Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hahaha, young NY white voters who hated Trump/GOP, along with the white suburban moms, can die from covid now says your Democratic governor, no covid treatments for you, elections have consequences!
guess these voters get their Karma. I'm an extremely liberal Democrat who was constrained to vote for Trump last time. I'm sick of dying on the sword of political correctness.
It looks like it is more about getting treatment to blacks and Hispanics due to lower vaccination rates versus telling whites not to get the same treatment.
Oddly enough, this is an article that came out a couple of weeks ago in Newsday about cases on Long Island, Majority-white communities have biggest spikes in COVID-19 cases over past month: https://www.newsday.com/amp/news/hea...ies-1.50454870
I don't like being overly helpful to those that won't help themselves, of whatever color.
guess these voters get their Karma. I'm an extremely liberal Democrat who was constrained to vote for Trump last time. I'm sick of dying on the sword of political correctness.
guess these voters get their Karma. I'm an extremely liberal Democrat who was constrained to vote for Trump last time. I'm sick of dying on the sword of political correctness.
The sooner democrat voters realize that their "leaders" only care about themselves and getting your vote, the better everyone will be.
Respectfully, that wasn't my intended message. IMO, these types of "social background" policies should be narrowly targeted to an individuals specific socioeconomic factors and not based solely a person's racial identity. For example, if residents in certain neighborhoods/workers in certain occupations are at higher risk of COVID, I don't think it is wrong to target resources to these areas/workers. Given social realities, these risk factors will be disproportionately common among black and hispanic people (as well as lower income people).
In prioritizing for distributing vaccinations or testing, I think incorporating those factors makes a lot of sense in where to target. When it comes to rationing treatment among those already sick, I'm less sure. It may make sense to look at aspects of an individuals social background to determine their risk. But, I would like to see more evidence on that point. Statistically, it seems likely to be true that someone with a lower income or no health insurance will have a tougher time recovering than an otherwise comparable patient.
I think this policy recommendation as currently written is unenforceable and will just be ignored. A provider denying treatment on the basis of race alone would be setting themselves up to huge legal liability.
I get why this policy makes many people viscerally upset and the message "don't worry this is just liberal insider baseball" won't assuage anyone concerned about this policy. But, my argument was aimed more at liberals who may be included to defend this policy as written.
Regarding your initial post, I think your point was if government simply created a policy in this context that prioritized services to a potpourri of low income persons/areas, high covid areas, elderly, persons with certain conditions, etc., it will prioritize, in effect, persons of color, insofar as more persons of color, by proportion, would fit into these categories. Such would likely not be unconstitutional and not immoral (which is not the same thing as agreeing with the policy).
Regarding your initial post, I think your point was if government simply created a policy in this context that prioritized services to a potpourri of low income persons/areas, high covid areas, elderly, persons with certain conditions, etc., it will prioritize, in effect, persons of color, insofar as more persons of color, by proportion, would fit into these categories. Such would likely not be unconstitutional and not immoral (which is not the same thing as agreeing with the policy).
If it can be demonstrated that those factors are relevant to a given patients risk, then yes I think they could be factored in.
The population covered under these risk factors would almost certainly be disproportionately people of color (specifically Black and Latino). But, the is because, in general, Blacks and Latinos individuals are more likely to higher risk than individuals who identify as White and Asian. The goal is to target those most at risk, not to prioritize certain people of color on principle.
I would also further caveate, I'm more comfortable with these type of social risk factors being used when it comes to allocating resources for preventative measure versus for treating those who already sick.
Then why not give treatment to all unvaccinated people regardless of color?
And withhold treatment from all vaccinated people regardless of color?
No, this is not about vaccine status. If you read the article, it says that BIPOC's get favored treatment because they are more at risk due to systematic racism.
How is this not discrimination against whites? When is NY going to get a Governor with some common sense?
How is this not discrimination against whites? When is NY going to get a Governor with some common sense?
You missed the memo…
It’s ok to discriminate against whites because they are meanies and stole this country from the natives and cornered the market on slavery, actually I think whites invented slavery, right here in the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
