4 ms·

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 f

by 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.
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Well, what's reasonable? As my hardline progressive friends have pointed out to me, conventional medical practice employs racial triage in all sorts of contexts (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/take-racism-out-of-medical-algorithms/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/take-racism-out-o..., although I don't agree with 100% of their analysis), so you're right that this isn't new or unique. But it's a big problem despite being old! If you went to your doctor for a sinus infection, and she held up a little skin color chart to decide whether you're allowed to have antibiotics, nobody would struggle to identify that as unacceptable even if you had unimpeachable studies showing racial disparities in sinus infection rates.
- Latty 5y ago
  When we don't have enough of a treatment, we have to prioritise somehow. Are you arguing it was wrong to prioritise older people for the vaccine, for example? If you think that the metrics they are using are bad, make the case, but arguing that race should never be a factor is absurd when we know there are lots of cases where race massively changes your odds, just as with age. How much time and money that could be spent just producing more treatment is it justified to spend trying to make sure the exact people get the treatment? Maybe we can do better, but it being just racism against white people to ever take race as a factor is an absurd characterisation of that.
jollybean 5y ago
No. In State of New York being a person of colour is effectively a 'primary condition' towards the calculation regarding distribution of the more expensive antiviral therapies. On the same level as 'not having had a vaccine'. If you have had a vaccine, then you need to be 65+ and in very bad shape to get the antivirals. Without the vaccine you need to be a 'person of colour' or have several seriously mitigating factors, like Diabetes, Cancer etc.. Especially since there is actually no apparent physiological difference between racial response to COVID, and that it seems to be entirely 'health' related ... it's really bad. It's one thing to save the antivirals for those in 'really bad shape' - fine - but just define what that is, and don't use race as a crude proxy for it. While I think the study that is posted here is perfectly reasonable, and discusses mostly issues of perception, the racial approach to rationing healthcare services is worth of discussion and much more. I'm surprised it has not gone to the Supreme Court. We're 100% on the path to the Courts on this, and unless it comes out reasonable, there is going to be some serious existential problems in the Western World over this.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  The assumption is that the median person of color has poorer access to healthcare (go visit Jackson Park Hospital in Chicago if you don’t believe me) and moreover the Neanderthal genes in South Asians do predict worse COVID outcomes.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Yes I fully accept that Race is a crude proxy for access to healthcare. Also, Neanderthal genes are mostly Europe, not 'South Asian' - and even if there were some medically material issue, that's not what they are doing i.e. it's just all 'people of colour'. There are probably just as many White people who've had limited access to healthcare. Obviously, that still implies 'disproportionately bad' for Blacks, but nevertheless, large cohorts of others aka Whites. And so the policy is just unfair. I think it's better to give people a questionnaire about their medical history and go from there. In fact, I believe there's a 100% chance you could more readily identify those in need with just a few questions and measurements. Literally BMI, age, smoker, pre-existing conditions, status of healthcare insurance for the last few years, cholesterol, blood pressure and couple of very simple questions. Fill out that form, put it in the computer and it gives you back a score of 1-5 on the priority list for the local Hospital. I'll bet with just that data they could arrive at something considerably more accurate.

by Latty 5y ago

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.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

Well, what's reasonable? As my hardline progressive friends have pointed out to me, conventional medical practice employs racial triage in all sorts of contexts (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/take-racism-out-of-medical-algorithms/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/take-racism-out-o..., although I don't agree with 100% of their analysis), so you're right that this isn't new or unique. But it's a big problem despite being old! If you went to your doctor for a sinus infection, and she held up a little skin color chart to decide whether you're allowed to have antibiotics, nobody would struggle to identify that as unacceptable even if you had unimpeachable studies showing racial disparities in sinus infection rates.

Latty 5y ago
When we don't have enough of a treatment, we have to prioritise somehow. Are you arguing it was wrong to prioritise older people for the vaccine, for example? If you think that the metrics they are using are bad, make the case, but arguing that race should never be a factor is absurd when we know there are lots of cases where race massively changes your odds, just as with age. How much time and money that could be spent just producing more treatment is it justified to spend trying to make sure the exact people get the treatment? Maybe we can do better, but it being just racism against white people to ever take race as a factor is an absurd characterisation of that.

jollybean 5y ago

No. In State of New York being a person of colour is effectively a 'primary condition' towards the calculation regarding distribution of the more expensive antiviral therapies. On the same level as 'not having had a vaccine'. If you have had a vaccine, then you need to be 65+ and in very bad shape to get the antivirals. Without the vaccine you need to be a 'person of colour' or have several seriously mitigating factors, like Diabetes, Cancer etc.. Especially since there is actually no apparent physiological difference between racial response to COVID, and that it seems to be entirely 'health' related ... it's really bad. It's one thing to save the antivirals for those in 'really bad shape' - fine - but just define what that is, and don't use race as a crude proxy for it. While I think the study that is posted here is perfectly reasonable, and discusses mostly issues of perception, the racial approach to rationing healthcare services is worth of discussion and much more. I'm surprised it has not gone to the Supreme Court. We're 100% on the path to the Courts on this, and unless it comes out reasonable, there is going to be some serious existential problems in the Western World over this.

selimthegrim 5y ago
The assumption is that the median person of color has poorer access to healthcare (go visit Jackson Park Hospital in Chicago if you don’t believe me) and moreover the Neanderthal genes in South Asians do predict worse COVID outcomes.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Yes I fully accept that Race is a crude proxy for access to healthcare. Also, Neanderthal genes are mostly Europe, not 'South Asian' - and even if there were some medically material issue, that's not what they are doing i.e. it's just all 'people of colour'. There are probably just as many White people who've had limited access to healthcare. Obviously, that still implies 'disproportionately bad' for Blacks, but nevertheless, large cohorts of others aka Whites. And so the policy is just unfair. I think it's better to give people a questionnaire about their medical history and go from there. In fact, I believe there's a 100% chance you could more readily identify those in need with just a few questions and measurements. Literally BMI, age, smoker, pre-existing conditions, status of healthcare insurance for the last few years, cholesterol, blood pressure and couple of very simple questions. Fill out that form, put it in the computer and it gives you back a score of 1-5 on the priority list for the local Hospital. I'll bet with just that data they could arrive at something considerably more accurate.