[Genuine Realist]

None of these factors (and I don't quarrel with any of them) reflect governmental policy or the proverbial barriers. All of them reflect the cultural overhang I mentioned.


More than that, very few of them apply to that sizable fraction of the demographic that stands on the other side of the wealth divide. I'm not going to grant a preference to a wealthy minority resident of Atherton or Los Altos Hills simply on the basis of ethnicity. That is actual racism,

I wasn't saying they did.  I was just saying that they are factors that might result in Black and Hispanic victims of COVID-19 dying at a greater rate than whites.  If you talk about vaccinating the most vulnerable first, and your research finds that Black and Hispanic patients are disproportionately dying, and you can't find (or measure) the underlying factors that explain that difference, then you will either have to accept using race as a blunt proxy and realize that some otherwise lower risk people might inadvertently be given priority or accept that you will not give a bunch of higher risk people priority.

BC

BC,

At this point I'm going to appeal to your skill as a medical scientist, and then call halt. If there is no biological factor that accounts for the statistical discrepancy, then by process of elimination, we must be talking about socio-econometric factors. (Given the brobdingnagian number of persons who classify as ethnic minority, it would be amazing if there were any common factor.) You are getting a closer to the Universal Quantifier fallacy than I think you would like. Acknowledging the apparent reality that a disproportionate number of minorities live or work in high risk environments does not mean that they ALL do - and, similarly, that a significant number of Caucasians and Asians (now a disfavored minority) do not. Thus, at the end of the day, the racial metric will lead to a quantum of arbitrariness that is likely to infuriate people who (rightly) see it as arbitrary and themselves as unfairly treated.

So how would I do it? I mentioned I-A (health workers), I-B (classroom educators), and I-C (persons who work in necessary but high risk jobs). If I haven't run out of early vaccines, I'll add a fourth, I-D, people who live in high risk zip codes. Santa Clara County breaks cases down by zip code, so I'll assume others do, too. I'm going to eliminate the disabled, except those with a linked vulnerability, and the zip code also eliminates the rural/urban divide, which was almost as obnoxious as the racial. If you live in a zip code in a rural area, but one with a low incidence rate, why O why do you get priority? (Other than that Newsom wants your vote.) Prisoners are out, because I can't look law abiding Californians in the face if I do that. More of that anon.

If, as I suspect, the high incidence rates in ethnic minorities reflects disproportionate employment in high risk occupations and residence in high risk areas, that categorization will provide an automatic preference arithmetically. I don't think anyone in the public could take exception to that, except the increasing number of nuts on Twitter.

Prisoners? If there is anything experimental or dangerous about first use vaccines, they are free to volunteer, with sentence reductions and parole dates moved up. You always reward courage. That's what I call paying your debt to society.

With that, enough. I'm done with the topic, unless someone comes out of the woodwork to take potshots. (Please .  . . stick to Twitter.)

[Genuine Realist]

None of these factors (and I don't quarrel with any of them) reflect governmental policy or the proverbial barriers. All of them reflect the cultural overhang I mentioned.


More than that, very few of them apply to that sizable fraction of the demographic that stands on the other side of the wealth divide. I'm not going to grant a preference to a wealthy minority resident of Atherton or Los Altos Hills simply on the basis of ethnicity. That is actual racism,

I wasn't saying they did.  I was just saying that they are factors that might result in Black and Hispanic victims of COVID-19 dying at a greater rate than whites.  If you talk about vaccinating the most vulnerable first, and your research finds that Black and Hispanic patients are disproportionately dying, and you can't find (or measure) the underlying factors that explain that difference, then you will either have to accept using race as a blunt proxy and realize that some otherwise lower risk people might inadvertently be given priority or accept that you will not give a bunch of higher risk people priority.

BC

BC,

At this point I'm going to appeal to your skill as a medical scientist, and then call halt. If there is no biological factor that accounts for the statistical discrepancy, then by process of elimination, we must be talking about socio-econometric factors. (Given the brobdingnagian number of persons who classify as ethnic minority, it would be amazing if there were any common factor.) You are getting a closer to the Universal Quantifier fallacy than I think you would like. Acknowledging the apparent reality that a disproportionate number of minorities live or work in high risk environments does not mean that they ALL do - and, similarly, that a significant number of Caucasians and Asians (now a disfavored minority) do not. Thus, at the end of the day, the racial metric will lead to a quantum of arbitrariness that is likely to infuriate people who (rightly) see it as arbitrary and themselves as unfairly treated.

So how would I do it? I mentioned I-A (health workers), I-B (classroom educators), and I-C (persons who work in necessary but high risk jobs). If I haven't run out of early vaccines, I'll add a fourth, I-D, people who live in high risk zip codes. Santa Clara County breaks cases down by zip code, so I'll assume others do, too. I'm going to eliminate the disabled, except those with a linked vulnerability, and the zip code also eliminates the rural/urban divide, which was almost as obnoxious as the racial. If you live in a zip code in a rural area, but one with a low incidence rate, why O why do you get priority? (Other than that Newsom wants your vote.) Prisoners are out, because I can't look law abiding Californians in the face if I do that. More of that anon.

If, as I suspect, the high incidence rates in ethnic minorities reflects disproportionate employment in high risk occupations and residence in high risk areas, that categorization will provide an automatic preference arithmetically. I don't think anyone in the public could take exception to that, except the increasing number of nuts on Twitter.

Prisoners? If there is anything experimental or dangerous about first use vaccines, they are free to volunteer, with sentence reductions and parole dates moved up. You always reward courage. That's what I call paying your debt to society.

With that, enough. I'm done with the topic, unless someone comes out of the woodwork to take potshots. (Please .  . . stick to Twitter.)