[Goose]

Thanks, g1313.  That's what I expected. 



Goose, the assertion "putting together a priority list less than a week before they needed to start administering vaccine" isn't consistent with the info in the article that g1313 linked to (which, to be fair, was posted after your posting).

I think my original post is still applicable. The post from g1313 contains the statement

“Our algorithm, that the ethicists, infectious disease experts worked on for weeks … clearly didn’t work right,” Tim Morrison, the director of the ambulatory care team, told residents at the event in a video posted online.

That is the only timeline info I see in the post fro g1313. While having people "working on" an an algorithm for weeks is better than a few days, it is still unacceptable when you have months to get ready. Most importantly, the output of that algorithm was not available until at most days before it was to be actualized. This left no opportunity to "sanity check" the results and resulted in the flapex. That is simply irresponsible. Using an algorithm that is brand new (never tested) without vetting it's results are reasonable is just plain nuts, IMHO. The algorithm undoubtedly worked exactly as designed. The results just didn't match the design goals. Allowing no time to verify the results did in fact meet the design goals and having no procedure to verify that it did is always a recipe for failure.

Irene Chen, an MIT doctoral candidate who studies the use of fair algorithms in health care, suspects this is what happened at Stanford: the formula’s designers chose variables that they believed would serve as good proxies for a given staffer’s level of covid risk. But they didn’t verify that these proxies led to sensible outcomes, or respond in a meaningful way to the community’s input when the vaccine plan came to light on Tuesday last week. “It’s not a bad thing that people had thoughts about it afterward,” says Chen. “It’s that there wasn’t a mechanism to fix it.”

One must add that if the results aren't available until 2 days before they are to be used there wasn't time for any "mechanism to fix it.”, even if it existed.

[Goose]

Thanks, g1313.  That's what I expected. 



Goose, the assertion "putting together a priority list less than a week before they needed to start administering vaccine" isn't consistent with the info in the article that g1313 linked to (which, to be fair, was posted after your posting).

I think my original post is still applicable. The post from g1313 contains the statement

“Our algorithm, that the ethicists, infectious disease experts worked on for weeks … clearly didn’t work right,” Tim Morrison, the director of the ambulatory care team, told residents at the event in a video posted online.

That is the only timeline info I see in the post fro g1313. While having people "working on" an an algorithm for weeks is better than a few days, it is still unacceptable when you have months to get ready. Most importantly, the output of that algorithm was not available until at most days before it was to be actualized. This left no opportunity to "sanity check" the results and resulted in the flapex. That is simply irresponsible. Using an algorithm that is brand new (never tested) without vetting it's results are reasonable is just plain nuts, IMHO. The algorithm undoubtedly worked exactly as designed. The results just didn't match the design goals. Allowing no time to verify the results did in fact meet the design goals and having no procedure to verify that it did is always a recipe for failure.

Irene Chen, an MIT doctoral candidate who studies the use of fair algorithms in health care, suspects this is what happened at Stanford: the formula’s designers chose variables that they believed would serve as good proxies for a given staffer’s level of covid risk. But they didn’t verify that these proxies led to sensible outcomes, or respond in a meaningful way to the community’s input when the vaccine plan came to light on Tuesday last week. “It’s not a bad thing that people had thoughts about it afterward,” says Chen. “It’s that there wasn’t a mechanism to fix it.”

One must add that if the results aren't available until 2 days before they are to be used there wasn't time for any "mechanism to fix it.”, even if it existed.