This again?
NY State Department of Health warns they don't have enough Paxlovid or Monoclonal Antibody Treatment and white people need not apply. https://t.co/shbMWDomLJ pic.twitter.com/MwBtjv2pDx
— Karol Markowicz (@karol) December 31, 2021
That's not at all what this document says. All it says is that (a) meds are reserved for people with risk factors, and (b) being non-white is a risk factor. You may or may not approve of this, but anyone who has a risk factor in addition to the other requirements can get the meds. This true whatever your race.
But it doesn't matter. This has been up for two days and has surely already passed into conservative lore.
White people are such whiners. Born with an ivory spoon in our mouth, all we do is bitch about how someone else might be getting a break.
I get it, your black. You enjoy your racism.
Anyone ever tell you your reading comprension sucks? Notice the use of first person plural in the second sentence.
It's a semi-literate, racist troll. It only leaves its droppings to get attention. Please don't feed the troll.
Shootie's got his bottom up in the air again.
Maybe it's just you who was born with an ivory spoon in your mouth?
Suggesting the 200 or so million people who superficially look like you all share the same experience is based on an incredibly simplistic understanding of reality.
I wasn't born with an ivory spoon in my mouth, but I was born with a lot more privilege than my Non-White neighbors. Pretty sure that what J. Frank was getting at.
What are these specific privileges that apply to every single white person, but no nonwhite person?
Being white is no guarantee of being fed with an ivory spoon. For that matter, membership of any group based upon immutable characteristics is no guarantee of any particular privilege.
Here is an example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/for-black-homeowners-a-common-conundrum-with-appraisals/2021/01/20/80fbfb50-543c-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html
Here’s another:
“Why are black people sicker, and why do they die earlier, than other racial groups? Many factors likely contribute to the increased morbidity and mortality among black people. It is undeniable, though, that one of those factors is the care that they receive from their providers. Black people simply are not receiving the same quality of health care that their white counterparts receive, and this second-rate health care is shortening their lives.“
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/racial-disparities-in-health-care/
Jim Crow and redlining come to mind. While they have both been largely abolished by now, their effect is still there when one looks at the average household wealth of white families vs black families. White families have had the ability to build wealth and pass it on to succeeding generations, an ability largely denied to minorities.
And none of that applies to, say, recent Caribbean immigrants, yet they will now go to the front of the line but poor whites won't all else being equal.
It's not the color of their skin, it's the social conditions you describe and this is a crude, non-scientific way of addressing it that will do nothing to help resolve those social conditions.
It's divisive and if you haven't noticed about half of the country's reaction to this is "well fuck you then." But we just pretend Republicans don't exist right?
If, as you concede, some of us may not approve of this policy, well then why is it not allowed for a white person to complain about the race-based exclusion?
That's the reason someone might disapprove isn't it?
Tissue, bro?
The government of new york needs purged.
“…. then why is it not allowed for a white person to complain about the race-based exclusion?“
Cause it’s not an exclusion.
It's a further requirement for a medical "or other" risk factor. It is declared that being Black or Hispanic counts as a risk factor in the absence of any specific individual risk factor. The possibility that some fraction of white patients have other risk factors that make them eligible doesn't make the racial factor equitable.
I support racial considerations being applied for college admissions and some employment decisions. by the way. But I hate the idea that a doctor would turn thumbs down on a potentially life-saving treatment for a patient based on some state-defined criterion for what kind of people deserve a break.
Maybe we should address why being non-White is a health risk?
I know; I recently applied for insulin and was turned down on the state-defined criterion that I didn't jave diabetes. My girlfriend was turned down for a potentially life-saving abortion on the state-sanctioned ground that she wasn't pregnant.
“…. then why is it not allowed for a white person to complain about the race-based exclusion?“
Well, it is allowed. Just not justified. Something to do with not caring that this country does not providing equal health care to minorities, but whining when someone mentions it
Your race essentialism is overly simplistic. Do you really think race is the only lens with which you would find disparities in healthcare outcomes?
Asians have better Covid outcomes than whites.
Diabetics have worse outcomes. So do poor people. So do overweight people. And older people.
Do you really think LeBron James struggles to find a good doctor or can you admit that race isn't the exclusionary factor you want it to be?
Don't much about the caveat "all other things being equal", do ya? Stick a fork in this one; it really thinks that playing stupid is a winning strategy.
All you do is call names because you really have no substantive answer. The presumption people like you make is that you can shame other whites into accepting this. Then you wonder why people vote for Trump. But liberals would rather be right than win.
This is a political loser even if you agree with it and Kevin's post is another edition of liberals saying "there's nothing to see here" when there is something to see here. 2015: LMAO it's just a bunch of college kids acting badly. LMAO CRT isn't taught in schools!
Great, you all get As on your term papers. But the point is people don't like this shit and the reaction to it is ripping the country apart because scores of millions of whites see right through the SAT vocabulary.
I'm not a liberal, you flaming piece of shit idiocy.
Over-simplistic? Sure. It’s a quick comment tapped out on a cell phone keyboard. Yet I am struck by the level of self-righteous anger generated by Kevin’s post.
Despite having a known clotting disorder, Serena Williams almost died after giving birth because she had to insist the medical staff perform the right test. They thought she was confused, she was having a pulmonary embolism.
Legally, Kevin could not be more wrong. We have over 40 years of jurisprudence on the "race is just a factor, it's not the only factor" argument. It is consistently rejected, with only one exception: in higher education admissions, universities can make race a factor in their admissions to achieve diversity, so long as they do not impose a racial quota.
But in every other area of law, saying you are more likely to be entitled to this government benefit if you are race X than race Y is considered illegal (and in the case of a state actor, unconstitutional) race discrimination.
Indeed, Kevin's point is wrong for a reason that we can isolate from the issue of affirmative action- imagine if the risk factor was being white. Imagine if, for whatever reason, you were more likely to get more serious COVID if you were white. So Alabama makes being white a risk factor for who gets antibodies. Would Kevin argue that this wasn't race discrimination at all? That making being white a risk factor did not even constitute discrimination?
Again, that point is separate from affirmative action. We can have the argument as to whether these sorts of preferences should actually be legal. But even they are to be made legal, it would be on the grounds that certain forms of discrimination are not invidious, not, as Kevin argues, that it isn't discrimination at all to define race as a factor that makes you entitled to get a certain drug. Of course that's discrimination.
(And as I said, as of now, it is unconstitutional discrimination, and don't expect this SCOTUS to overturn that.)
Discrimination is discrimination.
That’s not true. You know better than that.
Under the law it is. Grounds for arrest. In general, a horrible look for the state. Shows which wing of the Democratic party needs cut off.
If there was a disease that hit whites harder than non-whites, then……..
Lol, ok. You must be black.
Can’t you see the photo. I’m half black and half orange.
Spadey couldn't see from my photo that I'm black and tan.
Race is used in determining at what level of sickness, an individual can be placed on the list for kidney donations. This is absolutely to the advantage of white people since they are considered to be sicker with the same blood work black people have. Race, in this instance, is whatever the doctor decides it is so you have a young man with three white grandparents and one black grandparent who cannot get on the list because his doctor decided he is black.
Even if you don't need a kidney, organ donation system disadvantages black people because over half of black people have O blood type while 45% of white people have type O blood and O blood type individuals are disadvantaged by the organ allocation.
Please document your claim. I point black do not believe you. I think you are lying.
"Race is used in determining at what level of sickness, an individual can be placed on the list for kidney donations. This is absolutely to the advantage of white people since they are considered to be sicker with the same blood work black people have. "
https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/kidney-transplant-dialysis-race-adjustment.html
But really, just google blacks and kidney transplants. There is really no controversy that race is considered when placing someone on the kidney donation list. And, since a higher percentage of black people have type O blood, black people are disadvantaged across all organ donations.
I’d like some case citations. Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act forbids age discrimination in healthcare involving federal funding, yet nearly every jurisdiction made Covid vaccination only available to the elderly (and high-risk persons) early on, and then lowered the age of eligibility in several steps. Public health emergencies seem to allow actions that in normal situations would be discriminatory.
I don't think anyone meant that knowledge about variability of certain health risks with age cannot be used to direct certain medical interventions to the age range where they are known to be more effective. Age isn't everything, but it's a big factor that doctors have lots of information on.
Sometimes race is also known to be relevant to certain medical risks, and that's okay to factor in, too.
But shouldn't it be outside the scope of medical judgment to decide whether the patient's ethnicity might have given them some good or bad breaks in life generally, and to offer different treatments accordingly?
Actually I think race is different than age here, because the 14th Amendment prohibits almost all race discrimination and does not prohibit age discrimination so long as it has a rational basis
Skin color could presumably be used to allocate a limited stock of sunblock to prevent skin cancer. That is a legitimate medical difference.
So far, there is no indication that race alone is a risk factor for COVID.
Sickle Cell Trait.
From the CDC:
{snip}
Although the occurrence of sickle cell trait (SCT) varies greatly from state-to-state and among different races and ethnicities, every state and racial/ethnic population includes people living with the condition and many are unaware of their personal sickle cell status. Because people with SCT are at risk of having a child with sickle cell disease if their partner also has SCT or one of several other abnormal hemoglobin genes, it is important to properly inform them of their status and educate them about possible health problems and reproductive considerations..........
and this:
In 2010, the total U.S. incidence estimate for sickle cell trait was 15.5 cases per 1,000 births, ranging from 0.8 cases per 1,000 births in Montana to 34.1 cases per 1,000 births in Mississippi.
The U.S. incidence estimate for sickle cell trait (based on information provided by 13 states) was 73.1 cases per 1,000 black newborns, 3.0 cases per 1,000 white newborns, and 2.2 cases per 1,000 Asian or Pacific Islander newborns. The incidence estimate for Hispanic ethnicity (within 13 states) was 6.9 cases per 1,000 Hispanic newborns.
The total number of babies born with sickle cell trait in 2010 was estimated to be greater than 60,000.
The incidence of sickle cell trait varies greatly from state-to-state and among different races and ethnicities; however every state and racial/ethnic population has people living with the condition.
{snip}
Because the disease is MOST prevalent in the black community and goes relatively unknown to the person they made the decision to just include them all.
They are certainly at higher risk than normal.
The thing is, even with sickle cell, I suspect "we're only going to give this medication to members of one race before giving leftovers to the others", by a public health agency, would have to meet strict scrutiny. They'd have to prove in court that the racial discrimination is the only way to save the maximum number of lives.
They'd ask for a test to show the patient has sickle cell. But talking about actual genetic risk factors isn't allowed anymore.
HIPPA laws would prevent ANY doctor from disclosing the results of that test - discriminatory or not.
In this case it was far easier and more legally plausible to just say blacks were at higher risk and the stats on sickle cell prove that the risk is there
HIPAA doesn't supersede the Constitution. If it is necessary to survive strict scrutiny to disclose patient information, it can be disclosed.
I think you conceded the point then. As I've asked others, should whitey get more methadone?
This is the correct analysis of the law. Most people don't realize that under Title VII as well you can sue if you're discriminated against for being a cishetero WASP male. The Constitution and federal law are color blind, like it or not.
This kind of action is on par with conservatives trying to ban abortion and gleefully accepting political donations as the rage come when the law is struck down, or at least that's how it used to go.
Also, if medical science won't look into these risk factors with more resolution, we're all fucked.
Actually a conspiracy by Fauci and his fiends to give PoC the killer vaccine.
(Said Candice Owen.)
(And MTG has steam pouring out of her ears trying to work this ou.)
Try harder. Fauci?????
Covid in the US east of the Mississippi is out of control. And it's going up all the states, except maybe Maine.
Hospitalizations are going up, but not shooting up nearly as fast as cases--and it varies by state. I hope it doesn't take off. That doesn't mean there is not a first responder nor a hospitalization crisis--omicron is hitting a lot of them. Omicron might not be as serious as other variants, but it does keep people under quarantine.
I hope we'll see cases starting to drop in places in a week or so., though omicron still has a few more states to hit.
Not in terms of actual sickness.
This is against the law and should be federally revoked.
To note, I understand "why", but it simply is illegal.
If a black person got it solely for being black, then you have a complaint.
Lol, you don't have a point. You just can't find the reason for the racism.
"That's not at all what this document says. .."
Close enough. The document is discriminating against white people and giving an absurd reason (being white gives no special protection against Covid).
What part of this did you not understand: “Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19”?
Maybe you don’t think the increased risk is due to “longstanding systemic health and social inequities”, but that is irrelevant. The increased risk shows up in the data, and that is not an absurd reason. Increased risk is the same reason that the elderly were given priority, i.e. the young and middle-aged were ‘discriminated’ against.
Prove that it is more a risk factor than being poor white trash. It's a lie. Either educate yourself or get lost.
I assume we'll be giving out methadone more to whites since dying of opioid addiction has being white as a high statistical correlation.
"... The increased risk shows up in the data, and that is not an absurd reason. .."
The data shows Asians not whites are at lowest risk. Excluding whites only seems pure racial animus.
However being black is not a risk factor.
For example, a rich black person who works from home on a computer is not as at risk as a poor white person who works in a meat processing plant.
Yet another willfully obtuse argument. You're making whites look like they're operating under a severe the stupid handicap. Please stop, you're embarrassing me.
As opposed to your content-free ad hominem? If we're using aggregate racial statistics to give individual medical priority now, then I assume you'll be fine with whitey at the head of the line for methadone?
You don't know what the phrase 'all other things being equal' means, do you? Otherwise you wouldn't have included your 'content-free' blurb, amirite 😉
Now, you can proceed in two different ways: you can either concede that the phrase 'all other things being equal' has salience ... or you deny it.
This ought to be good. Your move.
Is methadone in short supply?
I rather suspect that sj660 is quiffed because he wants some and isn't getting any. Must be some black person's fault.
Miss Cuomo yet???? Talk about railroaded......
I might have suggested this point a month ago when people were concerned about Omicron breakthrough infections. It's a very small study, but it supports the point that vaccines are quite helpful even though (a) neutralizing antibodies declined dramatically after 6 months and (b) antibodies were not as capable at recognizing Omicron.
Omicron is our way out of the pandemic. Transmissibility-virulence tradeoff suggests we're not going to get a more transmissible variant that is also more virulent. IOW, it'll be extremely difficult for a new variant to displace Omicron. Also, its burn rate is so high that it'll have difficulty accumulating enough mutations to form a fitter virus.
Oh wow. Now you what I was saying 1 month ago.
This does seem likely. Still waiting to see if it comes through.
Is there any information regarding how Omicron is affecting non-vaccinated people who have also not had COVID already?
Anecdotally, they're the worst off with highest risk of hospitalization. But, Omicron in general is the mildest form of SARS-CoV-2 as its viral replication occurs in the upper respiratory system not the lungs.
There's been a gradual decoupling of (a) infections and hospitalizations and (b) hospitalizations and mechanical ventilator use, since the first wave back in early 2020 as a result of three things: (1) vaccinations, (2) improved treatment protocols, and (3) use of pharmaceutical prophylaxes.
This decoupling specifically under Omicron, however, is significantly more pronounced. Because Omicron does most of its attack in the upper respiratory area, people aren't getting as sick as they were from previous SARS=CoV-2 infections.
So, it seems likely that even the unvaccinated who haven't previously been infected will have a greater chance of staying out of the hospital than before.
There doesn't bave to be a transmittance-virulence tradeoff--see delta variant. Omicron is a "way out" as long as the immune response to those infections provide protections against other variants. I hope that is the case, but we still have to be vigilant.
Personally, I think that people who have been vaccinated should get the treatments first. People who haven’t been vaccinated by choice should be last. Particularly those who based their failure to get vaccinated on “religious” grounds. This includes “first responders”.
Markowicz is lying. It isn’t that the actual policy might upset many people, it probably does. But that’s not good enough for her because she is a typical Fox liar. Here’s something else she has said:
“Florida has the lowest COVID-19 case rate in the country. They did it without vaccine mandates, without mask mandates in school and with no restrictions on businesses. Life simply went on.”
But Florida actually has a very high case and death rate. If California had Florida’s current death rate an additional 38 thousand people would be dead. She worships at the alter of DeSantis and is moving there from NYC, she says, because she prefers his policies. I’m sure New Yorkers welcome her departure.
When I lived in texas, there was a state program for white school districts to partner with black districts (remember this is texas) and get a tax break by giving surplus equipment to the black districts. Court rejected the program. Leg passed it again and substituted “rich” and “poor” for @white” and “black”. Same result. Court allowed it. … maybe nyc could just make “poor” a risk factor. Would you critics be ok with that?
poverty is a risk factor....for many things...
also:
"poor and members of underserved communities"...who are dying at 3x the rate of w...wealthier communities.
Should clarify. When I wrote “same result”, I meant the same school districts that partnered under racial standard were able to partner again under financial standard.
That would be better, although this would be better left as something decided only on the basis of the patient's actual health history and condition.
1) If the lack of ability to determine the true underlying risk factor means that you have to use something like race that is correlated , you might be able to justify that. But, for the government to use race in that way requires really compelling evidence that no other way. So you better be able to show that you have a big difference in regard to race AFTER controlling for all other factors that you can otherwise determine.
And nobody has shown any evidence I have seen demonstrating that. If you give a preference for things like worse health, less ability to socially distance due to employment etc. , number in household ( which is major) , etc. and then you can still show there is a big need for an additional preference based on race , either due to some other correlated factors you cannot determine or due to genetics , make that case . They have not done so. And one way that is obvious is that only excluding whites and are giving a preference to East asians too.
Note that poverty might be a useful proxy for many other things which cannot be easily determined directly but could be a risk factor. Obviously poverty itself is not a risk factor ( if that is not obvious to you , then you are not able to understand what that means). But using poverty as a proxy in government policy is legally more acceptable than race. No constitutional issue with discriminating in that way.
However , what either race or poverty may be a proxy for are CHOSEN behaviors. So giving a priority because of that is partially rewarding those behaviors by reducing the cost of them. Behaviors such as not getting vaccinated, not masking, partying and not social distancing, etc. If you want to give a priority that way , you have to accept that consequence.
What many seem to be saying in supporting this , and yet of course objecting to such a priority for evangelical Christians, is either that
a) any socioeconomic conditions that make a difference racially MUST be fully attributed to the affects of current or past racism, while any similar affects on other groups are attributed to their own choices. So any disparity in the behavioral choices of a non white group is 100% caused by white racism and can never be due to their own choices. Which patronizingly infantilizes them as unable to really make their own decisions.
And I do not mean to imply that those choices are necessarily wrong ( although I do tend to think so re vaccination) . Many Hispanics CHOSE to not socially distance and live their lives normally, accepting that this gave them an increased covid risk and did so with full understanding of that. Their culture and values just put a different weight on quality of living vs. reducing risk of dying . And that decision is not wrong just because it is not what your or my decision was.
To now say that such Hispanics, making that choice due to their values and culture, is still the wrong choice forced on them by white racism is really incredible liberal white racism.
b) since they are minorities, it is just inconceivable that they possibly could have made a choice that is wrong , based on what YOU, the white liberal thinks. So any diffences in vaccination rates must be due to things like lack of access. While any difference for say rural conservative whites must be due to personal bad choices which they deserve to be punished for . Even when clearly that is not true, your ideology just cannot let you accept facts for this.
2) just wrong. Are you saying the behavior of choosing to vaccinate does not affect severity , just risk of getting infected? Which is 100% backward .
And behaviors like masking and social distancing absolutely do affect severity if you do get infected through reducing the viral load of infection if you do get infected. This is especially true for masking. Not sure why all the pro masking studies tend to just focus on chance of infection where masking evidence is weak and not look at severity of cases if infected. If you are wearing at least a surgical mask and still in a place where can get infected , at least you can eliminate the chance of a large initial viral load overwhelming the immune system before it can react .
3) well I will give you some credit for at least trying to make a reasoned argument against what I said , even though you failed. But then you go to the I am putting my fingers in my ears and not listening to you . Which is a sure sign of someone who knows they really cannot come up with any actual argument .
Fuck off, Troll.
If anyone has a problem with what New York is doing, and is personally impacted by the policy (NY resident), sue them, and the courts will sort out if it's unconstitutionally or otherwise harmful, that's how it works.
Who cares what anyone else thinks? Modern day reactionary and evangelical conservatives have pretty much always hated New York, except for a period after 9-11.
Aside from that, "other factors" does not really mean "medical risk factor", as the term is properly used, and the notice is pretty clear about its intent to including minorities - "increased risk of severe illness".
Anyone with mild or moderate symptoms also qualifies, which is the important thing, especially since the treatment is both scarce and very expensive (mostly subsidized), and we shouldn't be wasting any of it on asymptomatic folks (including minorities, but that's where I diverge from New York).
The pills also have some contra-indications and side effects, so take them if you need too--but it's best to be vaccinated.
What do "evangelical" contards have to do with it?
Are you that retarded? ??
Takes one ...
Don’tbpanic - just the GQPs having a tantrum . Sadz .
Okay, so non-white tolks have been disproportionately left behind in the previous waves of vaccinations, because of a lot of factors. But their vaccination rates have been significantly lower than for us whitey-tighty folks.
However, we cannot address this discrepancy ... because THAT would be "racism"? The Constitution is indeed a suicide pact.
I'm white - just in case you can't tell - but I still find this kind of insulting. Not to me, really, but to black folks. Once again their very existence is considered a risk factor. Maybe they don't see it that way. What I hear, though, is that these folks are incapable to managing their own well being. They are morbidly obese, they smoke too much, they drink too much, they don't have primary care doctors who help them get treatment for high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease. This family is the example which I suppose this policy is designed to help:
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/09/10/detroit-couple-7-children-die-one-day-apart-after-falling-ill-covid-19/8280671002/
"Tiki Green said her brother and his wife were planning to get the COVID-19 vaccine but had not found the time to do so."
So there you go... too stupid to take care of themselves. Now dead. It doesn't matter that they are black. Plenty of white folks are this stupid too.
Clearly, you have never worn the shoes of these folks that you so easily disparage.
The whole premise behind this policy is that the blacks can’t take care of themselves so we must make an extra effort to provide them with some adult supervision. We’ve heard this nonsense for over a year now… black folks aren’t going to trust the system to get vaccinated, or to get treatment, or up to whatever. I don’t want to walk in their shoes.
This pandemic has been a real time intelligence test. Lots of people have failed.
I have no problem with it. But I do think it’s an insult to call their skin color a risk factor for stupidity. Because that’s what it’s doing.
When your media program is based almost entirely on white grievance political gestures, why get into the details of a particular policy? It's enough that it will inflame your base/readership/viewers.
Yep, that's how it works. The details would only detract from the Inflammatory Message, and confuse The Deplorables. Remember, "reality has a liberal bias"! It's BAD!!
Being black is a risk factor? I doubt it. It's a correlation. Anyway, your argument is like saying affirmative action isn't quotas, it's not but it's still racial preferences.
Also, Kevin it's 1/2 and you've already indulged in what you said was one of the worst 10 trends of 2021.
Being against racial preferences isn't racism, whatever else it might be.
Have to defend kevin on this as no he did not. Read his post . He criticized, rightly, the tweet conclusion that ny is saying whites do not need to apply because that is not what the policy says .
But nowhere in his post does he accuse anyone of racism for disagreeing with the policy or even for mischaracterizing it.
Woke reflexive accusations of racism against anyone who even mildly disagrees with the PC woke position on anything related to race, or even things that are not , seeing racism in any disagreement when it is not there,
is a problem. But that does not justify making accusations of being such a woke reflexive anti racist everywhere person and seeing that when it is not there either.
And there are plenty of replies above where your point would be more valid, not Kevin's post above.
Kevin does go wrong first because he also mischaracterizes what the tweet says in his headline saying they are not restricting to BLACKS . Where does the tweet mention blacks ? It says that WHITES need not apply, exaggerating the policy. Because the policy says non whites have some priority by that being a risk factor , not just that blacks do. And this is an important point.
Because why does the policy say that being non white is a risk factor rather than identify which racial groups are a risk factor. The racial distinction here, picking out whites only , really is saying more that being white is a protective factor . What about East asians? Seems fairly clear their risk is lowest so why would being east Asian ( and thus non white) be considered a risk factor?
The fact that the policy only distinguishes whites as the only group at a disadvantage, with all non whites including east asians, to be considered higher risk, is a red flag that this policy really is just anti white racism and not in any way really trying to assess true risk factors.
Second kevin , in defending race as a legit risk factor, is just misunderstanding what is a true risk factor and not just correlation, as many have pointed out.
>Kevin … is just misunderstanding what is a true risk factor and not just correlation
No, the misunderstanding is on your part. The CDC accepts observational studies (which at best can only demonstrate correlation) and even case reports as evidence for increased risk factors. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/underlying-evidence-table.html
Will you shut your ignorant trap just once rather than discourse at length on something you know absolutely nothing about?,
That's actually a good point about the "non-white" language, as Asians are clearly not at greater risk, so any such policy should specifically identify the groups that are at greater risk, not just tarnish (and controversialize) by simply saying "non-white".
What’s disturbing here is that Markowicz is a liar who’s lies are in service of racial divisiveness and that even people who are liberals are falling for her bait. If her lies weren’t so effective they would be amusing. For it is the right that is most opposed to vaccines and masking yet it is they who are saying how unfair it is that someone might be getting a treatment ahead of them.
And the fact is, the thing that should be outraging us is that it is the anti-mask, anti-vax people who will be the ones at the head of the line. Because one of the most important risk factors for a bad outcome from a covid infection is not being vaccinated. In my mind, that is what should be outraging we who call ourselves liberal.
This is what they do, all about the outrage machine, so much so they can't even see the hypocrisy themselves, just project it onto others.
I have to agree that this policy is incredibly dumb. Black or Hispanic heritage is not a risk factor for an individual; it depends on their socioeconomic status or location (pollution). A Colombian doctor living in a wealthy suburb should not qualify as having a "risk factor" by virtue of ethnicity. All it achieves is to give the right-wing media a talking point that will get heads nodding among swing voters.
Now, while I agree with many here that this policy is dumb, I do not totally rule out the possibility that race itself does play a role and could be a " risk factor " due to different average genetics.
But, to make that case, you would need to demonstrate that race itself, after controlling for other factors, increases covid risk . After controlling for health indicators, size of household ( a HUGE risk factor often overlooked) and behavioral issues like amount of vaccination and social distancing ( and yes blacks and Hispanics have greater case rates partially because of their own choices as to behavior) .
And the evidence has to be clear and convincing in that regard in order for the GOVERNMENT to discriminate based on race, based on court precedents. Nowhere close to meeting that standard. But , if there was such evidence, OK.
Is it OK to prioritize whites and asians more and some Hispanics for govt subsidized sunscreen if the ozone layer broke down? I think so. Can govt prioritize blacks for screening for sickle cell anemia ? Sure. But you really have to show such a clear causation not just a correlation.
So far , my best guess based on the evidence is that race itself, or ethnic group , might be a risk factor in a few cases. One might be for those descended from amerindians , including most Hispanics to varying extents . And that makes some sense as anerindians were clearly generically disadvantaged in that regard in 16th century ( to any virus and especially those from animals) and that genetic difference , although diminished by natural selection, should still be there. And south asians and east Europeans may also have some greater vulnerability.
But really no evidence that being from sub Sahara African descent would itself be a risk factor. In fact , maybe the opposite given that sub Saharan Africa has been somewhat surprisingly doing not that bad .
A couple of points:
1) In an ideal world, we would have all the data needed to quantify precisely the contribution of each factor to overall risk. In the real world, we act on the information we have.
2) Aside from smoking and alcoholism, behavioral factors influence case rates, not severity. Treatment plans are based on the severity of symptoms.
3) Nobody here gives a rat’s ass for your guesses. Just stop already.
The reason given is long sanding inequities which have contributed to increased risk. That’s the whole theory of dysfunction among blacks and every other non-white group. (But dysfunctional whites are just criminal jerks.) Everything bad thing that happens to them is a result of these longstanding inequities. That’s really all you need to know.
That's actually a good point about the "non-white" language, as Asians are clearly not at greater risk, so any such policy should specifically identify the groups that are at greater risk, not just tarnish (and controversialize) by simply saying "non-white".
This post was actually meant be in response to the earlier post by RT about the "non-white" designation, not the further pondering in his latest post here.
There's not really any scientific basis for "race", so there's no reason to ponder whether to discriminate or make special exceptions for it in scientific fields like medicine (whereas in politics there is some remaining utility behind it).
And , if you want to argue that blacks should get some priority as they have more cases , then so should evangelical Christians. Because, in both cases, the greater number of cases is caused by their behavioral choices, not being black or evangelical Christian itself.
HIPPA laws would prevent ANY doctor from disclosing the results of that test - discriminatory or not.
In this case it was far easier and more legally plausible to just say blacks were at higher risk and the stats on sickle cell prove that the risk is there
As I expected, this post brought out the stupidest of racist trolls/trolling. It really would be nice if you implemented a comment system with up/down voting and sorting, Kevin. There are lots of smart, interesting commenters here, but I really would prefer not having to sort through the idiocy of the few trolls to find them.
Great, another white saviour. If contards would pay attention......but it hurts the narrative.
and the racist troll knew exactly who i was referring to. i guess at least you're self-aware. though still consistently incoherent.
I'm late to this debate but:
Being Oriental (I am too lazy to type "Asian, particularly East Asian of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese decent") gives you a BETTER chance of beating Covid than being White does.
It could just be that those countries have high rates of being vaccinated against TB. It could be they are less obese, it could be they have more X in their diet. I don't have a clue, but not being White sounds racist to me.