It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


COVID19 Vac. Being Used as a Precedent To Dictate Race Determines Whom Deserves L. S. Medicines?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 01:32 AM
This whole essential/non-essential business seems fishy.

Shouldn’t it be politicians and the military.

Or medical doctors and nurses, firefighters, police, and teachers?


I give up. I just do t see how race could even come into play here. And not only that. It is being flaunted if you read between the lines that:

“Yes, Jimmy. In fact Orwell was right -
Some people are more equal than others.”

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 03:57 PM
a reply to: daskakik

You want to feel better about it, but those guidelines are indeed in the way states are handing it out, and it's at work in my state and in the neighboring state right now.

Workers at meat packing plants who are largely Hispanic immigrants are being prioritized over folks like my father who happens to be older with congestive heart failure. So young, presumably healthy people getting it before an older whiter one with a serious pre-existing that puts him at higher risk because they younger ones are from a "victim" class minority and essential.

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 04:42 PM
a reply to: ketsuko
I don't feel or need to feel any way about it.

Anecdote showing priority workers, who happen to be hispanic, are getting it before someone who can quarantine, who I'm guessing is white, doesn't prove that white priority workers are not also getting it.

It also doesn't prove that people are being "labeled as "white" because of your political leanings."

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 04:58 PM
a reply to: daskakik

When you stop prioritizing the people who have pre-existing conditions and who are older, then you lost your argument for logical sense.

The whole argument for most of the restrictions imposed on everyone was to protect the vulnerable (see group above). Btw, that group knows no real racial boundaries except that the older population tends to be whiter as whites are larger majority in older generations. So by not prioritizing the older citizens, vulnerable or not, you can focus on social justice more by targeting infrastructure jobs where those targeted minorities are more likely to work.

Critical populations and infrastructure will be identified and estimated through use of the most recent
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data, American Community Survey (ACS) data, and
ESRI Community Analyst data. Critical populations to be gathered through these data sets include: racial
and ethnic minority groups;
individuals 65 years and older; individuals with disabilities; individuals that
are underinsured or uninsured; individuals living in congregate settings; and individuals attending
colleges or universities. Kansas has defined critical infrastructure workforce personnel to include
healthcare personnel and other essential workers as included in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA) 4.0 guidance.

My own state does not have a "living document" as the plan has been in place for a few months now. They plan to do a simultaneous split between older adults with comorbidities and workers in critical jobs for phase 2 if dosage is still limited.

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 04:59 PM
By all means please go before me. Lol!!!!

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 05:09 PM
a reply to: ketsuko
The OP is all about racial boundaries.

It seems logical that by slowing the spread by those in contact with more people you also protect the vulnerable, as long as the vulnerable do their part.

And, the splitting will be done only "if" dosage is limited. It isn't at all how the OP laid it out.

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 06:10 PM
a reply to: daskakik

Even the CDC was using race as a determinant.

Race entered in during the ethics part of the debate where the elderly lost out because they weren't ethnically diverse enough.

In considering who should be vaccinated for COVID-19 first, the CDC experts looked at three different metrics: science, implementation, and ethics. The elderly lost points in the ethics category because racial and ethnic minority groups are underrepresented among adults age 65 and over. For the sin of being insufficiently diverse, many of the elderly were slated to die by falling in line behind "essential workers" in vaccine prioritization. An excellent thread providing more details on the methodology used can be found here.

So, yeah, meatpackers were ethically more important than old people because they're more diverse.

Here's a Twat thread showing the reasoning.

Even though vaccinating over 65s is predicted to save the most lives both directly and as a disease and infection-blocking strategy, they ultimately decided it wasn't good enough because the group simply wasn't diverse enough which is where the nod goes to frontline healthcare workers and other essentials in other states.

This Twat thread also shows how the UK has done it and they give clear preference to the idea that eldest are most at risk for several tiers until they include anyone with serious illness before going back to preference by age.

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 07:00 PM
a reply to: ketsuko
Another article that put that spin on it.

The CDC document linked shows race and value of the target group separately.

And, even if you buy into that spin, it is a long way from the over the top claims made in the OP, especially the one about people being considered "white" because of their political beliefs.

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 07:40 PM
Vaccinate the large cities first.

You will get an ethnic and age blend.

The entire idea being put forth is absurd however the congested nature of large cities seems like a good place to start.
edit on 20-12-2020 by wdkirk because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in