What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?
-
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 14:29 last edited by
Maybe Biden can define it. Would his first big win.
-
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 14:30 last edited by jon-nyc
Jesus, can we have a conversation now and then without making it Trump v Biden?
-
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 14:34 last edited by
@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?
Says the person with multiple Trump threads...
-
@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?
Says the person with multiple Trump threads...
-
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 14:48 last edited by jon-nyc
Thinking out loud here..
You could imagine a world where some critical task was not being performed or was being critically degraded at high cost to society due to high infection rates among the staff. And then there could be economic reasons to prioritize them. But that is a very small subset of "essential".
K-12 education staff might be advantaged in such a scenario. But again, not the food delivery guy or the radiologist or the linesman or the grocery store employee.
-
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 14:54 last edited by jon-nyc
A
literature searchquick google seems to indicate that healthcare workers infection rates are lower than the general population in hard hit areas (NY was the study I saw). And hospitalizations were associated with the usual suspects of co-morbidities.If that result is generalizable, there seems no 'risk minimization' case for prioritizing health care workers generally. Though some may be significant transmission risks due to the number of people they interact with.
-
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 15:16 last edited by
@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?
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 16:44 last edited by@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?
-
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 16:50 last edited by jon-nyc
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.
-
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 16:55 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 17:17 last edited by
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.
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 17:19 last edited by Loki@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.
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 17:20 last edited byA 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.
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 17:21 last edited byAs far as I'm aware, all several thousand employees of the company I work for are considered essential.
-
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.
wrote on 14 Dec 2020, 17:21 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 22 Dec 2020, 12:20 last edited by
"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.
-
wrote on 22 Dec 2020, 16:13 last edited by
-
wrote on 22 Dec 2020, 20:54 last edited by Axtremus
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/22/fauci-azar-receive-coronavirus-vaccines-449845
Anthony Fauci and Alex Azar just got their vaccines.
Do they need to be in front of the line so far ahead of @jon-nyc?
-
wrote on 22 Dec 2020, 20:57 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 22 Dec 2020, 21:07 last edited by@horace said in What’s with the prioritization of “essential” workers?:
white male is morally eligible for a vaccine.
I think some might be morally eligible for the vaccine.
Not all, of course
