[Genuine Realist]

No question that if things like zip code or income can account for the difference in mortality between Black and white victims of COVID-19, then we ought to use those rather than race.  However, my point is what do you do if/when you've accounted for every difference you can reasonably measure and you are still left with a healthcare disparity.  This happens rather frequently.  Yes, it is more likely than not a socio-economic difference.  The problem is that you simply can't measure every socio-economic factor that contributes to adverse health outcomes. 

If you are out of socio-economic factors that you can measure to ensure that higher risk patients get priority and the only thing left is the residual effect of race, you have a choice.  You can either ignore race, and accept that some higher risk people will not get priority or take into account race, and accept that some lower risk people will get priority.

BC

The problem is that the same issues of quantifiability and non-quantifiability affect other INDIVIDUALS - for in the end, race is only one more category - who are not of the preferred ethnicity, and are likely of equal vulnerability. (That doesn't show up statistically, because when you do racial generalizations, they get thrown into a much larger class so that the particular indicia are obscured.)

They become angry when you choose another similarly situated person over them on a racial basis, they see the decision  as arbitrary, capricious, and racist. And they are correct.

Better stick with the quantifiable factors.

[Genuine Realist]

No question that if things like zip code or income can account for the difference in mortality between Black and white victims of COVID-19, then we ought to use those rather than race.  However, my point is what do you do if/when you've accounted for every difference you can reasonably measure and you are still left with a healthcare disparity.  This happens rather frequently.  Yes, it is more likely than not a socio-economic difference.  The problem is that you simply can't measure every socio-economic factor that contributes to adverse health outcomes. 

If you are out of socio-economic factors that you can measure to ensure that higher risk patients get priority and the only thing left is the residual effect of race, you have a choice.  You can either ignore race, and accept that some higher risk people will not get priority or take into account race, and accept that some lower risk people will get priority.

BC

The problem is that the same issues of quantifiability and non-quantifiability affect other INDIVIDUALS - for in the end, race is only one more category - who are not of the preferred ethnicity, and are likely of equal vulnerability. (That doesn't show up statistically, because when you do racial generalizations, they get thrown into a much larger class so that the particular indicia are obscured.)

They become angry when you choose another similarly situated person over them on a racial basis, they see the decision  as arbitrary, capricious, and racist. And they are correct.

Better stick with the quantifiable factors.