Should race preferences guide who gets the Covid 19 vaccination first?

[kenny]

Yes, the U.S. government and many white men who were alive hundreds of years ago F-ed over AA’s and Native Americans in the WORST possible ways. But this isn’t the rationale for prioritizing minorities in the vaccine line according to the government reports. This has nothing to do with reparations, nor should it.

That's your opinion, which you've unfortunately stated as fact.
Mine opinion differs.

Oh, and missy's OP's question didn't include the qualifier that you added, "according to the government reports".
I was just responding from the heart.

 

[Dancing Fire]

People who socialize with non-household members or flaunt other safety protocols SHOULD ideally be at the very end of the vaccination line. Or, rather, everyone who followed the rules should be ahead of them.

That's the reason why I'm willing to be the last person in line. I'm guilty as hell

 

[SallyBrown]

I chose response #3, as did, as of my current post, 95% of respondents to this poll.

Race should not be a factor in determining vaccination order. Saying this is not racist. Quite the opposite.

 

[Matata]

Unfortunately though - those who are not following the rules are the ones who are getting and spreading this thing en masse.
Vaccinating them first mitigates the effects of their selfishness, keeping the rest of us safe at much larger scale than if the rest of us individually got vaccinated.

Ugh. You may be correct but it's galling to think that their selfishness will be rewarded and provide an incentive for them to continue that behavior when the next pandemic comes. It also provides a disincentive for those who followed the protocols to do so next time if it means not following protocols gets them priority vaccination. Humans, sigh

 

[nala]

That's the reason why I'm willing to be the last person in line. I'm guilty as hell

Same. I would have no problem with this whatsoever. Trust me, I’m not rushing to get this vaccine. The irony is that as a teacher—the state might require me to get it. Sigh.
ETA: I’ve never broken the rules but I have ventured out more than the average person—responsibly. I’ve been staying put since this most recent lockdown because I do follow the rules.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

First Coronavirus Vaccine Doses Administered In Hard Hit Indigenous Communities

Native Americans have been disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and are four times as likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19.

www.npr.org

I'm glad its going there because its been hard going to sew 16000 masks.

But this right here

Stanford Apologizes After Vaccine Allocation Leaves Out Nearly All Medical Residents

Residents waged a protest on Friday, demanding to know why senior faculty were getting the vaccine before front-line workers who see COVID-19 patients. Stanford has agreed the plan was flawed.

www.npr.org

that was just disgusting. yeah it went to a hospital but not to front line workers as it should have.

Did know one up and the down the food chain not think to question this before it was filled out
what about the direct superiors of these young doctors ?

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

That's the reason why I'm willing to be the last person in line. I'm guilty as hell

Just you keep you and your family safe DF
You seem to have done that quite well so far

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Ok no vaccine for all white peoples. Asians go first.

Ok
ill put my hand up
i laughed

 

[kenny]

I chose response #3, as did, as of my current post, 95% of respondents to this poll. ...

Thanks for the classic old fallacy, argumentum ad populum.

Since I was a toddler (and very different from other boys ... later explained by being gay) I figured out there is no superiority or rightness attached to being similar to the vast majority of other boys.

Shitty people have forever claimed superiority by being in the majority ... religions use this to build membership and make more money.
Non-shitty people can see right through this.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latinfor "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TooPatient]

Not that anyone will be asking my opinion as they set policies, but this is how I would sequence:

1. Medical workers
2. Residents & all staff at care facilities of all types (including prisons, etc where people have to be in contained spaces)
3. Grocery workers, those who produce/distribute/process necessities such as food, water, medicine, power, etc. (Including support staff such as maintenance, cleaning, etc for each facility)
4. (Or maybe 2.b.) teachers, daycare workers, etc
5. Other manufacturing, etc that can't be done at home
6. By age: 70+, 60+, 50+, 40+, 30+, 20+, under 20 (with a possible swap with the under 20 and college students getting added between 60+ and 50+ to enable schools to be fully vaccinated on assumption that the remaining groups would be those capable of working from home so less urgent)

 

[LilAlex]

That anything but the most vulnerable first is even being considered is a sure telling sign of how sick the USA has become.

The people who help the vulnerable -- and there is a limited number of them -- need to be able to do their jobs. That's why when the plane cabin de-pressurizes, you put your own oxygen mask on before your child's. It's not that your child is less important; it's that you can not help your child when you are unconscious.

 

[LilAlex]

that was just disgusting. yeah it went to a hospital but not to front line workers as it should have.

That's the problem with an algorithm. It downgraded all the "young people" -- i.e., most residents and fellows. This is what happens when you allocate based only upon who is at highest risk of dying from COVID, without factoring in who is at highest risk of being unable to perform their essential job when they get COVID.

 

[LilAlex]

Unfortunately though - those who are not following the rules are the ones who are getting and spreading this thing en masse.
Vaccinating them first mitigates the effects of their selfishness, keeping the rest of us safe at much larger scale than if the rest of us individually got vaccinated.

The anti-maskers are almost all old white men. They will not accept the vaccine when it is offered -- well, so say 70% of them now. Some of them refuse to acknowledge the existence of COVID even as they are in the hospital dying from it. It is a funny religion.

 

[123ducklings]

That anything but the most vulnerable first is even being considered is a sure telling sign of how sick the USA has become.

Hear, hear!

In America people of color are many times more likely to suffer hospitalization and death from COVID. Pure racism is the only explanation for not letting the facts guide vaccine distribution.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201.../hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html

 

[kenny]

Of course no discussion of US vaccines and race is complete without mentioning the US goverment's horrific racist Tuskegee Syphilis """Study"""


I've read it may explain the reservations some AA people have about vaccines distributed by the US government, particularly if race is a factor in a vaccine's distribution ...

Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male,[1][2][3] (informally referred to as the "Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment," the "Tuskegee Syphilis Study," the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the African American Male," the "U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee," or the "Tuskeegee Experiment"), it was an unethical clinical study which was conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).[4][5] The purpose of this study was to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis; the African-American men who participated in the study were told that they were receiving free health care from the federal government of the United States.[6]

The Public Health Service started the study in 1932 in collaboration with Tuskegee University (then the Tuskegee Institute), a historically black college in Alabama. In the study, investigators enrolled a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama.[6] Of these men, 399 had latent syphilis, with a control group of 201 men who were not infected.[5] As an incentive for participation in the study, the men were promised free medical care, but were deceived by the PHS, who never informed subjects of their diagnosis[7][8][9][10] and disguised placebos, ineffective methods, and diagnostic procedures as treatment.[11]

The men were initially told that the “study” was only going to last six months, but it was extended to 40 years.[5] After funding for treatment was lost, the study was continued without informing the men that they would never be treated. None of the infected men were treated with penicillin despite the fact that by 1947, the antibiotic was widely available and had become the standard treatment for syphilis.[12]

The study continued, under numerous Public Health Service supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press resulted in its termination on November 16 of that year.[13] The study caused the deaths of 128 of its participants, either directly from syphilis or from related complications.

The 40-year Tuskegee Study was a major violation of ethical standards,[12] and has been cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history."[14] ...

 

[Trekkie]

I am mixed race. I will be vaccinated as soon as I can.

But I wonder about the ethics of prioritising people of colour for this vaccine. I am not an anti-vaxxer, but this is a new vaccine and a new disease and we are still learning about both. I feel "prioritising people of colour" is a step too close to "testing the vaccine on people of colour".

I voted option 3.

 

[Trekkie]

Of course no discussion of US vaccines and race is complete without mentioning the US goverment's horrific racist Tuskegee Syphilis """Study"""


It is speculated it may explain the reservations some AA people will have about vaccines distributed by the US government ...

Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male,[1][2][3] (informally referred to as the "Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment," the "Tuskegee Syphilis Study," the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the African American Male," the "U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee," or the "Tuskeegee Experiment"), it was an unethical clinical study which was conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).[4][5] The purpose of this study was to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis; the African-American men who participated in the study were told that they were receiving free health care from the federal government of the United States.[6]

The Public Health Service started the study in 1932 in collaboration with Tuskegee University (then the Tuskegee Institute), a historically black college in Alabama. In the study, investigators enrolled a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama.[6] Of these men, 399 had latent syphilis, with a control group of 201 men who were not infected.[5] As an incentive for participation in the study, the men were promised free medical care, but were deceived by the PHS, who never informed subjects of their diagnosis[7][8][9][10] and disguised placebos, ineffective methods, and diagnostic procedures as treatment.[11]

The men were initially told that the “study” was only going to last six months, but it was extended to 40 years.[5] After funding for treatment was lost, the study was continued without informing the men that they would never be treated. None of the infected men were treated with penicillin despite the fact that by 1947, the antibiotic was widely available and had become the standard treatment for syphilis.[12]

The study continued, under numerous Public Health Service supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press resulted in its termination on November 16 of that year.[13] The study caused the deaths of 128 of its participants, either directly from syphilis or from related complications.

The 40-year Tuskegee Study was a major violation of ethical standards,[12] and has been cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history."[14] ...

Thank you Kenny!

And in the words of Bettina Judd, “Gynecology was built on the backs of Black women, anyway”.

The father of modern gynaecology, J Marion Sims, experimented on enslaved black women, performing surgery on them without anaesthetic. He believed black women didn't feel pain the way white women do: https://www.history.com/news/the-fa...logy-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves

"His defenders say the Southern-born slaveholder was simply a man of his time for whom the end justified the means—and that enslaved women with fistulas were likely to have wanted the treatment badly enough that they would have agreed to take part in his experiments. But history hasn’t recorded their voices, and consent from their owners, who had a strong financial interest in their recovery, was the only legal requirement of the time."

There is a long history of performing medical experiments on people of colour, supposedly for our own good. Prioritising us for this vaccine skirts too close to that.

 

[Austina]

This is the order in which people in the UK will be vaccinated.

 

[Missy]

Same. I would have no problem with this whatsoever. Trust me, I’m not rushing to get this vaccine. The irony is that as a teacher—the state might require me to get it. Sigh.
ETA: I’ve never broken the rules but I have ventured out more than the average person—responsibly. I’ve been staying put since this most recent lockdown because I do follow the rules.

Some arguments (some pro race being the main factor) state teachers should not be the first since they are very educated and more white than not.

That's your opinion, which you've unfortunately stated as fact.
Mine opinion differs.

Oh, and missy's OP's question didn't include the qualifier that you added, "according to the government reports".
I was just responding from the heart.

Yes I appreciate posts from the heart. We should never be criticized for sharing how we feel.

The people who help the vulnerable -- and there is a limited number of them -- need to be able to do their jobs. That's why when the plane cabin de-pressurizes, you put your own oxygen mask on before your child's. It's not that your child is less important; it's that you can not help your child when you are unconscious.

100% yes. The most vulnerable and at risk should be first in line. First responders/medical people working directly with Covid patients should be first. Not pompous self important officials who do nothing to help those with Covid 19. I cannot believe top administration got the vaccine ahead of medical doctors/residents who are working directly with sick patients. Disgusting. In every way.

I chose response #3, as did, as of my current post, 95% of respondents to this poll.

Race should not be a factor in determining vaccination order. Saying this is not racist. Quite the opposite.

I agree with you Sally.

First Coronavirus Vaccine Doses Administered In Hard Hit Indigenous Communities

Native Americans have been disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and are four times as likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19.

www.npr.org

I'm glad its going there because its been hard going to sew 16000 masks.

But this right here

Stanford Apologizes After Vaccine Allocation Leaves Out Nearly All Medical Residents

Residents waged a protest on Friday, demanding to know why senior faculty were getting the vaccine before front-line workers who see COVID-19 patients. Stanford has agreed the plan was flawed.

www.npr.org

that was just disgusting. yeah it went to a hospital but not to front line workers as it should have.

Disgusting is right. SMH. I can guess the race/ethnicity of the faculty who are working from home and who pushed their way to the front of the line and that makes me ill.

Adding insult to injury, the wealthy who try to buy their place at the head of the line.

This is egregious. Corruption to the max. All the politicians who went to the head of the line. Not exactly (IMO) essential workers. Just like their amazing health insurance. The rules don't apply to them.

Highest risk. I fear that considering too many alternatives would just slow down the process of getting vaccines out. Simple and fast is best right now.

I would hope people who deal with Covid patients get a vaccine first and ASAP.
next should be those who are at most risk for whatever reason.
next should be elderly / those whose race make them more likely for complications.

This is a tough one -- like the lifeboat question. Do you help the ones who are most likely to die (the very old and infirm) or the ones who are at risk of losing the most years of productivity (the "young and employed" old).

Luckily, there is no way to allocate it that way from a public health standpoint.

You may know that there is a huge and misguided and unscientific push to banish "race" considerations from medicine. So this would fly in the face of those new mandates. @SallyBrown makes a good point about genetic risk factors. Self-reported race in the US is a good proxy for genetic ancestry. There are a handful of genetic variants that associate with COVID-19 or with severe COVID-19 but I do not know how that breaks out vis-a-vis race. Suspect the effect of race will be subtle whereas the effect of age is enormous (like 75% of deaths have been in the over-65 age group whereas only 15 - 20% of cases have been in that age group and there are virtually no deaths in the youngest population strata despite a reasonable burden of infection (I forget the bins and percents).

For vaccinations in the US so far, it is front-line health-care workers (makes sense) and vulnerable populations in group living situations who are really not able to socially distance effectively (skilled nursing facility residents and the incarcerated -- makes sense, too, imo).

If race/ethnicity is a GENETIC risk factor, then yes.
Otherwise no.

Yes I agree. Not the time to make a showy political statement IMO. We need to end this pandemic as quickly as possible. Lives literally and figuratively are on the line. Time wasted are lives lost.

 

[Missy]

Thank you Kenny!

And in the words of Bettina Judd, “Gynecology was built on the backs of Black women, anyway”.

The father of modern gynaecology, J Marion Sims, experimented on enslaved black women, performing surgery on them without anaesthetic. He believed black women didn't feel pain the way white women do: https://www.history.com/news/the-fa...logy-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves

"His defenders say the Southern-born slaveholder was simply a man of his time for whom the end justified the means—and that enslaved women with fistulas were likely to have wanted the treatment badly enough that they would have agreed to take part in his experiments. But history hasn’t recorded their voices, and consent from their owners, who had a strong financial interest in their recovery, was the only legal requirement of the time."

There is a long history of performing medical experiments on people of colour, supposedly for our own good. Prioritising us for this vaccine skirts too close to that.

Yup, this was one of the first thoughts that came to my mind.

 

[Missy]

Idealogically I wholeheartedly agree.
Unfortunately though - those who are not following the rules are the ones who are getting and spreading this thing en masse.
Vaccinating them first mitigates the effects of their selfishness, keeping the rest of us safe at much larger scale than if the rest of us individually got vaccinated.

Those who are most selfish will probably refuse the vaccine. As stated by someone above white men may be the majority of anti vaxxers. But I have no definitive proof of this. Just my gut. And maybe all those white men I see with the masks below their noses at Costco and other stores. But I could be wrong. Don't quote me.

 

[Missy]

Ugh. You may be correct but it's galling to think that their selfishness will be rewarded and provide an incentive for them to continue that behavior when the next pandemic comes. It also provides a disincentive for those who followed the protocols to do so next time if it means not following protocols gets them priority vaccination. Humans, sigh

 

[Missy]

Who is making up much of the anti vaxxer sentiment?

The Anti-Vaccine Movement in 2020

What does an antivaxxer and a far-right activist have in common? If the thought of someone who opposes vaccines brings to mind tie-dye shirts and tree hugging, your answer may be “nothing.” But clearly, some do have a commonality: protesting the COVID-19 lockdowns. Coverage from these protests...

www.mcgill.ca

" Even though well-known parts of the anti-vaccine movement are on the political left, anti-vaccine sentiment is more pronounced on the right
- There is a strong association between anti-vaccination and belief in conspiracy theories and a significant link between anti-vaccination and the resistance to having your freedom taken away from you"

 

[Snowdrop13]

Who is making up much of the anti vaxxer sentiment?

The Anti-Vaccine Movement in 2020

What does an antivaxxer and a far-right activist have in common? If the thought of someone who opposes vaccines brings to mind tie-dye shirts and tree hugging, your answer may be “nothing.” But clearly, some do have a commonality: protesting the COVID-19 lockdowns. Coverage from these protests...

www.mcgill.ca

" Even though well-known parts of the anti-vaccine movement are on the political left, anti-vaccine sentiment is more pronounced on the right
- There is a strong association between anti-vaccination and belief in conspiracy theories and a significant link between anti-vaccination and the resistance to having your freedom taken away from you"

I wonder if they will recognise that so many freedoms have already been taken away by this pandemic, and it will only get worse unless we do something about it?

 

[Missy]

Americans who claim that mask wearing is the greatest attack on their freedom- to this I say they should check their privilege.

I wonder if they will recognise that so many freedoms have already been taken away by this pandemic, and it will only get worse unless we do something about it?

We need to end the pandemic and to do that everyone who can get vaccinated needs to get vaccinated.

 

[Missy]

Just adding more thoughts.

Eventually everyone who wants to get vaccinated will be able to do so and in the meantime we just have to continue practicing safe measures masking, social distancing and avoiding unnecessary exposure. We can do it. Let's hold strong. Let the most vulnerable among us get the vaccination first whatever that entails.

I want to see everyone who can get the vaccine get the vaccine and those most at risk need to get it before those of us less at risk. Period. It is the only way that makes sense.

We are in this together.
And the pandemic has to end for all of us together.

 

[doberman]

My son just got his first dose. I think that after all health care professionals are vaccinated, access to the vaccine should be prioritized on the basis of where you live. Inner city first - more people in a smaller environment, greater chance of transmission. Within the inner city, elderly first.

I wouldn't make this about race. Damn near everything is about race these days. Make it about living situation, and surprise, surprise, those of color will end up being vaccinated first.

 

[yssie]

I am mixed race. I will be vaccinated as soon as I can.

But I wonder about the ethics of prioritising people of colour for this vaccine. I am not an anti-vaxxer, but this is a new vaccine and a new disease and we are still learning about both. I feel "prioritising people of colour" is a step too close to "testing the vaccine on people of colour".

I voted option 3.

This will be an unpopular opinion, but... Yes.
This is a new vaccine.

I am not antivax.
But my cat got preventable cancer from a rabies vaccine known to contain cancer-causing adjuvants. Veterinarians give animals specific vaccines in certain places on the body for the express purpose of being able to track location-specific issues... I called it preventable because an alternate rabies vaccine that does not contain these adjuvants was available - it is now the default at many clinics.

My vet at the time, who I trusted completely and unquestioningly, didn’t tell me anything about this potential problem or the available alternative.
Why? Because it’s rare, I’m sure.
And I didn’t ask. I didn’t ask because I didn’t know that it was a question that I should be asking.
Well, “it’s rare” doesn’t help my cat, who lost his leg, or me.
So now... How do I know what other questions I’m not asking but should be? I don’t know what I don’t know. I’m not a medical professional. But I was wrong to blindly trust once - I am certainly not going to make that mistake again, with either animal or human medicine.

I will NOT agree with any movement to force a brand new vaccine on anyone... Except, hypothetically, those who choose to egregiously disregard others’ health and welfare. I’m thinking college kids partying Friday nights despite SIP, people who refuse to wear masks in public because #MyRights. But how on earth do you determine who is “behaving with egregious disregard”?
You can’t... So my opinion becomes a simple “no forcing anyone to get this vaccine, period”. And with it “no penalizing those who choose to wait”.

FWIW I will get the vaccine as soon as it’s available to me. I’m in about as low a risk group for any complications as one can possibly be in. I am worried about my parents and grandmother getting it... But they’re being very careful about restricting activity so their odds of getting or spreading covid are extremely low with or without it.

 

[LilAlex]

But my cat got preventable cancer from a rabies vaccine known to contain cancer-causing adjuvants. Veterinarians give animals specific vaccines in certain places on the body for the express purpose of being able to track location-specific issues...

Was not aware of this in cats but, unlike all the noise around human vaccines, this seems to be a real thing according to the AVMA.

It is still early for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine -- meaning there are no long-term follow-up data -- and these are the very first RNA vaccines. Nonetheless, I can't wait to get mine. The short-term protection is astounding. I expect a sore arm, maybe feeling crappy for a day or two, and a 10% chance of needing to take some Tylenol. There will no doubt be rare immune-related side effects -- but that pales in the context of a raging pandemic that may be unlikely to kill me but stands a good chance of permanently changing me for the worse.

 

[yssie]

Was not aware of this in cats but, unlike all the noise around human vaccines, this seems to be a real thing according to the AVMA.

Vaccine-associated sarcoma. I understand your skepticism. I was flabbergasted when the specialist gave us his hypothesis - he referred us to oncology to confirm. My first response was “you gonna tell me my cat has autism too?” After decades of hysteria around human vaccines - how could “vaccine-associated” anything possibly be happening!? I posted a fair bit about it all here on PS

I fuly agree with the remainder of your post for myself.