What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?
-
@jon-nyc said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
Jesus, can we have a conversation now and then without making it Trump v Biden?
Actually it’s very much about what each administration is going to do about this. We either accept Trump or move to Biden’s ideas to debate. There is no other way to look at it.
-
I can’t think of how that’s justified epidemiologically unless you torque the definition of “essential” beyond recognition.
It seems to be entirely political, but also relatively unquestioned. If there’s an opinion piece out there asking the same question I haven’t seen it.
Am I missing something?
@jon-nyc said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
I can’t think of how that’s justified epidemiologically unless you torque the definition of “essential” beyond recognition.
It seems to be entirely political, but also relatively unquestioned. If there’s an opinion piece out there asking the same question I haven’t seen it.
Am I missing something?
Essential worker for what? Vaccine or subject to state lockdowns to a different degree?
-
I’m talking about vaccine prioritization only.
There seems to be this idea that there’s a thing called “essentialness” with the property such that the more of it you have the higher up you are in the queue.
I think that needs to be defended, and would be hard to defend if anyone tried.
I haven’t even see anyone try.
I have seen a lot of pieces arguing who has more “essentialness” than whom. But none arguing why vaccine prioritization should be based on it.
-
Maybe the argument would be that "essential workers" are obliged to continue working, and therefore put themselves at higher risk of infection?
It's sounds like bollocks to me.
I was only joking
-
Maybe there is a class of workers who the nation cannot do without if, say, more than x% of them have to not work on any given day. Then you vaccinate them to the extent that you are actuarially comfortable that not more more than x% of them will be forced off work on any given day.
I think that would still preserve the usual definition of the term "essential".
Beyond that, I would intersect 'frontline' and 'essential' to prioritize, basically for people who (1) have to do essential work and (2) have to do it in a way or an environment that makes them interact with lots of other people.
-
I’m talking about vaccine prioritization only.
There seems to be this idea that there’s a thing called “essentialness” with the property such that the more of it you have the higher up you are in the queue.
I think that needs to be defended, and would be hard to defend if anyone tried.
I haven’t even see anyone try.
I have seen a lot of pieces arguing who has more “essentialness” than whom. But none arguing why vaccine prioritization should be based on it.
@jon-nyc said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
I’m talking about vaccine prioritization only.
There seems to be this idea that there’s a thing called “essentialness” with the property such that the more of it you have the higher up you are in the queue.
I think that needs to be defended, and would be hard to defend if anyone tried.
I haven’t even see anyone try.
I have seen a lot of pieces arguing who has more “essentialness” than whom. But none arguing why vaccine prioritization should be based on it.
As a practical matter I think they sent most to hospitals for distribution just to get started. Most hospitals are doing only employees now and by tier. Covid unit, Covid patients first and then possibility of Covid exposure second.
The logistics in doing this is amazing. First you create Health record, then you schedule, then you administer, then you schedule the second and all the while you have to keep track of all this stuf including supply. Oh and all your vaccinating locations need to be certified by the state and maybe the immunization registry.
-
Maybe there is a class of workers who the nation cannot do without if, say, more than x% of them have to not work on any given day. Then you vaccinate them to the extent that you are actuarially comfortable that not more more than x% of them will be forced off work on any given day.
I think that would still preserve the usual definition of the term "essential".
Beyond that, I would intersect 'frontline' and 'essential' to prioritize, basically for people who (1) have to do essential work and (2) have to do it in a way or an environment that makes them interact with lots of other people.
A number of my customers have managed to designate themselves as 'essential'. If you knew them, you'd laugh. I know I did.
-
A number of my customers have managed to designate themselves as 'essential'. If you knew them, you'd laugh. I know I did.
-
Maybe the argument would be that "essential workers" are obliged to continue working, and therefore put themselves at higher risk of infection?
It's sounds like bollocks to me.
@doctor-phibes said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
Maybe the argument would be that "essential workers" are obliged to continue working, and therefore put themselves at higher risk of infection?
It's sounds like bollocks to me.
I think that’s the intuition behind it, but note that’s just a justification for why the (political) decision was made.
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
I don’t really think any white male is morally eligible for a vaccine. It is time we, as a country, make some courageous and justified decisions to redress the horrible damage done by those people.
-
2/3 of Howard University Hospital workers won’t take the vaccine. Apparently our racist past is the cause of distrust.
Ergo no one should get the vaccine. Which is the way we felt about it until one week after the election anyway.
Don’t trust the vaccine was the mantra and now we have people all over the map on it. I guess that was Trumps fault too.
-
Every single US state is being advised to consider ethnic minorities as critical groups for vaccination with HALF prioritizing black and Hispanic residents over white...
As a result, half of the nation's states have outlined plans that now prioritize black, Hispanic and indigenous residents over white people in some way, as the vaccine rollout begins.
According to our analysis, 25 states have committed to a focus on racial and ethnic communities as they decided which groups should be prioritized in receiving a coronavirus vaccine dose.
These include New Mexico, where collaboration with Native Americans is being prioritized; California, which has committed to ensuring black and Hispanic people have greater access to the vaccine; and Oregon, where health officials have said that ethnic minorities with have 'equitable access' to the shot.
Some states have made even more specific plans to prioritize communities of color, with 12 states specifically mentioning efforts to partner with healthcare providers in areas with a large minority population to reach 'diverse populations', according to Kaiser Family Foundation.
The CDC has also issued guidance on its Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) that uses 15 U.S. census variables to help local officials identify communities that may need support.
It is being used in states such as Michigan where minority status and language spoken could be taken into consideration when deciding how high a priority you are for receiving a vaccine.
Maine, in particular, has developed a 'Racial/Ethnic Minority COVID-19 Vaccination Plan' in an attempt to give a preference to groups that 'have experienced rates of disease that far exceed their representation in the population as a whole'.
Just a reminder....
