Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Expert” says essential workers should get COVID vaccine before elderly because ‘older people are whiter’

“Expert” says essential workers should get COVID vaccine before elderly because ‘older people are whiter’

CDC panel is set to recommend new guidelines for vaccine rollout soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UTBL2xCXEQ

Few events in the annals of medical history are more reviled the Tuskegee Experiment, in which race was the deciding factor in who was denied treatment.

Yet, decades later, “experts” are advising that race-based COVID-vaccination priorities be established.

The U.S. has begun vaccinating Americans with the Pfizer vaccine this week, and soon with the newly approved Moderna vaccine. However, no vaccine is expected to be widely available for several months.

That means the determination of who gets vaccinated first must either be decided on who is more vulnerable to death (the elderly) and who is more exposed (essential workers) for the next phase of distribution (Phase 1b), after providing doses to frontline medical providers and patients in nursing homes (Phase 1a). Decisions like this used to be made using science.

Not any longer. Welcome to “Critical Race Theory,” as applied by bureaucrats.

Historically, the committee relied on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well, noted Lisa A. Prosser, a professor of health policy and decision sciences at the University of Michigan.

“To me the issue of ethics is very significant, very important for this country,” Dr. Peter Szilagyi, a committee member and a pediatrics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the time, “and clearly favors the essential worker group because of the high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers among essential workers.”

That position runs counter to frameworks proposed by the World Health Organization, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and many countries, which say that reducing deaths should be the unequivocal priority and that older and sicker people should thus go before the workers, a view shared by many in public health and medicine.

Expanding upon this point, Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, asserted that essential workers should be prioritized over the elderly because “older populations are whiter.”

“Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

In the wake of the outrage directed at him, Schmidt revised his questionable assessment.

In a tweet on Friday, Schmidt backpedaled his remarks, claiming he ‘never espoused race-only prioritization.’

He went on to argue that it was easier for elderly populations to self-isolate than essential workers, who may have no choice but to interact with the public through their jobs.

However, the remarks drew backlash, with one Twitter user responding, ‘I cannot fathom how someone could have your opinion. … It has always been about protecting the old.’

Another chimed in: ‘vaccines should go to those who are most at risk of dying from it, and that by far is a function of age. good to know racism alive in the academy.’

There has been some robust social media commentary over this proposal, including a detailed review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) modelling process used in such decision making.

The good news: The upcoming CDC guidance from the panel of “experts” is not binding because each state ultimately decides how to manage vaccine distribution. The bad news: if you live in a “social justice” state, you can expect even more pandemic policy inanity.

In conclusion, if there has been any real science related to the handling of this pandemic by any of America’s “experts,” it has been purely coincidental.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Again, the Left wants to use blacks as their Guinea Pigs, as many are reacting to the vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/allergic-reaction.html

    TX-rifraph in reply to MarkS. | December 20, 2020 at 10:21 am

    This was a plandemic not a pandemic. Everything has a purpose in this space. Why not non-whites before whites? Perhaps because of the risks?

    It is a really good thing that skin color is not on a scale — that it is either very white or very black so there is no confusion about who is getting targeted by the ruling class.

      You say it’s a “…good thing that skin color is not on a scale…”

      Actually black people will sometimes discriminate against each other based on their shade of black. I played baseball and football as a kid up through high school. During practice, in the locker room, and on the bus to/from away games you’d hear it.

      In Junior High we rode buses across town after school to a different facility for practice, and on those bus rides all the athletes would be together… the black girls were absolutely ruthless to each other, and they very much focused on skin shade.

      People who say that only white people can be racist are either ignorant or gaslighting liars.

I would not trust a word that comes from CDC and regard them as a subversive propaganda organization with diminished capability for anything related to the practice of medicine.

JusticeDelivered | December 20, 2020 at 10:36 am

Critical Race theory is closely tied to Criminal Race Theory, I would argue that groups with high criminal tendencies should be last in line 🙂 Hispanics next to last?

In countries, such as Zimbabwe and South Africa, where genocide against white people is happening today, did you ever wonder how things got started?

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Paul. | December 20, 2020 at 12:37 pm

    I don’t wonder at all. Whites didn’t fight back, and fight back HARD. We are in the same postion. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is brimming over with unconstitutional provisions, but, no one fought them. The courts were just as corrupt back then as they are today.

    Do I advocate a return to the days of black men stepping into the gutter to let the white lady pass? No. But, the entire social structure hs been turned on its head. The more savage elements now have “rights” that endanger EVERYONE, and I include everyone who behaves in a civilized manner, not just whites.

Old and cold: the Wuflu vaccine is dangerous. ineffective and a sinister Tump plot to kill non-whites!

New and bold: the Wuflu vaccine is effective and safe, so ration it in order to kill off racial groups we hate!

The Dhimmi-crat narcissist-totalitarians are so completely steeped in their self-congratulatory and sanctimonious “social justice” ethos and agenda, they truly possess no awareness that their racist fanaticism resembles nothing so much as the most manifestly insane and callous totalitarian zealotry.

These idiots are “regressives,” not “Progressives,” as they egotistically label themselves. They are perpetually instilling a racist and utterly corrosive tribal Balkanization in all facets of American society.

“…after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.”

…a vaccine? Since there is only one available here in America, this must have been written for the future. Typical government interference in everybody’s life.

    Milhouse in reply to stablesort. | December 20, 2020 at 2:49 pm

    Huh? What are you quoting? And in any case, what could you possibly mean? Even if there were only one (there are two, with more coming) multiple people can get it, so how does “after getting” it not make sense?

“Ethics” has succumbed to postmodernism. If purpose and meaning are arbitrary, so is ethics.

It’s easy to be an expert to the left. Just tell them whatever they want to hear. Big paycheck will follow.

If it makes your prioritization any easier, keep in mind that many of us older folks don’t want your f*g bleeding-edge vaccine.

Let’s see how many minority “essential workers” keel over and croak first. Just like Tuskegee.

And if you think that’s a racist attitude, well then, bless your heart.

    scooterjay in reply to henrybowman. | December 20, 2020 at 11:03 am

    “And if you think that’s a racist attitude, well then, bless your heart.”

    I think a catch-22 is going to happen. You are racist if you don’t allow them to go first and you will be a racist for using them as guinea pigs when it causes more trouble.

      henrybowman in reply to scooterjay. | December 20, 2020 at 11:23 am

      Well, of course it is. The left spins everything as racist that they don’t like. They have already spun completely opposite stances as racist, and they will continue to do so.
      I DON’T CARE. You shouldn’t, either.
      When somebody shouts “racist” at you, just mentally translate it to “poo-poo head.” That puts it in precisely the proper frame of reference, and you can continue to live your life.

    Yes, I’m in my 80’s and won’t take it. Genetically modify your immune system and risk it going nuts and attacking healthy organs, a death sentence? Not me, suckers. After you,Alphonse.

    IMO Trump is mistaken to affiliate himself so strongly with this vaccine. Its a high risk remedy for a small risk from corona. The China flu is not deadly except to a very limited population– death rate is constant and same as 2019, pre corona. Low reward for the risk– a real gambler wouldn’t take that risk.

      mark311 in reply to hopeful. | December 21, 2020 at 3:57 pm

      Well I’d actually say the evidence is against what you say. And especially given your age group you would benefit most from the vaccine. Obviously there is a risk from taking it but that risk has been reduced to a relatively small one vs covid 19. Either way good luck with which ever you choose

    And such an event will be gleefully blamed on Trump

I don’t care who gets it first. I know who will NOT be getting it.

Let “them” go first, I’m not in that line!

Once again our elite on the left, and their ‘experts’ failed to ask ‘essential workers’ a single question before they issued their social and racial justice crap.

The fellow in the supermarket, essential. He’s 35 years old and knows his risk of getting sick or dying is pretty much zero. He’s also afraid to go home after every shift lest he infect his 80 year old mother.

The black home health aide might want her two elderly patients to go first, she is an expert in their health. She also knows if they die she’s out of a job.
One more question, has Ezekiel Emmanuel gotten it?

Nothing like making it all about race while complaining about a racial divide.

    Race, race, race.

    So our lefty bien pensant want to have Negroes and Hispanics go the front of the COVID19 vaccine receiving line.

    “It’s necessary because these people are at greater risk.”

    Maybe, maybe not.

    So lets say that this Some-races-are-in-greater-danger//We-aren’t-all-equal thinking takes root. It’s gonna come at a cost.

    If black and latino physiologies are different than the physiologies of whites that opens a subject which the bien pensant thought they had long ago closed.

    for example, google, “The Myth of Innate Racial Differences Between White and Black People’s Bodies”

    If there are physiological differences vis-a-vis COVID-19, perhaps those differences explain other difference between the races. Oh say, like the dreaded, persistent Achievement Gap.

    Hey, they’re the ones re-opening this door.

Just a few things here.

First, in the case of a widespread outbreak of a deadly disease, front line medical personnel should be the priority. Why? Because they are needed to care for the rest of the population and if they are indisposed or dead, due to the disease, they are unable to provide that care. So, medical personnel go first then the at risk populations.

Second, the term “essential workers” is largely meaningless, at this point. Strippers are now “essential workers” in many places as are movie company employees.

But, there are two real world reasons for prioritizing based upon race. The first is that there is a very good chance that these untested vaccines will actually produce a large number of fatalities in the older at-risk population, many of whom have serious medical conditions. The second reason is that this is not a real medical threat, to the vast majority of Americans. It was hyped for political purposes and is still being used primarily for political advantage.

    alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | December 20, 2020 at 11:43 am

    Great point. Still lurking in background is now much protection from newer mutations. Some areas are requiring all health care workers get vaccination. If things go wrong …oops. I would initially start with non-critical for fast tract. Offer, not demand, prisoners earlier release for taking vaccine…and stop letting officials release criminals now for nothing but pimping voting.

      alaskabob in reply to alaskabob. | December 20, 2020 at 1:54 pm

      Two nurses up here in AK had BAD reactions to the injection… in minutes after injection. Nothing brings out the pucker factor than anaphylactic shock. Nes pas?

        mark311 in reply to alaskabob. | December 21, 2020 at 4:02 pm

        I’m guessing they had epi pens .. correct me if I’m wrong. There will be specific exclusions for those who shouldnt take the vaccine. The trials will have highlighted a number of risk groups who won’t be vaccinated. There may be others. In your example I would suggest they likely have had an allergic reaction to the vaccine in which case they have likely to have had the same reaction before and will have an epi pen. I would guess that those who have had reaction of a similar kind will no longer be included for the vaccine. I’d say that the vaccines have passed the trial period with a good safety record but there will always be a risk. You’ve got to judge that risk compared to that of covid

They’re right about the “essential workers”… essential-essential workers h/t Whoopi. However, diversity, including racist, ageist, etc. dogmatic beliefs breed adversity. Perhaps they could change their frame of mind and express themselves without revealing their bigotry.

DieJustAsHappy | December 20, 2020 at 2:40 pm

I’m Caucasian. Don’t want it. Employer may insist I take it. If I do, it’s because of white privilege. right.

what ever happened with the PPE, shouldn’t that have minimized the possibility of them getting Wuhan virus. If they need the vaccine first makes you winder the effectiveness of the mask, etc.

    mark311 in reply to ronk. | December 21, 2020 at 4:07 pm

    Its a risk thing, in a medical setting eliminating the risk of a highly transmittable virus is HARD. It means being perfect all the time when potentially hundreds of patients are entering a medical setting all the time. Remember this has been going on for months and months. I’d imagine the drs and nurses are all shattered where the pandemic has hit hard too. I do not envy them. As for the general public well masks and social distancing help but again not perfect and the more people have it the more likely it is that it will transmit.

Ah, intersectionality! Boy oh boy, my other half and I are the poster children for the SJWs of the East, he being 67 years old and my same-sex spouse, married in ’15 after the Supremes legalized it.

So is there an “ethical” exception to Save The Endangered Homos? If so, please stop it, Herr Schmidt. While I am deeply satisfied by the 2015 ruling, I am not “grateful” nor do I consider us having been “saved” by that ruling.

On the contrary, all the same-sex marriage ruling did was recognize rights that we already had, and which should have been recognized a long time earlier per the 9th amendment. No one “gave” us any rights, nor did they “save” us by finally designating us as full American citizens.

To us, this was never “identity politics,” but exactly the opposite: All we have EVER wanted was to live our lives. Really, that’s it. No need or desire to be “protected” from harsh words or “saved” from the meanies. None of that; just mind your own business and leave us alone, and we’ll be ever so happy to return the favor.

But don’t try to confiscate our guns. God help you.

    RandomCrank in reply to RandomCrank. | December 20, 2020 at 3:05 pm

    p.s.: We might not be straight, but we can shoot straight. Being gunners, we can do that in many and sundry ways. Really, how many gunners own just one?

    Anyway: I wrote this because of the whole “savior” complex. Herr Schmidt wants to “save” black people by killing whites. I say that once you arrogate the power over life and death and use it so “save” this or that group, you’ve effectively told the group that you “saved” that their lives are meaningless and can be taken for some other ginned-up “reason” in the future.

    Bottom line: Only God can save us. Past that, God save me from my saviors, and from those people who think they are saviors. Thanks so much, but no thanks!

Whose”ethics???? Define legally “ethical”.

“He went on to argue that it was easier for elderly populations to self-isolate than essential workers, who may have no choice but to interact with the public through their jobs.”

I was an election official for my city, and I interacted with approximately 5000 people over six weeks. I have not contracted Wuhan-19.

Vaccinate the most vulnerable first, *then* the most exposed. Jesus, this isn’t rocket science.

The headline should read: Expert says experts should receive the vaccine before everyone else.
Anything else would jeopardize their ability to control your life, because you are much too stupid to be allowed to make your own decisions.

According to the graph here, people over 65 account for 90% of all deaths from Covid. And, according to numerous government sources, 50-80% of these are deaths of residents in rest homes. I am 83, in a rest home, and have three potential comorbidities. Consequently, I was shocked to see a prominent politician argue this week that black people should receive the Covid vaccine first because they’ve been “hardest hit”. Clearly healthcare workers should go first, followed by the staff and residents of rest homes, without regard for race.

    RandomCrank in reply to Martin. | December 21, 2020 at 2:52 pm

    I just looked it up. In the interest of adhering to the published data (which might or might not be factual, but that’s a different discussion), the official data show that 80% of the U.S. deaths attributed to Covid-19 have occurred among people 65 and older — not 90%.

    Specifically: 221,480 of 276,061 deaths blamed on COVID-19 have occurred in people >65, which my calculator calls 80.2%. Your point still stands, but if we’re talking about numbers then we really ought to use them correctly.

    https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku?fbclid=IwAR0QFVRQmWsEZg8KyRULw-Gp2U3HoFjZzaLBEtI6pKltYrtII3gMlkbrpz0

    By the way, given that we now have two vaccines, I don’t see why there is such tight rationing. Yes, vaccinate the health care workers and nursing home residents, but also RIGHT AWAY vaccinate every school employee and restore regular classes in the second semester.

    Also begin offering vaccinations to every retail and restaurant employee ASAP, so we can reopen the economy. There will be at least 30 million doses available by the end of December, and that ought to be enough to inoculate health care workers, nursing home patients, and school employees IMMEDIATELY, with retail and restaurants to follow, along with the rest of the elderly population — and then on from there.

You know what? If we had more older white people, we’d have less ‘ghetto’ in our culture.

Fuck this shit.

Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer

That’s an interesting way to phrase “genetics matters”.

No problem. Some social worker can have my dose.

So how far is this race preference going to go? So will a 22 year old black college student who is likely to party going ahead of a 50 year old Asian who mostly stays at home? This is an extreme example, but you can start drawing your own examples by sliding the ages and profiles. I know some of the early meat plant outbreaks were workplace related. They didn’t know and they put in safeguards. At this point, how much of this is really workplace? NY reports 75% are social gatherings. How many are non voluntary social gatherings (they already live together) and voluntary (getting together for parties, Thanksgiving)? If 80% of the social gathering infections are because minorities live in larger households, that’s a pretty good reason to target them. However, if 80% of all social gathering infections are happening because of strictly voluntary gatherings, it’s just bad behavior. Why then would a 45 year old Hispanic be more deserving than a 55 year old white? What if the 45 Hispanic is actually upper income but the 55 white is lower income? How are they accounting for this? This a pretty sensitive rabbit hole to go down. No wonder they don’t report any contact tracing. You just hope it doesn’t produce facts like In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population. I kind of get the feeling that authorities don’t want groups to get blamed. Search for: Half of US states want to prioritize black and Hispanic people in vaccine rollout | Daily Mail Online

That would be an ‘expert’ as in a ‘ex’ as in has-been and ‘spert’ meaning a drip under pressure! Where do they get these yapping Muppets?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend