Conversation

Aella
@Aella_Girl
Sometimes, my friends wonder why I get so upset by woke stuff. It doesn’t have power, they say. It’s not actually gonna affect anything, they say.
Quote Tweet
David Algonquin
@surplustakes
The US CDC is going to recommend that 'essential workers' are vaccinated before the over-65s, despite their *own modelling* showing this will result in more deaths. Why? They say it is unethical to prioritise the elderly because they are not racially diverse enough. THREAD.
Show this thread
26
Retweets
1
Quote Tweet
340
Likes
Nitin Gupta
@nitguptaa
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
David's thread is a bit unfair. The original publication claims a negligible improvement in lives saved when the vaccine is introduced to >65 compared to HCPs, especially in the case where disease incidence is falling (which it should be after a peak event like the holidays)
4
9
Show replies
Show replies
uɐᴉʌ∀ ʇɹǝʌuI
@Invert_Avian
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
The report feels like someone had to paste together a lot of bullshit reasoning to justify something too sophisticated for a CDC report (e.g. that it’s a particular, deontological moral good to vaccinate those that are forced to endure exposure)
2
9
Joana
@Joana09670033
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
I don't think the CDC's alleged rationale is a good one, but I do think it's a good idea to vaccinate essential workers early. Essential workers interact with lots of people. The elderly can stay home.
1
2
Justin Cohen
@trippdup
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
So, here's a utilitarian question. Are we optimizing for lives or optimizing for life? Because it's not inherently obvious to me that some amount more dead elderly is worse than some amount more young people afflicted with lifelong complications as a result of infection.
3
scott cowen
@scottcowen1
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
It is WAY more complicated than that. The mention of racial diversity being under represented in 65+ group is very minor and there are a lot of moving parts to consider.
1
2