[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Bucco

One problem that I, personally, have on here is presentation of only a partial part of anything.

The quote in the OP is way out of context, and to JOHN41's credit, he attempted later to insure you know this was one man, who has a job title of "Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics & Health Policy" thus he brings his strength to the table in a very complex discussion.

The New York Times has a long, interesting article on the situation, and for the record, this professor has publicly stated since "Note: 1) never espoused race-only prioritization; 2) Key: many 65+ can live socially distanced safely, w relatively less inconvenience until vax. But far more among essential workers can’t, esp frontline workers.". This is from the professors twitter account.

This is complicated when trying to do what is right for the country, and this is why so many are frightened at the shoving aside of people, like scientists, etc. that have the knowledge and expertise to do this without the ramifications, and knee jerk responses we seem to be used to.

We can do it correctly, or we can allow outside influences screw it up also.

It was not a racial statement, and it was not presented improperly. It was presented on this forum as “outrageous” without any context. You take aim at the wrong people and YOU are the one making generalization. This is what happens when nobody cares about context, and are so ready to jump in what they think, with no investigation, may validate something they want to believe.

I would link The NY Times article, but you need a subscription, and the general media (I have seen it on NY Post and National Review, not known for context) but IN CONTEXT NOTHING “outrageous” at all. Academic discussion for the good of the country.

Great post about a serious distribution problem that must take into consideration a boatload of factors, some of which generate emotions. And it will be done state-by-state, which will add to the confusion. What could possibly go wrong?