Vaccine or not?

#17,979
#17,979
Vol8188 said:
So you don’t care if there’s truth to what he’s saying? Seems relevant
Click to expand...
I have no idea I'd there's merit on treatments. Trump is first I've head say that.

If whites aren't being allowed the vaccine I'd say that should be headlines everywhere. Unreal discrimination.
 
#17,980
#17,980
MurphyVol said:
I have no idea I'd there's merit on treatments. Trump is first I've head say that.

If whites aren't being allowed the vaccine I'd say that should be headlines everywhere. Unreal discrimination.
Click to expand...

He definitely over exaggerated the facts, no doubt. NY (and other states) refused to distribute the vaccine based on age and other risk factors and instead wanted a greater emphasis on “racial equity”. So white people were delayed in receiving the vaccine in NY.

Now NY explicitly lists being black as a reason to consider you over others for monoclonal antibodies
 
#17,983
#17,983
Vol8188 said:
Paywall
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I'll comment, then drop the full text below.

It appears that vaccines aren't being racially delimited in NY, but other treatment options are. And I believe it's a really bad idea.

.........................
New guidelines say whites may not be eligible for antibodies and antivirals, while nonwhites are.
By John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira
Jan. 7, 2022 1:06 pm ET


A mobile vaccine clinic is seen on a street in New York, Dec. 7, 2021.

PHOTO: WANG YING/ZUMA PRESS

New York state recently published guidelines for dispensing potentially life-saving monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals like Paxlovid to people suffering from mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. These treatments are in short supply, and they must be allocated to those most in need.

According to these guidelines, sick people who have tested positive for Covid should be eligible to receive these drugs if they have “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for severe illness.” These include standard criteria like age and comorbidities like cancer, diabetes and heart disease—but, startlingly, they also include simply being of “non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity,” which “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.”

Consider the following cases: A middle-aged investment banker born in Colombia shows up at a physician’s office in Manhattan; a laid-off middle-aged worker of Italian ancestry shows up at a doctor’s office in Rochester, N.Y. Neither has medical risk factors, but both have mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. The wealthy Colombian-American could be given Paxlovid; the laid-off auto worker would be turned away. You can construct thousands of these comparative cases using well-off Hispanics, Asians or blacks and working-class whites.

This is unfair and possibly illegal. With these kinds of regulations, the Democrats who control New York reinforce the racial and ethnic divisions that grew during Donald Trump’s presidency. These state officials have been abetted by social scientists who collect survey data in a manner that, intentionally or not, confirms their presuppositions.

There is no question that medical factors can increase the risk of certain individuals getting diseases. Living or working in proximity to a toxic environmental site can also increase this risk. There are also certain racial-ethnic groups that are especially prone to certain diseases. African-Americans are susceptible to sickle-cell anemia; Ashkenazi Jews are often lactose-intolerant. There isn’t any study we have seen that, controlling for other factors, such as income, education and residence, shows clearly that Americans of Hispanic, African or Asian ancestry are at greater risk for severe Covid-19. There is no valid medical argument to justify New York state’s criteria.

That is not to deny that social scientists have produced studies that show that there is a proportionally greater incidence of severe Covid-19 in Hispanic and African-American communities than white communities. These studies are based either on disaggregating different communities or on data from questionnaires that ask people being vaccinated or tested about their race, ethnicity and gender. When you limit the question to those possibilities, you get the answer you asked for.

But when you ask about the relationship between income and the incidence of Covid-19, you get an answer that suggests that the laid-off auto worker might also deserve some consideration from the New York health officials. Researchers from Stanford’s Department of Epidemiology and Population Health found a positive correlation between income inequality and county-level Covid-19 cases and deaths in the U.S. Emory University researchers found a similar correlation with poverty levels.

Findings like these aren’t definitive, but they are suggestive. It is probable that a good part—perhaps most—of the observed racial disparity in Covid effects is attributable to factors that can be loosely grouped under class: income, education, poverty status, occupation, health-insurance status, housing and so on. The way to test this would have been to collect individual-level data on such variables in addition to race, ethnicity, age and gender. But that has not been done, so only racial disparities, uncontrolled for class factors, have been reported.

As one example of what such studies might find, Kaiser Family Foundation survey data on vaccination rates revealed that black and white college graduates were vaccinated at roughly equal (high) rates, while there was a yawning chasm between these college graduates and their noncollege counterparts of the same race. Clearly then, the observed disparities in vaccination rates between blacks and whites have a lot to do with the higher noncollege proportion among the black population.

All this suggests that the racial lens on Covid disparities is inadequate. A broader lens that included class factors would be unlikely to suggest to public health officials that the Indian-American CEOs of Alphabet and Microsoft ought to get priority over white Walmart clerks and hospital orderlies. Who should receive scarce Covid treatments should be based on genuine medical risk factors such as age and comorbidity, but class disparities can be relevant to deciding where to spend money to increase access to public-health benefits including vaccination and testing.

Liberal political scientists and many Democratic officials seem determined to ignore class divisions and instead divide the country up by race and ethnicity. This practice, which is unpopular outside elite media, universities and nonprofits, contributed to the rise of Mr. Trump. If it continues, Democrats could pay a lasting political price, which could threaten the welfare of groups Democrats want to help.

Mr. Judis is the author of “The Politics of Our Time.” Mr. Teixeira is a co-editor of the Substack newsletter the Liberal Patriot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol and Vol8188
#17,984
#17,984
AshG said:
Gotcha. I'll comment, then drop the full text below.

It appears that vaccines aren't being racially delimited in NY, but other treatment options are. And I believe it's a really bad idea.

.........................
New guidelines say whites may not be eligible for antibodies and antivirals, while nonwhites are.
By John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira
Jan. 7, 2022 1:06 pm ET


A mobile vaccine clinic is seen on a street in New York, Dec. 7, 2021.

PHOTO: WANG YING/ZUMA PRESS

New York state recently published guidelines for dispensing potentially life-saving monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals like Paxlovid to people suffering from mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. These treatments are in short supply, and they must be allocated to those most in need.

According to these guidelines, sick people who have tested positive for Covid should be eligible to receive these drugs if they have “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for severe illness.” These include standard criteria like age and comorbidities like cancer, diabetes and heart disease—but, startlingly, they also include simply being of “non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity,” which “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.”

Consider the following cases: A middle-aged investment banker born in Colombia shows up at a physician’s office in Manhattan; a laid-off middle-aged worker of Italian ancestry shows up at a doctor’s office in Rochester, N.Y. Neither has medical risk factors, but both have mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. The wealthy Colombian-American could be given Paxlovid; the laid-off auto worker would be turned away. You can construct thousands of these comparative cases using well-off Hispanics, Asians or blacks and working-class whites.

This is unfair and possibly illegal. With these kinds of regulations, the Democrats who control New York reinforce the racial and ethnic divisions that grew during Donald Trump’s presidency. These state officials have been abetted by social scientists who collect survey data in a manner that, intentionally or not, confirms their presuppositions.

There is no question that medical factors can increase the risk of certain individuals getting diseases. Living or working in proximity to a toxic environmental site can also increase this risk. There are also certain racial-ethnic groups that are especially prone to certain diseases. African-Americans are susceptible to sickle-cell anemia; Ashkenazi Jews are often lactose-intolerant. There isn’t any study we have seen that, controlling for other factors, such as income, education and residence, shows clearly that Americans of Hispanic, African or Asian ancestry are at greater risk for severe Covid-19. There is no valid medical argument to justify New York state’s criteria.

That is not to deny that social scientists have produced studies that show that there is a proportionally greater incidence of severe Covid-19 in Hispanic and African-American communities than white communities. These studies are based either on disaggregating different communities or on data from questionnaires that ask people being vaccinated or tested about their race, ethnicity and gender. When you limit the question to those possibilities, you get the answer you asked for.

But when you ask about the relationship between income and the incidence of Covid-19, you get an answer that suggests that the laid-off auto worker might also deserve some consideration from the New York health officials. Researchers from Stanford’s Department of Epidemiology and Population Health found a positive correlation between income inequality and county-level Covid-19 cases and deaths in the U.S. Emory University researchers found a similar correlation with poverty levels.

Findings like these aren’t definitive, but they are suggestive. It is probable that a good part—perhaps most—of the observed racial disparity in Covid effects is attributable to factors that can be loosely grouped under class: income, education, poverty status, occupation, health-insurance status, housing and so on. The way to test this would have been to collect individual-level data on such variables in addition to race, ethnicity, age and gender. But that has not been done, so only racial disparities, uncontrolled for class factors, have been reported.

As one example of what such studies might find, Kaiser Family Foundation survey data on vaccination rates revealed that black and white college graduates were vaccinated at roughly equal (high) rates, while there was a yawning chasm between these college graduates and their noncollege counterparts of the same race. Clearly then, the observed disparities in vaccination rates between blacks and whites have a lot to do with the higher noncollege proportion among the black population.

All this suggests that the racial lens on Covid disparities is inadequate. A broader lens that included class factors would be unlikely to suggest to public health officials that the Indian-American CEOs of Alphabet and Microsoft ought to get priority over white Walmart clerks and hospital orderlies. Who should receive scarce Covid treatments should be based on genuine medical risk factors such as age and comorbidity, but class disparities can be relevant to deciding where to spend money to increase access to public-health benefits including vaccination and testing.

Liberal political scientists and many Democratic officials seem determined to ignore class divisions and instead divide the country up by race and ethnicity. This practice, which is unpopular outside elite media, universities and nonprofits, contributed to the rise of Mr. Trump. If it continues, Democrats could pay a lasting political price, which could threaten the welfare of groups Democrats want to help.

Mr. Judis is the author of “The Politics of Our Time.” Mr. Teixeira is a co-editor of the Substack newsletter the Liberal Patriot.
Click to expand...

If you go back to the beginning of the vaccine distribution you’ll find that NY and other states decided not to base their roll out on age because the elderly were disproportionately white.

Granted trumps claims overstep reality. Anyone can get a vaccine anytime they want in this country and 75% have

Edit: All of this is another of the many reasons why we do not need universal healthcare. The government (worst people in society) is already too heavily involved in our healthcare.
 
#17,985
#17,985
Vol8188 said:
If you go back to the beginning of the vaccine distribution you’ll find that NY and other states decided not to base their roll out on age because the elderly were disproportionately white.

Granted trumps claims overstep reality. Anyone can get a vaccine anytime they want in this country and 75% have

Edit: All of this is another of the many reasons why we do not need universal healthcare. The government (worst people in society) is already too heavily involved in our healthcare.
Click to expand...
If they are wanting to adminster medical treatment based on race, then what is to stop them from doing it based on age? This activity oens the door for the "death panels" that the liberals dismissed as conspiracy nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321, norrislakevol, VolinWayne and 1 other person
#17,986
#17,986
Rasputin_Vol said:
If they are wanting to adminster medical treatment based on race, then what is to stop them from doing it based on age? This activity oens the door for the "death panels" that the liberals dismissed as conspiracy nonsense.
Click to expand...

To a point that’s here. A lot of places have review boards that determine pt access to treatment. Monoclonal antibodies being one of those treatments. The left just continually shows why you don’t want them in charge of healthcare
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, VolinWayne and Rasputin_Vol
#17,987
#17,987
1 in 2000 doesn't sound like a significant number until you look at it like this and realize according to this calculation, one million administrations of the vaccine in this age group would yield 500 cases of heart inflammation in kids who were otherwise at near-zero risk of Covid.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#17,990
#17,990
VolinWayne said:
1 in 2000 doesn't sound like a significant number until you look at it like this and realize according to this calculation, one million administrations of the vaccine in this age group would yield 500 cases of heart inflammation in kids who were otherwise at near-zero risk of Covid.


Click to expand...

Only a complete dumba$$ would advise otherwise healthy children and young adults to get the jab. That's a whole new level of stupid, yet here we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Orange_Vol1321 and VolinWayne
#17,994
#17,994
I meant to put this in the “yikes” thread. But since it’s in the vaccine thread he’s not vaccinated. Not that it works against the new variant.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top