Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster (/thread-20700.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster (/thread-20700.html)
Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Genuine Realist - 10-23-2020
I expect Trump to lose, and lose big, in a couple of weeks. But that is going to reflect his odious personality. The obsession of the Democrats with identity politics and victimization tropes that got them into trouble are still with us. Gavin Newsom, one of the True Believers, is headed straight for the iceberg.
Vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer apparently will be available in mid-to late November - pretty exciting. But they will of course be available on a limited quantities. California is one of five States that the US has required to submit detailed distribution plans, due today. Here's the full 84 page draft, if it interests you. Most of this is garden variety bureaucratese, although California's usual pain-in-the-a$$ insistence on its own review might be mildly controversial.
The disaster lies in the allocation plan. The first group, in the I-A class, is health workers. That is absolutely non-controversial. For my two cents, if I were emperor of the world, the I-B class would consist of educators in elementary and secondary schools that actually interface with students. It's imperative that we reopen schools as soon as possible. The kids themselves are apparently at low risk. If we vaccinate the teachers, we're well on our way to reopening. That seems to me obvious. This insight seems to have escaped the Governor.
(Digressing for a second, I'd also have a I-C group - those persons who are hands on with the distribution chains of goods and services that have kept the nation going these last six months. Biden disgraced himself by thanking only the Black women who did so. But the category actually relates to job classification rather than race, the insight that Establishment racists consistently refuse to acknowledge. I'd develop my I-C by looking to the employment rolls of Safeway, Raley/Nob Hill, other food processors and trucking companies, etc. and develop my preference off that. Based on my observations locally, that group is heavily weighted towards Hispanic, but I don't care. It's the job they did that that matters, and not racial origin. Duh.)
Newsom's I-B group, however, has nothing to do with education or gratitude for services rendered. Rather, it has to do with 'vulnerable groups' as Newsom's administration perceives vulnerability - and that is something of a wowser. It's hard to find a /pdf link, but here's the video stream of Newsom's press conference. Go out 11 or 12 minutes, when the stream shows about 47 or 48 minutes to go. You'll find Newsom's chart and comments.
After the non-controversial 'essential workers' (that's category I-A), the Governor proposes to allocate to vulnerable groups, in order of his presentation - 65 plus (already a problem), those with disabilities (bigger problem), racial and ethnic minority groups (no comment), rural populations (almost as bad), and . . . prison and incarcerated populations.
Let us start with 'people with disabilities'. I have a 32 year old daughter who is disabled, one of the joys of my life (her sister as well), and about whom I am extremely protective. That does not prevent me from thinking clearly. There is not the slightest aspect of her life that makes her more or less vulnerable than anyone else. There is nothing in the lives of any of her friends or peers that does. If anyone tried a lifeboat ethics approach to deny this group their rightful place in line, I'd be the first contributor to the lawsuit. But ADVANCING them? No. (Some do work in vulnerable employment occupations, as noted above. But it's the employment, not the disability, that provides the preference.)
Let us then move on to the piece de resistance, the preference for 'racial and ethnic minorities'. The mind boggles. You can't do that. You do not have to be a member of the California Bar for 50 years, as I am about to me. All you need to be is an eighth grader taking civics. You don't have to explore case authority. All you have to do is read the Fourteenth Amendment. You cannot condition potential life saving medication on a racial classification. You probably don't even have to go to 1954, and Brown. Even the Nineteenth Century knew better. But that stark, unadorned racism is just what Newsom has proposed.
To the extent the burden of contagion has fallen harder on these communities because they disproportionately occupy job classifications that are at risk, you respond by looking to the job classification, not race, as I mentioned above. You are going to look at two grocery distributors, both doing essentially the same job, both taking the same risk, and you're going to discriminate on the basis of race? Are you kidding?
Next is rural communities. Where the hell does that come from? You are entitled if you live here rather than there? (Let us not forget the problem of citizens who own vacation homes.) In terms of vulnerability, aren't people who live in urban situations exposed to more crowded conditions? Aren't they MORE vulnerable? To lawyer for a second, unlike race or gender, I don't THINK geographical residence is a suspect classification. So you don't have the straight litigation shot you do with race. But it is still amazingly, stupidly arbitrary.
And lastly . . . prisons. There is a kernel of rationality here, as there does tend to be overcrowding in jails and prisons. But I think it fails rather radically to the common sense perception that the vast majority of Californians who HAVE not committed offenses that have landed them in stir probably have a greater moral claim to the benefit than those incarcerated. Plus they are tax payers. I do believe there will be outcry on this point as well.
So how do you distribute this scarce resource in practice? After the three rational allocations based on employment category, I don't see any other way than birthday lottery. And this is obvious. The fact that Newsom and his cohorts actually think this system of out and out racial and social discrimination comports with basic egalitarian principles of this society shows how far they have strayed from the notion of a color-blind society. It's an aspirational goal, to be sure, never completely realizable in practice, but the North Star that should drive us forward. The various sins and failings of Donald Trump conceals the some of the real conceptual rot that has beset the Democratic Party in the last two decades.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Snorlax94 - 10-23-2020
According to the NYTimes Vaccine Tracker, the US has indeed contracted both Moderna and Pfizer for 100 million shots (which will provide only 50 million people each if 2 shots are required). Pfizer is slated to distribute the first doses"by December" and no date is listed for the Moderna vaccine, but I think it is late 2020 to early 2021. Novavax, which is in earlier Phase III, is also set to produce 100 million doses, but by early 2021. But you cannot go from this to "vaccines... will be available mid-to-late November."
1) This statement assumes both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will prove safe and effective. That'd be great if that turns out to be the case, but we don't know yet. The US government also had contracts with, for example, the Oxford Astra-Zeneca vaccine. And to my understanding, 3 of the earliest vaccine trials to reach Phase 3 have been paused (Oxford/Astra-Zeneca, Johnson & Innovio). So sure, hopefully, both Moderna and Pfizer will both prove safe and effective, but we don't know yet and we certainly can't assume this.
For context, Pfizer's plan is to report results after 32(?) people are positive for Covid out of their Phase 3 trial, and then they planned to look up who those people who (vaccinated vs. placebo) and announce preliminary results. 32 people! Are you ready to get injected with that much data?
I wouldn't recommend anyone -- not even my elderly parents -- accept a vaccine with so little safety data.
Incidentally, when the earliest scraps of preliminary data are released, get ready for Trump to demand the vaccines be authorized and distributed immediately, and when he is rebuked, I expect him to complain of being sabotaged by the Deep State.
However, I'm very glad the US government has invested in these companies to accelerate production even before we know if they work. I don't mind if we end up having wasted over a $1 billion on the Astra Zeneca vaccine, for example, because that was always part of the accepted strategy.
2) Just because you have a contract for 100 million doses by the end of the year, even if it proves safe and effective, doesn't mean you'll get 100 million doses. A contract doesn't guarantee there won't be supply chain shortages and production hiccups. It's like the contract Newsom signed for PPE, contingent upon the N95 masks getting certified. If they fail to get certified, great, you are off the hook, but you are still desperate. If PFizer turns around and says it'll take 3 more months to deliver that quantity and they still want the same amount of money, they have the leverage.
But assuming these companies can hit their production targets, I'd be VERY GLAD if they produce and deliver the vaccines even before they've been authorized to be used. Because that means the government can start distributing it.
3) Which takes us to distribution. Trump has said it's been handed off to the military, which has the benefit of being less political, less partisan, lifetime public servants with a competence in this field. But it doesn't mean things are going to go quickly and smoothly. I expect generally it'll take 1-4 months between "vaccines delivered to federal government" to "vaccine and all necessary shots, vials, supplies have been delivered to the end medical facility which is ready to give shots." Hospitals will be able to give their own employees shots very quickly, but it could take a long time before even a high-priority non-medical worker can make an appointment and walk in to get their shot.
4) On top of that, expect many many doses -- if people want them -- to just sort of disappear. Let's say doses are delivered to Santa Clara County for essential workers. Sure, doctors and nurses. But what about receptionists, security workers, janitors and accountants who work in the medical facilities? They'll all get shots. The US military is high priority to get shots, but what about civilian workers? There are a brobdingnagian number of civilians who work on bases. I assume they'll get shots too. And while the federal government is vaccinating soldiers, what about national guard, federal courts, postal workers? And while local governments are vaccinating police, firefighters and EMTs, what about dispatch operators, court clerks, librarians, airport painting crews...
Don't hold your breath. My personal expectation is -- assuming people want the vaccine -- assume the first 200 million doses (100 million people) will just disappear in government and healthcare at all levels. Then take where your priority should be among Americans, and assume they have to produce and distribute that much X 1.5. Then add 1-3 months for it to get to your local clinic and for them to be ready to see you.
But don't worry, we have the most competent federal government in the history of mankind, so I'm sure the process will go smoothly and incredibly transparently. Because if there's one word to describe the federal government during the last 4 years, it's competence and transparency, like with tax returns and conversations with Putin.
The sort of "good news" -- if 60% people don't want to take the vaccine due to a lack of positive data, they may may be available much, much more quickly because no one else wants it.
Or, if there is a high demand and there is a very long wait, by the time you can get vaccinated, there will be a lot more safety data.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Genuine Realist - 10-23-2020
(10-23-2020, 02:47 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: "Vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer apparently will be available in mid-to late November - pretty exciting."The issues of safety is dealt with by Newsom elsewhere in the plan, which I linked. It's different than the distribution method.
According to the NYTimes Vaccine Tracker, the US has indeed contracted both Moderna and Pfizer for 100 million shots (which will provide only 50 million people each if 2 shots are required). Pfizer is slated to make the first doses available "by December" and no date is listed for the Moderna vaccine, but my guess is late 2020 to early 2021. Novavax, which is in earlier Phase III, is also set to produce 100 million doses, but be early 2021. But you cannot go from this to "vaccines... will be available mid-to-late November."
1) This is only if the vaccines are "safe and effective." The US government also had contracts with, for example, the Oxford Astra-Zeneca vaccine. And to my understanding, 3 of the earliest vaccine trials to reach Phase 3 have been paused (Oxford/Astra-Zeneca, Johnson & Innovio). So sure, hopefully, both Moderna and Pfizer will both prove safe and effective. But each has said they won't seek EUA until late November. Pfizer initially said they'd release preliminary data in late October, but after complaints that they were acting irresponsibly, it is unclear when they will now.
For context, Pfizer's plan is to report results after 32(?) people are positive for Covid out of their Phase 3 trial, and then they planned to look up who those people who (vaccinated vs. placebo) and announce preliminary results. 32 people! Are you ready to get injected with that much data?
I wouldn't recommend anyone -- not even my elderly parents -- accept a vaccine with so little safety data.
Your statement assumes both Pfizer and Moderna will prove safe and effective. That'd be great if that turns out to be the case, but we don't know yet.
Which is incredibly short sighted
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - BrevinsBest - 10-23-2020
Aren't racial and ethnic minorities at a much higher risk of getting COVID? Just as frontline workers should be the first to get a vaccination, doesn't it make sense to prioritize groups that are at higher risk?
(10-23-2020, 02:06 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: I expect Trump to lose, and lose big, in a couple of weeks. But that is going to reflect his odious personality. The obsession of the Democrats with identity politics and victimization tropes that got them into trouble are still with us. Gavin Newsom, one of the True Believers, is headed straight for the iceberg.
Vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer apparently will be available in mid-to late November - pretty exciting. But they will of course be available on a limited quantities. California is one of five States that the US has required to submit detailed distribution plans, due today. Here's the full 84 page draft, if it interests you. Most of this is garden variety bureaucratese, although California's usual pain-in-the-a$$ insistence on its own review might be mildly controversial.
The disaster lies in the allocation plan. The first group, in the I-A class, is health workers. That is absolutely non-controversial. For my two cents, if I were emperor of the world, the I-B class would consist of educators in elementary and secondary schools that actually interface with students. It's imperative that we reopen schools as soon as possible. The kids themselves are apparently at low risk. If we vaccinate the teachers, we're well on our way to reopening. That seems to me obvious. This insight seems to have escaped the Governor.
(Digressing for a second, I'd also have a I-C group - those persons who are hands on with the distribution chains of goods and services that have kept the nation going these last six months. Biden disgraced himself by thanking only the Black women who did so. But the category actually relates to job classification rather than race, the insight that Establishment racists consistently refuse to acknowledge. I'd develop my I-C by looking to the employment rolls of Safeway, Raley/Nob Hill, other food processors and trucking companies, etc. and develop my preference off that. Based on my observations locally, that group is heavily weighted towards Hispanic, but I don't care. It's the job they did that that matters, and not racial origin. Duh.)
Newsom's I-B group, however, has nothing to do with education or gratitude for services rendered. Rather, it has to do with 'vulnerable groups' as Newsom's administration perceives vulnerability - and that is something of a wowser. It's hard to find a /pdf link, but here's the video stream of Newsom's press conference. Go out 11 or 12 minutes, when the stream shows about 47 or 48 minutes to go. You'll find Newsom's chart and comments.
After the non-controversial 'essential workers' (that's category I-A), the Governor proposes to allocate to vulnerable groups, in order of his presentation - 65 plus (already a problem), those with disabilities (bigger problem), racial and ethnic minority groups (no comment), rural populations (almost as bad), and . . . prison and incarcerated populations.
Let us start with 'people with disabilities'. I have a 32 year old daughter who is disabled, one of the joys of my life (her sister as well), and about whom I am extremely protective. That does not prevent me from thinking clearly. There is not the slightest aspect of her life that makes her more or less vulnerable than anyone else. There is nothing in the lives of any of her friends or peers that does. If anyone tried a lifeboat ethics approach to deny this group their rightful place in line, I'd be the first contributor to the lawsuit. But ADVANCING them? No. (Some do work in vulnerable employment occupations, as noted above. But it's the employment, not the disability, that provides the preference.)
Let us then move on to the piece de resistance, the preference for 'racial and ethnic minorities'. The mind boggles. You can't do that. You do not have to be a member of the California Bar for 50 years, as I am about to me. All you need to be is an eighth grader taking civics. You don't have to explore case authority. All you have to do is read the Fourteenth Amendment. You cannot condition potential life saving medication on a racial classification. You probably don't even have to go to 1954, and Brown. Even the Nineteenth Century knew better. But that stark, unadorned racism is just what Newsom has proposed.
To the extent the burden of contagion has fallen harder on these communities because they disproportionately occupy job classifications that are at risk, you respond by looking to the job classification, not race, as I mentioned above. You are going to look at two grocery distributors, both doing essentially the same job, both taking the same risk, and you're going to discriminate on the basis of race? Are you kidding?
Next is rural communities. Where the hell does that come from? You are entitled if you live here rather than there? (Let us not forget the problem of citizens who own vacation homes.) In terms of vulnerability, aren't people who live in urban situations exposed to more crowded conditions? Aren't they MORE vulnerable? To lawyer for a second, unlike race or gender, I don't THINK geographical residence is a suspect classification. So you don't have the straight litigation shot you do with race. But it is still amazingly, stupidly arbitrary.
And lastly . . . prisons. There is a kernel of rationality here, as there does tend to be overcrowding in jails and prisons. But I think it fails rather radically to the common sense perception that the vast majority of Californians who HAVE not committed offenses that have landed them in stir probably have a greater moral claim to the benefit than those incarcerated. Plus they are tax payers. I do believe there will be outcry on this point as well.
So how do you distribute this scarce resource in practice? After the three rational allocations based on employment category, I don't see any other way than birthday lottery. And this is obvious. The fact that Newsom and his cohorts actually think this system of out and out racial and social discrimination comports with basic egalitarian principles of this society shows how far they have strayed from the notion of a color-blind society. It's an aspirational goal, to be sure, never completely realizable in practice, but the North Star that should drive us forward. The various sins and failings of Donald Trump conceals the some of the real conceptual rot that has beset the Democratic Party in the last two decades.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - dabigv13 - 10-23-2020
From what I was seeing as of a couple months ago, Black and Hispanic people were two to three times as likely as White people according to their percentage of the population in Southern California to get covid and die from it.
Black and Hispanic populations have higher degrees of comborbidities in part due to the environment they live in, with worse food options and more pollution. Teasing all these factors out is difficult.
I agree that race alone is perhaps not the most important factor at play, but it should be one. Not sure how that wouldn't get tripped up in the courts though. Whatever ends up happening, I guarantee you that white, wealthy populations will end up with much better vaccination rates than poor, minority ones.
I am very skeptical of how this roll out will work. Even amongst health care workers, I imagine the distribution may be different depending on if you work at a large organization or university versus a solo practice. Big orgs will be able to look out for their employees more than solo practices and small groups. And as pointed out, it's not just docs and nurses, but the janitors and clerks and everyone else who works at hospitals or clinics will need vaccines too. As we saw with PPE when it was especially scarce early on, the distribution was anything but smooth and equitable.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - oregontim - 10-23-2020
Very relevant to this thread is another new thread, "Shouldn't need to be said, but here we are," which started today. The watchdog/safeguard entities we've trusted for generations are tainted. How do we deal with a vaccine when politics have been superimposed on the FDA?
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - fullmetal - 10-23-2020
The pharma companies are supposedly aware of this and will not submit vaccines for FDA approval until said pharma companies are confident in their safety and efficacy. Looks like they are going to have to police themselves...(and they are companies who answer to boards of directors and shareholders, but maybe they'll do the ethically and morally right thing in this once instance)
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Farm93 - 10-23-2020
(10-23-2020, 03:43 PM)oregontim Wrote: Very relevant to this thread is another new thread, "Shouldn't need to be said, but here we are," which started today. The watchdog/safeguard entities we've trusted for generations are tainted. How do we deal with a vaccine when politics have been superimposed on the FDA?Doesn't matter much which groups are prioritized thanks to POTUS45. Since POTUS45 has pushed pills and potions like a snake oil salesman this year, the number of people willing to take a vaccine as soon as it is available continues to drop. The good news is that more of the first doses will be able to the willing in the lower priority groups.
POTUS45's business savvy group identified the business risk and potential supply chain challenges of a vaccine, so they should get credit for that tactic. Though that silver lining in a history summary will be more than offset by the with very dark clouds from the handling of COVID overall (inconsistent messaging, deaths, disabilities, fiscal debt, job losses, business closures, erosion of USA global leadership in science, medicine and tech, etc.)
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Genuine Realist - 10-23-2020
(10-23-2020, 04:32 PM)Farm93 Wrote:Please leave off the Trump bashing, not that he doesn't deserve bashing, but in two weeks he's going to be irrelevant.(10-23-2020, 03:43 PM)oregontim Wrote: Very relevant to this thread is another new thread, "Shouldn't need to be said, but here we are," which started today. The watchdog/safeguard entities we've trusted for generations are tainted. How do we deal with a vaccine when politics have been superimposed on the FDA?Doesn't matter much which groups are prioritized thanks to POTUS45. Since POTUS45 has pushed pills and potions like a snake oil salesman this year, the number of people willing to take a vaccine as soon as it is available continues to drop. The good news is that more of the first doses will be able to the willing in the lower priority groups.
POTUS45's business savvy group identified the business risk and potential supply chain challenges of a vaccine, so they sjould get credit for that tactic. Though that silver lining in a history summary will be more than offset by the with very dark clouds from the handling of COVID overall (inconsistent messaging, deaths, disabilities, fiscal debt, job losses, business closures, erosion of USA global leadership in science, medicine and tech, etc.)
For several months. I have been reading how ethnic minorities are especially vulnerable - without the slightest explanation of why. I'm not aware of any medical characteristic that would account for that. To the extent that that is because there is disproportionate employment in service industries and others that result in more contact that is not desirable - but maybe necessary - in a pandemic, as note, you compensate by filtering by job category, not race.
Greater numbers of comorbidities? Ok, screen for comorbidities on some agreed upon scale. If you have two individuals in the same category, they rate the same. Disregard race. You do not immunize a young African-American because he is African-American, and ignore an older Asian or Caucasian because of race. That just won't do.
As I mentioned, this is basic Fourteenth Amendment stuff. It is astounding to me Newsom reached the point of a news conference without someone pointing that out. It demonstrates to me how deeply resort to racial classification (and the assumption that all of the inequities of this society are related to race) when the actual template is far more nuanced (and in my opinion, far more related to class than race.)
It's certainly possible to come up with some complex algorithm that factors in individual health profiles, employment, participation in the community, and so on, and rates everyone on a scale. But by the time you've done that, it'll be 2030 and all this behind. Better just to go with birthday lottery after your obvious priorities have been met.
(BTW, there is one other amusing piece of political correctness. That I-A category includes health workers and 'first responders'. In case you have a tin ear, that's code for 'police', the majority of first responders, who certainly should have priority, as the job requires them to meet and interact with all manner of people, willy-nilly. But Newsom could hardly prioritize police by that name in this day and age, so it's 'first responders'. Amusing.)
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Snorlax94 - 10-23-2020
(10-23-2020, 04:54 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:So presumably you are aware that regardless of who wins the presidential election on Nov 3, the next president isn’t sworn in until January 20.(10-23-2020, 04:32 PM)Farm93 Wrote:Please leave off the Trump bashing, not that he doesn't deserve bashing, but in two weeks he's going to be irrelevant)(10-23-2020, 03:43 PM)oregontim Wrote: Very relevant to this thread is another new thread, "Shouldn't need to be said, but here we are," which started today. The watchdog/safeguard entities we've trusted for generations are tainted. How do we deal with a vaccine when politics have been superimposed on the FDA?Doesn't matter much which groups are prioritized thanks to POTUS45. Since POTUS45 has pushed pills and potions like a snake oil salesman this year, the number of people willing to take a vaccine as soon as it is available continues to drop. The good news is that more of the first doses will be able to the willing in the lower priority groups.
POTUS45's business savvy group identified the business risk and potential supply chain challenges of a vaccine, so they sjould get credit for that tactic. Though that silver lining in a history summary will be more than offset by the with very dark clouds from the handling of COVID overall (inconsistent messaging, deaths, disabilities, fiscal debt, job losses, business closures, erosion of USA global leadership in science, medicine and tech, etc.)
So the Chosen One Trump — who has “done more for African Americans since Lincoln — and who knows — some people say he’s actually did more than Lincoln” — is president for at least 3 more months, which is most of the timeframe you are so worried about.
And also, I think your tone is just race-baiting. Trying to stir up outrage, anger, finger-pointing and race-based anger like a certain someone I saw on TV just yesterday. There is evidence that certain groups are more likely to get Covid, and more likely to die of it if they catch it. It’s a reasonable decision to prioritize that group for vaccination. You can disagree with the plan, I disagree with parts of the plan, but you then take it into the direction of stirring up race-based anger.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Genuine Realist - 10-23-2020
(10-23-2020, 06:08 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:Sigh. Make it January 20th if you will. How you guys are going to make do with an administration without Trump, I don't b know.(10-23-2020, 04:54 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:So presumably you are aware that regardless of who wins the presidential election on Nov 3, the next president isn’t sworn in until January 20.(10-23-2020, 04:32 PM)Farm93 Wrote:Please leave off the Trump bashing, not that he doesn't deserve bashing, but in two weeks he's going to be irrelevant)(10-23-2020, 03:43 PM)oregontim Wrote: Very relevant to this thread is another new thread, "Shouldn't need to be said, but here we are," which started today. The watchdog/safeguard entities we've trusted for generations are tainted. How do we deal with a vaccine when politics have been superimposed on the FDA?Doesn't matter much which groups are prioritized thanks to POTUS45. Since POTUS45 has pushed pills and potions like a snake oil salesman this year, the number of people willing to take a vaccine as soon as it is available continues to drop. The good news is that more of the first doses will be able to the willing in the lower priority groups.
POTUS45's business savvy group identified the business risk and potential supply chain challenges of a vaccine, so they sjould get credit for that tactic. Though that silver lining in a history summary will be more than offset by the with very dark clouds from the handling of COVID overall (inconsistent messaging, deaths, disabilities, fiscal debt, job losses, business closures, erosion of USA global leadership in science, medicine and tech, etc.)
So the Chosen One Trump — who has “done more for African Americans since Lincoln — and who knows — some people say he’s actually did more than Lincoln” — is president for at least 3 more months, which is most of the timeframe you are so worried about.
And also, I think your tone is just race-baiting. Trying to stir up outrage, anger, finger-pointing and race-based anger like a certain someone I saw on TV just yesterday. There is evidence that certain groups are more likely to get Covid, and more likely to die of it if they catch it. It’s a reasonable decision to prioritize that group for vaccination. You can disagree with the plan, I disagree with parts of the plan, but you then take it into the direction of stirring up race-based anger.
The point is Newsom.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Genuine Realist - 10-23-2020
(10-23-2020, 06:08 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:That is the sort of thinking that is killing the Left. Newsom proposed race-based preferences, which is flat-out unconstitutional for the most basic reasons. (I think you'd see that more clearly if the preference was given to Caucasian males on the basis of the amount of income tax paid.) Yet somehow you have managed to accept and even applaud that. Even more absurdly, noting the patent illegality is race baiting. (In your next post, I'll probably have become a White Supremacist.) But Newsom and his supporters here are the racists, for the rather elementary reason that they're creating an arbitrary racial preference. That's racism, pure and simple.(10-23-2020, 04:54 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:So presumably you are aware that regardless of who wins the presidential election on Nov 3, the next president isn’t sworn in until January 20.(10-23-2020, 04:32 PM)Farm93 Wrote:Please leave off the Trump bashing, not that he doesn't deserve bashing, but in two weeks he's going to be irrelevant)(10-23-2020, 03:43 PM)oregontim Wrote: Very relevant to this thread is another new thread, "Shouldn't need to be said, but here we are," which started today. The watchdog/safeguard entities we've trusted for generations are tainted. How do we deal with a vaccine when politics have been superimposed on the FDA?Doesn't matter much which groups are prioritized thanks to POTUS45. Since POTUS45 has pushed pills and potions like a snake oil salesman this year, the number of people willing to take a vaccine as soon as it is available continues to drop. The good news is that more of the first doses will be able to the willing in the lower priority groups.
POTUS45's business savvy group identified the business risk and potential supply chain challenges of a vaccine, so they sjould get credit for that tactic. Though that silver lining in a history summary will be more than offset by the with very dark clouds from the handling of COVID overall (inconsistent messaging, deaths, disabilities, fiscal debt, job losses, business closures, erosion of USA global leadership in science, medicine and tech, etc.)
So the Chosen One Trump — who has “done more for African Americans since Lincoln — and who knows — some people say he’s actually did more than Lincoln” — is president for at least 3 more months, which is most of the timeframe you are so worried about.
And also, I think your tone is just race-baiting. Trying to stir up outrage, anger, finger-pointing and race-based anger like a certain someone I saw on TV just yesterday. There is evidence that certain groups are more likely to get Covid, and more likely to die of it if they catch it. It’s a reasonable decision to prioritize that group for vaccination. You can disagree with the plan, I disagree with parts of the plan, but you then take it into the direction of stirring up race-based anger.
The crux of the argument is banal to the point of simplicity. You do not grant race-based preferences in this society without some compelling reason. (I am a big supporter of affirmative action in both college admissions and civil service employment, particularly police. I believe compelling state interests can be shown in those areas.) And it doesn't exist here. I have yet to see any study that shows an increased vulnerability on race alone. If the issue is occupational hazard or increased co-morbidity, you filter on that basis.
Newsom's plan is a microcosm of the Democratic Party's obsession with victimization tropes and identity. The unworthy Trump was the lucky beneficiary of that in 2016. He is so obnoxious the Party will likely escape the consequences in 2020. But those politics are killing it, and the moderate majority - that one that continues to believe that the goal is a colorblind society - will be heard from again. (Proposition 16, the one which would repeal Ward Connerky's 1996 initiative that banned racial preferences, is apparently failing rather badly, despite all sorts of endorsements from the usual suspects.)
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - BostonCard - 10-23-2020
(10-23-2020, 04:54 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Greater numbers of comorbidities? Ok, screen for comorbidities on some agreed upon scale. If you have two individuals in the same category, they rate the same. Disregard race. You do not immunize a young African-American because he is African-American, and ignore an older Asian or Caucasian because of race. That just won't do.
I ran my data through the QCOVID risk prediction algorithm, and got the following:
COVID associated death
0.0027%
1 in 37037
COVID associated hospital admission
0.0433%
1 in 2309
I ran the same exact risk profile, except that I made myself Caribbean (this was derived in the UK, so race/ethnicity categories are somewhat different there), and I get the following:
COVID associated death
0.0055%
1 in 18182
COVID associated hospital admission
0.099%
1 in 1010
In other words, just about twice the risk of death and hospitalization, even though everything else (age, sex, height, weight, risk factors) were exactly identical. Again, this is UK data and UK prediction algorithm, but the exact same trend would be found if you derived one for the US. The bottom line is that there is likely an unmeasured factor that is captured by race that is not captured by our conventional risk factors. Whether that is enough to survive a legal challenge, I don't know, but as of right now, Black and Hispanic patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of dying than White patients, even with the same risk factors.
BC
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - teejers1 - 10-24-2020
(10-23-2020, 11:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-23-2020, 04:54 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Greater numbers of comorbidities? Ok, screen for comorbidities on some agreed upon scale. If you have two individuals in the same category, they rate the same. Disregard race. You do not immunize a young African-American because he is African-American, and ignore an older Asian or Caucasian because of race. That just won't do.
I ran my data through the QCOVID risk prediction algorithm, and got the following:
COVID associated death
0.0027%
1 in 37037
COVID associated hospital admission
0.0433%
1 in 2309
I ran the same exact risk profile, except that I made myself Caribbean (this was derived in the UK, so race/ethnicity categories are somewhat different there), and I get the following:
COVID associated death
0.0055%
1 in 18182
COVID associated hospital admission
0.099%
1 in 1010
In other words, just about twice the risk of death and hospitalization, even though everything else (age, sex, height, weight, risk factors) were exactly identical. Again, this is UK data and UK prediction algorithm, but the exact same trend would be found if you derived one for the US. The bottom line is that there is likely an unmeasured factor that is captured by race that is not captured by our conventional risk factors. Whether that is enough to survive a legal challenge, I don't know, but as of right now, Black and Hispanic patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of dying than White patients, even with the same risk factors.
BC
That is very interesting. But are you sure the conclusion you draw is the only one to draw from the data? It seems to me it's possible that a higher % of the Latino (or AA) community either works in indispensable, in-person workforces or lives in close quarters, or both. If that's true, then is it possible that race is simply a byproduct of non-race-based risk factors. BTW, if your conclusion is the correct one, then I think Newsom's distribution plan might pass constitutional muster - it strikes me as a compelling rationale to support a government policy based on race.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Genuine Realist - 10-24-2020
(10-24-2020, 12:00 AM)teejers1 Wrote:Those of you who followed me on the CEB remember a long standing belief that class and social standing are far more pertinent factors of discrimination in this society than race. We are at that point again.(10-23-2020, 11:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-23-2020, 04:54 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Greater numbers of comorbidities? Ok, screen for comorbidities on some agreed upon scale. If you have two individuals in the same category, they rate the same. Disregard race. You do not immunize a young African-American because he is African-American, and ignore an older Asian or Caucasian because of race. That just won't do.
I ran my data through the QCOVID risk prediction algorithm, and got the following:
COVID associated death
0.0027%
1 in 37037
COVID associated hospital admission
0.0433%
1 in 2309
I ran the same exact risk profile, except that I made myself Caribbean (this was derived in the UK, so race/ethnicity categories are somewhat different there), and I get the following:
COVID associated death
0.0055%
1 in 18182
COVID associated hospital admission
0.099%
1 in 1010
In other words, just about twice the risk of death and hospitalization, even though everything else (age, sex, height, weight, risk factors) were exactly identical. Again, this is UK data and UK prediction algorithm, but the exact same trend would be found if you derived one for the US. The bottom line is that there is likely an unmeasured factor that is captured by race that is not captured by our conventional risk factors. Whether that is enough to survive a legal challenge, I don't know, but as of right now, Black and Hispanic patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of dying than White patients, even with the same risk factors.
BC
That is very interesting. But are you sure the conclusion you draw is the only one to draw from the data? It seems to me it's possible that a higher % of the Latino (or AA) community either works in indispensable, in-person workforces or lives in close quarters, or both. If that's true, then is it possible that race is simply a byproduct of non-race-based risk factors. BTW, if your conclusion is the correct one, then I think Newsom's distribution plan might pass constitutional muster - it strikes me as a compelling rationale to support a government policy based on race.
Has anyone suggested an actual genetic link to heightened minority vulnerability? Or some equivalent? It would have to be pretty unusual to afflict ethnic minorities in general - Hispanic and African American, particularly given the actual variety of racial background in this country.
If not, we are looking at the sociological factors mentioned, particularly occupation (I would guess). If you don't filter on the basis of those, disregarding race, you create some pretty disturbing inconsistencies in outcomes. Although the poor are disproportionately minority, there are plenty of success stories among them. If you use race as the simple (minded) criteria, you have the unpleasant spectacle of some minority individual who lives in an affluent suburb and works at home, outranking a grocery worker of the 'wrong' ethnicity who lives in a less affluent area and actually takes the risk of overexposure. (Joe Biden's naive congratulation to the Black women who did store restocking illustrates the point - there were plenty of others.)
That won't do. Society is too varied. Better to dispense with the broad category and base your rankings on what individuals as individuals actually do and the way they actually live, which is not all that tough - payroll records and zip codes. If that is the reason why minorities have suffered more, the preference is built into the filter. But race as such? The obsessive racial consciousness that afflicts our society, and particularly the Democratic Party, rears its ugly head.
We have not even discussed the bizarre preference for rural communities and jaw-dropping preference for prisoners.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Mick - 10-24-2020
I entered my exact statistics for eleven different racial mixes into the COVID19 calculator. Here's the results for COVID associated death in rising order of mortality:
Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated death 0.07% 1 in 1477 0.01% 1 in 7812 5.2891 White English or Irish or other white
COVID associated death 0.07% 1 in 1477 0.01% 1 in 7812 5.2891 Ethnicity not Stated
COVID associated death 0.11% 1 in 932 0.02% 1 in 4950 5.3119 Indian
COVID associated death 0.12% 1 in 803 0.02% 1 in 4255 5.3021 Pakistani
COVID associated death 0.14% 1 in 733 0.03% 1 in 3891 5.3074 Other Asian
COVID associated death 0.14% 1 in 726 0.03% 1 in 3846 5.2962 White and Black African mix
COVID associated death 0.14% 1 in 726 0.03% 1 in 3846 5.2962 White and Asian Mix
COVID associated death 0.14% 1 in 726 0.03% 1 in 3846 5.2962 Other Ethnic Group including Arab
COVID associated death 0.15% 1 in 651 0.03% 1 in 3448 5.2966 Bangladeshi
COVID associated death 0.17% 1 in 599 0.03% 1 in 3175 5.3016 Chinese
COVID associated death 0.21% 1 in 488 0.04% 1 in 2584 5.2972 Black African
Interesting that the COVID19 calculator equates all three of their White varieties as the same across 2.2 million entries; white/english, white/irish, white/other. Exact same risk. Also exactly the same as "Ethnicity not stated". Interesting because both are at the far end of the table. Does that mean only caucasian folks wouldn't state their ethnicity?
Secondly, white/black African mix, white/Asian Mix and Other Ethnic Group including Arab were the exact same odds. How likely is that in a 2.2 million person study?
Black Africans are about three times as likely as whites to die from COVID19, assuming all other risk factors the same. That's odd. And finally, Chinese were second most likely to die behind black Africans. That seems unlikely.
Here are the same statistics for COVID19-associated hospital admissions among the same eleven ethnic groups (really 13 because I lumped all whites into the same category given that their statistics were exactly the same). These are the results:
Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated hospital admission 0.29% 1 in 350 0.08% 1 in 1294 3.696 White English or Irish or other white
COVID associated hospital admission 0.29% 1 in 350 0.08% 1 in 1294 3.696 Ethnicity not Stated
COVID associated hospital admission 0.43% 1 in 233 0.12% 1 in 860 3.6973 Chinese
COVID associated hospital admission 0.49% 1 in 205 0.13% 1 in 756 3.6936 Bangladeshi
COVID associated hospital admission 0.57% 1 in 174 0.16% 1 in 643 3.6934 Pakistani
COVID associated hospital admission 0.60% 1 in 165 0.16% 1 in 611 3.6944 White and Black African mix
COVID associated hospital admission 0.60% 1 in 165 0.16% 1 in 611 3.6944 White and Asian Mix
COVID associated hospital admission 0.60% 1 in 165 0.16% 1 in 611 3.6944 Other Ethnic Group including Arab
COVID associated hospital admission 0.61% 1 in 163 0.17% 1 in 604 3.6934 Indian
COVID associated hospital admission 0.65% 1 in 153 0.18% 1 in 566 3.6931 Other Asian
COVID associated hospital admission 0.74% 1 in 135 0.20% 1 in 500 3.6923 Black African
The most interesting results here was that race-associated COVID hospitalizations tended to be relatively different among the rates. Chinese people had the second highest death rate, but the third lowest hospitalization rate. Indian people had the third lowest death rate, but the third highest hospitalization rate.
And again, the exact same rate was experienced by the White groups as the "Ethnicity Not Stated" groups. Apparently only white folks didn't cite their ethnicity. Ditto the white/black African mix, white/Asian mix and Other ethnic group including Arab. All three, exact same COVID hospitalization rates.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - BostonCard - 10-24-2020
80% of the UK is white, so if the group of people who didn’t state their race in the study were more or less randomly distributed (it of course is not, but you can expect the majority of that group to have been white), then the group that didn’t state its ethnicity to look pretty similar to the white group. The estimate was probably pretty close, and depending on the number of people who declined to state a race, the difference may not have been statistically significant. I have no insight behind the model, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they collapsed terms that weren’t statistically significan so that internally “no race” is treated the same as “white”.
BC
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - oregontim - 10-24-2020
What if the disparity in Covid risk between Black and Hispanics vs. Whites is explained by income-related factors — the disparity of health care, quality of living space, likelihood of remote vs onsite work, etc? How would that effect distribution strategies?
These disparities are the symptoms of a deeply racist society, going back generations. Redlining, for example, has done terrible damage to the average family wealth of Black and Hispanics compared to Whites. And that's a big factor, although far from the only one, in the disparity in education and related opportunities. And average wealth and schooling hits health care and general health. So differential Covid risk is another symptom of race-related inequality of wealth, living conditions, and — sadly — opportunity.
If that's the truth, then should it effect distribution policies on a vaccine? And how? Could we set up a low-income priority for the vaccine? How refreshing it would be to have something in this country favor the poor, while so much favors the wealthy.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - old spanish trail - 10-24-2020
Good point,Tim. My guess is that minorities are higher in the pyramid for vaccinations because of their higher degree of comorbidities due to lack of good medical care, basic poverty, crowded living conditions, etc. GR, your disdain for these arguments is baffling.
RE: Vaccination Distribution Plans - the Looming Political Disaster - Farm93 - 10-24-2020
(10-24-2020, 07:51 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Good point,Tim. My guess is that minorities are higher in the pyramid for vaccinations because of their higher degree of comorbidities due to lack of good medical care, basic poverty, crowded living conditions, etc. GR, your disdain for these arguments is baffling.In medicine and science sometimes the results show that race is a factor. IIWII.
This would be like finding a cure for sickle cell and not prioritizing those in the African American community. Or failing to promote the availability of that new sickle cell cure at HCBUs or black churches.
However, it is true that using race for any program can quickly go into very dangerous territory and could lead to even greater skepticism in the very communities prioritized for the first batches.
Ultimately I am confident the federal government will announce a plan that prioritizes vulnerable African-American and Hispanic groups without specifically targeting them. I have more confidence in a potential POTUS46 doing it well, but could imagine that 2nd term POTUS45 could get it done if he puts sensible Republican governors on the vaccine team (Hogan, DeWine, Baker, Sununu, etc.)
That group could declare that the vaccine should be prioritized for
#1) Military
#2) Health Care Workers
#3) Public Transportation workers and others deemed essential workers in 2020 in urban areas with a population density greater than X.
The population density metric would also quickly prioritize the working poor and the target minority groups without declaring that explicity.
By mid-2021 my guess is 100 million doses might just be sufficient to cover all of those willing to take the virus cleared only by an emergency use process since fewer Americans appear eager to be early in line for a vaccine with each POTUS45 rally. After each rally there are more that don't no longer trust POTUS45 on COVID and others that believe him when he says COVID19 is nothing to fear. So the more he talks the more likely a limited number of doses will be sufficient.
GR - That's just the way it is. I really wish POTUS45 was a credible agent on COVID messaging because projections indicate consistent messaging would have saved lives and consistent messaging could save thousands of lives going forward. Sadly for all of us, since any of us could die from COVID in mere days, his inability to provide a consistent message or manage the complexities of COVID will mean thousands more will die before we find a new normal. Any COVID topic for the USA is going to drift to POTUS45. Should you not want to see POTUS45 and COVID together in a thread I would suggest avoid posting about COVID.