[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by Bucco

The quote termed “outrageous” was part of an important vital conversation relative to how to best serve our country.

It is being presented here totally and completely “on an island” which is outrageous in itself.

This is not something to be discussed by us amateurs and non professionals, and I think putting words out that do not reflect reality or truth is 100% wrong.

???? The word "outrageous" is nowhere in my post. And your response makes no sense.

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.

I have now included that NYT article in my original post as you suggested for context. Per that article the choice of who gets the vaccine next depends on whether saving lives of seniors or reducing infections in minorities is more important. To me letting more seniors die for that social purpose is what's outrageous.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

???? The word "outrageous" is nowhere in my post. And your response makes no sense.

OUTRAGEOUS is in the thread title. Never mentioned your post.

The OP is totally and completely out of context, and you can’t respond unless you read more and know in what context.

Suggesting read the Times article on this discussion. It was comprehensive and was meant to present how this is being decided . It is of import to this country, and taking excerpts to fit whatever fits an agenda is unfair.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by John41

I have included that NYT article in my original post as you suggested for context. Per that article the choice of who gets the vaccine next depends on whether saving lives of seniors or reducing infections in minorities is more important. To me letting more seniors die for that social purpose is what's outrageous.

Very simply stated...perhaps to simply. It was one persons comment...one person, who has already clarified in detail his meaning.

Presenting the “outrageous” proposal, which it is not is unfair.

[billethkid]

And now the media fans the flames of racism and dividing our country.
There is most certainly a more educated description of how and why ( which obviously would not be as sensational or agenda focused).

Half of US states want to prioritize black and Hispanic people in vaccine rollout | Daily Mail Online

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by billethkid

And now the media fans the flames of racism and dividing our country.
There is most certainly a more educated description of how and why ( which obviously would not be as sensational or agenda focused).

Half of US states want to prioritize black and Hispanic people in vaccine rollout | Daily Mail Online

Read the Daily Mail at your own risk.

Owned by tgevsame folks who own the gossip tabloids in England.

Try reading reputable sources.

It is insulting to have the Daily Mail referred to as the "media"

Hope someday, we get back to real journalistic sires. Must be true when it is said that so many simply search out those sources that validate what they already think.

If you believe martians are here, you can find some sort of "edit to agree with you. So much life missed by reading trash....real honest news has reality, and does not feed fantasy.

[sunny56]

Originally Posted by tvbound

"If you look at the actual numbers and percentages, they completely correspond to the population of the country."

Incorrect. Please take the time to read the link.

"Haywood County, a majority-Black community not far from Memphis, has one health department, one nursing home and no hospitals. The fatality rate of covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, is 50 percent higher than the state average.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory group has signaled it will recommend prioritization of certain essential workers, in part to address racial disparities exposed by the pandemic. People of color are overrepresented in industries such as food processing and transit, in jobs impossible to do from home."

As for your anecdotal experience, how many more people of color do you think have experienced the same exact thing in their lifetimes?

They are not anecdotal and I can also add some other experiences. I have never in my life thought of attacking because of ethnicity. As a teenager, I was attacked because I was white. My mother was attacked because she was white; and lastly my daughter was attacked because she was white. So don't hand me any anecdotal experiences crap.

[PugMom]

Originally Posted by sunny56

You are wrong. It has everything to do with race. If you look at the actual numbers and percentages, they completely correspond to the population of the country. This particular virus is age related, not so much race related. Believe me, I have experienced in my lifetime way too much of this racial equality stuff to know it when I see it.

Just so you know, I have been denied jobs, because I was white.
I have been denied promotions, because I was white.
I actually heard a black manager over the phone say: "I wouldn't hire that white B****h if my life depended on it.

By the way, they made no bones about telling me that was the reason for the various jobs and promotions.

affirmative action cuts both ways. my daughter's childhood friend was overlooked for a job because: 'they already had enough african-americans & needed more asians.' it's insanity. never mind the young lady spent all of her years studying hard & getting really good grades in a field she always hoped to work in, --she just had the wrong physical attributes, & didn't hesitate to let her know.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tvbound

Being whiter isn't the issue. As explained here, the probability of being impacted by the virus is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...racial-equity/

I would propose a 2-level solution. The main objective is to achieve the best health outcome for ALL of society. You have to attack the disease where it has spread or will spread the most (now that it is raging). So, hospital staff should be 1st. They are indoors and they have the greatest need because of up-close work with patients who either have CV or may have CV. Office types and management that do not see patients should NOT be 1st or early to get the vaccine. 2nd, I would vaccinate residents and staff of long-term care facilities - because they are indoors, packed in close, and older. Prisons would be in the same situation. Not that inmates DESERVE it early, but prisons would be a perfect incubator area for the CV with the staff then spreading it to the general population.
...... 3rd, I would allocate the vaccine to the 1st responders and front line workers that can NOT work from home...........my 4th group would be the over-65 US residents.

Notice that I would give ZERO consideration to which groups were made up of more or less whites, blacks, or browns. That is like a "red herring". It is meaningless to argue about that or try to change culture with a vaccine. You attack the DISEASE where it exists in quantity and thus protect the maximum members of ALL society. The DISEASE is going to go to the weakest links of society where it can spread the most, regardless of skin color.

The 2nd level of the solution would be if there is not enough vaccine to do ALL of those 4 groups mentioned. Then within those classifications of groups, you use a LOTTERY system or chance to determine which INDIVIDUALS get it. So, first set priority groups and then use a chance or lottery system for individuals......... also, I would use a lottery system for the rest of the GENERAL population.

[Bucco]

Maybe only on TOTV, does a thread falsely founded, presented because of one comment, without any discussion about the total picture and academic, scientific discussions over how best for the country to distribute vaccine for Covid dissolve into a discussion of race in general, and/or attacks on the media.

Tells you what is important to folks.

Remember this discussion was presented in The NY Times in a comprehensive way, loaded with many quotess and ideas.

This one quote is what seems to interest TOTV posters

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sunny56

...
So don't hand me any anecdotal experiences crap.

You may want to check the definition of anecdotal.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Thank you so much that over the years you have said the same thing over and over and I HAVE LISTENED about being so fixated on the miniscule in conversations, in politics and in life that we are ignoring all of the things that have already been put in place to make things to me anyway, MORE THAN FAIR.

On this issue, early on, my uneducated opinion was that it is entirely possible that some people with a certain blood type may get sicker or less sick with Covid-19. I have nothing to back this up. It is just a feeling, a hunch, a guess. We women have them all of the time.

One major mystery about CV is WHY children get it much less often. They are not immune, but they have some (?) natural resistance. Dr. Fauci stated that studies are underway to determine IF the vaccines will convey immunity to children and cut down their spreading of the disease. Lots of questions and research needed!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by John41

I just quoted one person on the committee but the entire committee recommendation to the CDC is going to be to put white seniors farther back in the vaccination line based on social justice as they interpret it. Minorities in low paying jobs will skip ahead of us even though on average they recover instead of dying as many seniors do. If you are 80 or older your chance of getting covid19 and dying from it is 8 %. If you are black your chance is 0.1 %.

That may be true. Your statements seem to say that the vaccines should be directed to those groups that are in MOST danger of dying from CV. That is logical. And I would agree IF NOT for the fact that the CV is raging now today. By raging - I mean 250,000 new cases in one day, yesterday. Because the US has SUCH a high emergency, I would humbly suggest that it might be better to concentrate on putting out the disease as if it were a SPREADING FIRE. Put out that FIRE first (control the spread) and then work out the vaccine delivery based on groups likely to die the most. The plus age 65 group is more likely to be hunkered down at home and not rolling around society and SPREADING CV ( some are at the TV Land squares), most should NOT be. Your front-line workers, police, teachers, and firefighters can NOT work from home or hunker down. Therefore, they should get the vaccine before the plus-age 65 citizens - in order to dampen the SPREAD.

[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?

[manaboutown]

CDC advisory group: Older adults, front-line essential workers to get Covid vaccine next