over the past few years. Ofcourse there is no alternative perspective, because that would get you fired at a university.

zmgsabst 5y ago
I have a different interpretation: People are becoming more intellectual across a wider range of society — driven partly by how effective the internet is. What I see as precipitating this distrust in institutions is that people on average are more connected and more engaged and reading more information. So we see the fallout as parents getting engaged, informed, and organized to protest CRT; or young men getting engaged, informed, and organized over the heart problems caused by the second dose of certain vaccines. Which is why the response has been to censor community platforms like Discord, in an attempt to regulate the information flow. This is the debt of our intellectuals systemically lying to us, eg the persistent denials of CRT praxis or attempts to hide Pfizer clinical data, which shows the second dose causes elevated risk to the heart for young men. What we’re seeing isn’t anti-intellectualism, but pro-intellectualism challenge a lying orthodoxy.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > What we’re seeing isn’t anti-intellectualism, but pro-intellectualism challenge a lying orthodoxy. When you get to this point that there's just this big lying orthodoxy instead of complicated interactions, goals, realities, and that orthodox institutions like the NIH, Harvard, FCC, FDA, etc. are all just lying or something you throw the entire house out with the bath water. I see this in people who are inclined to believe conspiracies and those who are religious. There's always some "entity" that's "doing something" and we must "oppose/believe/support" that entity. It's a fear reflex that you're not in control. The list of entities is huge. CIA. "Wall Street" "Hedge Funds" "The Deep State" "Them" "The Other" "Liberals" "Moon landings" "Fauci" "FEMA". This is actually a strain of anti-intellectualism. You're not intellectual or empowered, you're just wrong. I do think people feel more empowered to be informed but we definitely have not developed enough social skepticism and responsibility. This is evident by people watching pundits like Tucker Carlson talk about US bioweapons labs and "believing" that this somehow matters even if it were completely true. You yourself make a clear example of this with your "heart problems" assertion, without the proper context about the risk of catching COVID, long-term health effects caused by COVID, etc. It's dishonesty couched in intellectualism. Let's do a simple exercise. Exactly how many people have died from heart problems caused by the second dose of "certain" vaccines? Meanwhile, the worst case in America is around a million excess deaths have occured due to COVID-19. Don't believe those "liberal" numbers? Ok. 10% of that number. 100k people. Compared to... how many have these so-called heart problems? You are completely failing at understanding risk and cost-benefit analysis. Completely. I have a very negative reaction to your post here because it's cynical and sinister and whether intentionally or not it undermines everything we have with no discernible benefit. The logical conclusion of your comments is something akin to burning down Harvard and the NIH and the SEC and replacing them with nothing and then pretending you are somehow "empowered" and "intellectual". You're not. All you've done is destroyed everything.
- infamia 5y ago
  I think both you and the parent are both probably correct (from a US perspective) to varying degrees. There is less trust in institutions because information is more quickly and widely disseminated. Thus we more often see through attempts at dissembling and manipulation by large institutions (e.g. government, universities, corporations, etc.) that would have been quietly covered up in an earlier age. Simultaneously, some of our institutions are becoming increasingly invested in identity-based politics and more prone to intolerance and silencing dissent which breeds another layer of distrust and resentment.
Latty 5y ago
Maybe because people buy nonsense opinion pieces that twist the truth to try and imply experts spend their time on nonsense as described? What actually happened, if you read the sources, is a Catholic healthcare company set some wrong parameters when deciding who should get the treatment. No "woke left" racism against white people, a Catholic company that actively protests contraceptive use (about as far from "woke" as you can get) messed up, and then changed it as soon as someone pointed it out.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Respectfully, no, you're the one who's been misinformed here. The Atlantic article describes a large number of independent organizations doing this, including at least three state health departments in Minnesota, Utah, and New York. New York in particular didn't change this even after it was pointed out, and still has published guidance (https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/12/prioritization_of_mabs_during_resource_shortages_20211229.pdf https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/202...) that "Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity" should be considered a risk factor for prioritization purposes.
  - Latty 5y ago
    Except the examples they give of absurdly high weighting are from the case I mentioned. It being a factor is not unreasonable, there are lots of risk factors for diseases and race is often one of them, clearly for COVID-19 age is an extremely important one. Plenty of diseases are much more common for certain races—it's imperfect as all indicators are, but that's hardly a new or unique problem.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      > Minnesota’s Department of Health used a scoring calculator that counted “BIPOC status” as equivalent to being 65 years and older in its risk assessment. That seems like an absurdly high weighting, and is from the article and is not from the specific case you mentioned.
    - 5y ago

vkou 5y ago

I didn't realize that all of a sudden, the primary overriding concern of Americans (and white Americans in particular) is total equality of access to medicine. I'm assuming all of these concerned people will now be lobbying hard for single payer, and we'll see it on both party ballots in 2024? Or is that a bit too much equality?

FFRefresh 5y ago
Not sure if that was an attempt at a steelman or a strawman, but I think you are missing critical distinctions for the group that you are addressing. People, in general, don't enjoy when powerful monopolistic entities directly ration access to goods & services based on immutable characteristics such as race. Groups not receiving the positive discrimination experience by said powerful entities will of course be frustrated. My read is the exact opposite on the group you are addressing: I would not expect the concerned people to be lobbying hard for single payer. Why would they want to give more power to an entity that shows it's willing to discriminate based on immutable characteristics such as race?
- vkou 5y ago
  Ah, but rationing based on mutable characteristics, like how much money and access to professional opportunities that your parents were born with, and whether or not you grew up in a broken home[1], or whether you grew up in a redlined apartment with lead dust peeling off the walls is fine? [1] Because dad's in prison for a crime that the right kind of people get community service for. And he wasn't the right kind of person.
  - FFRefresh 5y ago
    I'm sensing a theme here in creating strawmen. My advice to you would be attempt to steelman opposing views. Attempt to find synthesis between your initial notions and the best parts of the opposing views. To answer you question at a high-level: Rationing based on things people have ZERO control over seems worse to me than rationing based on things people have SOME (even if a little) control over. And there of course will be a litany of hypothetical/real scenarios that we could drum up for each rationing strategy that shows people losing out (it's rationing, no matter what some people will not end up with access!). And highlighting one side of the costs doesn't immediately mean that the other side isn't more ethical.

boplicity 5y ago

Why are you quoting a random op-ed, as opposed to the scientific article linked in the OP? They have very different tones, arguments, and data.

hanselot 5y ago
beepbooptheory 5y ago
- PeePeePooPooMan 5y ago
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Details of how people highlight and act on Covid racial disparities in practice seems like important context for interpreting a scientific article about the potential effects of doing so.

Latty 5y ago

This feels like you read the headline and didn't even read the conclusion, and are just injecting another issue. This paper suggests when told that there are racial health disparities, white people felt less worried about it (as they felt less at risk), and so rejected control measures more. To take the bait a little and address the article you linked, calling a Catholic healthcare company that is actively against contraception the "woke left" pushing race-based treatment (that company claims they used an outdated set of metrics by mistake and changed it as soon as it was noted) is clearly a massive stretch to reach a conclusion the author wants. Looks to me like one (very conservative) company made a bad decision about how to judge need for a treatment, not some left-wing woke conspiracy to deny white people healthcare.

zmgsabst 5y ago
I brought up a second topic related to the first — the impact of the medical establishment focusing on racial disparities during COVID. I felt it was topical because the heavy focus on racial disparities led to other outcomes which also impacted the same ethnic group’s perception of events. If the context had been black perception of the same events, then I would have posted an editorial about how mandates caused distrust and comparisons to previous experiments on ethnic minorities. But that wasn’t topical this time.

wwfn 5y ago

Latty 5y ago
It's very clear to me, clicking through to sources, the author came into that piece with a conclusion and worked back to the data from their. The case they cite was instantly changed when pointed out, and the company said it was a mistake. This is a valid complaint to have, the way formulas and algorithms are applied (often opaquely) to important aspects of our lives is a real concern we should deal with, not just because of the potential for mistakes like this. Jumping from that to "the woke left want to deny white people healthcare" is more than an astronomic leap, when citing a mistake by a Catholic healthcare company that objects to providing contraceptives. I don't think blaming that on the "woke" crowd holds up to any scrutiny.
epicureanideal 5y ago
The definition of racism until very recently was basically identical to “racial prejudice”. The alternative definition that requires systematic power over another group is a very recent and not the definition most commonly used by the general public now or historically, and by the way not even by highly educated people in universities in the past. The connection of that word with systematic power developed in the 1980s and beyond. That new definition is convenient for some people because it means that for example what would clearly have been racism by the old definition is not, when applied to the majority group using the new definition. This new definition is being taught to university students and lately even earlier than that. It has changed a neutral definition of racism that meant exactly “racial prejudice”, to one that is more useful for certain social aims of its proponents.