January 17, 2021 3:51 pm at 3:51 pm #1939580
I’ve see the following categories of people given, or suggested to be given, priority for the Covid-19 vaccines. Which do you agree or disagree with? Which should come first? (Did I miss any?)
1) Older people (different ages suggested)
2) Front line health care workers
3) Others (e.g. administrators) in the health care field
6) Others (e.g. administrators) in the education field
7) Essential front line workers (e.g. grocery store workers)
8) Funeral home workers
9) People with underlying medical conditions
11) Government officialsJanuary 17, 2021 4:36 pm at 4:36 pm #1939597
1, 2, 9 and 11 should get priority.
3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 should get no priority.
7 and 8 are more debatable but I’d vote against any priority.
11 should be limited to a small number of high government officials such as the President, VP, members of the cabinet, Congress and Supreme Court justices who should be given priority.January 17, 2021 4:43 pm at 4:43 pm #1939587ParticipantParticipant
the brave.January 17, 2021 4:45 pm at 4:45 pm #1939605yaakov doeParticipant
As one who has received the first dose I suggest that all the groups have priority to varying degrees with the exception of current smokers since they show disregard for their own health.January 17, 2021 5:39 pm at 5:39 pm #1939609
There’s no reason a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male should receive any lower priority than a Hispanic-Asian mixed race female.January 17, 2021 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm #1939655
It looks like initial delays are due to some gov folks interpreting “priority” as – we will not go to next group until this whole one is done – and providers are punished for vaccinating the wrong group. Is this the case in NY state? This is different than merely prioritizing who will be the next recipient.
This is where “darkei shalom” approach is applicable – make simply borad rules that are easy to identify – age is a good one, and then focus on doing it rather than arguing about it.January 17, 2021 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm #1939671Reb EliezerParticipant
2,9,1,7,3,4,5,6,9,11,10January 17, 2021 8:52 pm at 8:52 pm #1939679GadolhadorahParticipant
It would be illegal and politically toxic to prioritize by any racial or ethnic criteria. Do it by zip codes that have the highest infection/mortality rates.January 17, 2021 10:29 pm at 10:29 pm #1939693Yserbius123Participant
@always_ask_questions NY State has an extra layer of difficulty. As we all know, once the vaccine is defrosted and diluted, it’s only usable for six hours. If on any given day on any given clinic everyone who was on schedule to receive a dose gets one, there’s a question of what to do with the remaining doses. Some clinics chose to hand them out, first come first serve, so they don’t go to waste. But then Cuomo got all angry at that one place, so now a lot of clinics are forced to throw out vaccinations lest they face they ire of the NY State government by allowing people to skip the line.January 18, 2021 1:49 am at 1:49 am #1939716
! Yeserbius>> so now a lot of clinics are forced to throw out vaccinations
I heard that too. This seems to be totally inappropriate and seems to be changing. I am reading that now people are allowed to come and get it at the end of the day.
Maybe politicians should have been last, not first, in line, then the line will move faster. I know some governors who honorably did not jump the line.January 18, 2021 8:07 am at 8:07 am #1939773YtParticipant
Smokers go last definitelyJanuary 18, 2021 8:26 am at 8:26 am #1939817
with the exception of current smokers since they show disregard for their own health.
What about diabetics? Same thing?January 18, 2021 8:44 am at 8:44 am #1939821
GH, you’re being careful to not say the priority should be based on social justice, but official CDC recommendations barely hide that it’s a consideration.
From the CDC website:
The recommendations were made with these goals in mind:
Decrease death and serious disease as much as possible.
Preserve functioning of society.
Reduce the extra burden COVID-19 is having on people already facing disparities.January 18, 2021 8:58 am at 8:58 am #1939828
Vaccine Rationing and the Urgency of Social Justice in the Covid‐19 Response
Additional article information
The Covid‐19 pandemic needs to be considered from two perspectives simultaneously. First, there are questions about which policies are most effective and fair in the here and now, as the pandemic unfolds. These polices concern, for example, who should receive priority in being tested, how to implement contact tracing, or how to decide who should get ventilators or vaccines when not all can. Second, it is imperative to anticipate the medium‐ and longer‐term consequences that these policies have. The case of vaccine rationing is particularly instructive. Ethical, epidemiological, and economic reasons demand that rationing approaches give priority to groups who have been structurally and historically disadvantaged, even if this means that overall life years gained may be lower.January 18, 2021 9:12 am at 9:12 am #1939833Reb EliezerParticipant
The order should be 2,9,1,7,11,3,4,5,6,8,10January 18, 2021 9:26 am at 9:26 am #1939841
In a normal country (compared to the US and Europe) the vaccines are available so easily that there is minimal need for strict prioritization. I and most of my family and friends, ages 30-95, will have had their second vaccination by the end of the week. Long live the Zionist State, home of the Jewish people and nation.January 18, 2021 11:43 am at 11:43 am #1939903GadolhadorahParticipant
To Daas Yochid. And you think there is something wrong with taking account of segments of the population who don’t have good access to health services and who have suffered a disproportionately high rate of infection and death?January 18, 2021 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm #1939918
rational: The State of Israel badly messed up on the coronavirus, with the country suffering one of the highest rates.January 18, 2021 1:32 pm at 1:32 pm #1939942
ujm: sorry, wrong, כל הפוסל במומו פוסל
Except for certain cities whose residents you personally identify with and who consistently and purposefully disobeyed the rules, Israel has better statistics than almost all developed western countries. USA, England, Italy, Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, Spain, Switzerland, etc….
Everyone here knows that if not for these easily identifiable populations, we’d be home-free by now.January 18, 2021 6:27 pm at 6:27 pm #1940033
To Daas Yochid. And you think there is something wrong with taking account of segments of the population who don’t have good access to health services and who have suffered a disproportionately high rate of infection and death?
If that will save lives, no. If it will cost lives, yes.
They are advocating for prioritizing minorities for the sake of social justice even if it will cost lives.
Don’t you agree that there is something wrong with that?January 19, 2021 9:04 am at 9:04 am #1940176
“Don’t you agree that there is something wrong with that?”
No. Minorities experience much higher death rates, particularly if they are under 70.
Do you think that there is something wrong with prioritizing Ashkenazi Jews for Tay-Sachs screening?
Or white people for skin cancer screening?January 19, 2021 9:11 am at 9:11 am #1940197
Charlie, you are not arguing with my answer, you are denying the question.
You are claiming prioritizing minorities will save lives. If that is true, then I agree that they should be vaccinated first.
The question was should they be vaccinated first even if that policy will cost lives. So I ask once again: do you agree with that?
It’s not a moot point, because there are experts who say prioritizing minorities over older people will cost lives, yet some think it should be done anyway.January 19, 2021 9:20 am at 9:20 am #1940205
I will once again quote Schmidt:
“Ethical, epidemiological, and economic reasons demand that rationing approaches give priority to groups who have been structurally and historically disadvantaged, even if this means that overall life years gained may be lower.”
(Whether we should measure in life years gained or number of lives saved is also something I disagree with him about, but that’s perhaps a different discussion).January 19, 2021 4:29 pm at 4:29 pm #1940349
We get to be careful when we are agreeing to the word “prioritizing” – it might mean encouraging/making more available OR it might mean cutting off other people.
It sounds like a positive word – who would not want to “prioritize” someone disadvantage, and then the government person who is afraid of being blamed will simply not vaccinate anyone until he found everyone in the previous group, registered them, convinced everyone who does not want to take a vaccine.
Also, when they give you a nice-sounding list of priorities, they might interpret it as each item in the list is a hard priority before next. So, “medical, essential, elderly” might be interpreted as every last admin in the hospital first, then every last college admin, before they give it to anyone over 80….
We need lawyers to talk to our own governmentJanuary 19, 2021 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #1940352
you are discussing as if there is perfect data to decide what is better and there is a perfect way to implement a policy. We are dealing with already too much delays due to complex rules. I am pointing you to a Gemora discussing water allocation along the river – we allow the first one to get more water “le darkei shalom” instead of creating an army of inspectors to maximize fairness.
Simplify and you will get less angry people in the street. Use the age, and then add a reasonable number of field offices in underprivileged areas. This is already done for testing. All “free testing” sites I heard of are in the poor areas.January 19, 2021 7:49 pm at 7:49 pm #1940409
you are discussing as if there is perfect data to decide what is better and there is a perfect way to implement a policy.
Not at all. I’m discussing whether to prioritize minorities in theory even if that would cost more lives. I’m not necessarily disagreeing that it might actually save lives.January 19, 2021 11:53 pm at 11:53 pm #1940453
DY: whether to prioritize minorities in theory
again, define “prioritize” –
1) put some extra vaccine stations in poor neighborhood to facilitate access?
or is it: 2) do not vaccinate Whites until all Blacks (of certain age) are vaccinated?
there is a difference here.
It looked like some states tried to go for option (2) at the beginning, under an euphemism of “essential workers” but are now switching gears to a more balanced approachJanuary 20, 2021 12:20 am at 12:20 am #1940486
rational: It’s time to overcome your zionism. Israel messed up nationally on covid-19:January 20, 2021 12:49 am at 12:49 am #1940488
“there are experts who say prioritizing minorities over older people will cost lives”
I just looked at the age specific death rates. Minority death rates at age 60 are siimlar to white death rates at age 80. That is a big difference and argues for vaccinating 60something minorities before 70something whites. .January 20, 2021 12:49 am at 12:49 am #1940489
“In a normal country (compared to the US and Europe) the vaccines are available so easily”
There are no such countries. Even in Israel, only 1/3 of the population has been vaccinated.January 20, 2021 12:56 am at 12:56 am #1940492
“The State of Israel badly messed up on the coronavirus, with the country suffering one of the highest rates.”
Not the state, the people. Or more precisely, people who think that the rules don’t apply to them. But in any case, the US has an even higher rate of COVID infection and death.January 20, 2021 8:22 am at 8:22 am #1940495
That is a big difference and argues for vaccinating 60something minorities before 70something whites
Ok, so you’re suggesting a combination of variables be taken into account.
As long as the goal is to save the most lives, I’m all for it.
Agav, I’m also in favor of prioritizing those at higher risk because they’re smokers. I’m not at all advocating for smoking, but saving lives should be the goal, not punishing people.January 20, 2021 11:31 am at 11:31 am #1940627
ujm: Do the math. Don’t know how ? Here…A few numerical facts:
Population of New York Sate: 19, 450,000
Number of Corona deaths: 41,000
Death rate 21 per 1000 or 1 in 480
Population of State of Israel : 9,052,000
Number of Corona deaths : 4,144
Death rate: 0.46 per 1000 or 1 in 2,170
The death rate is 450% (that’s 4.5 X , ujm)) higher in New York State than in Israel. So who exactly messed up?
And it could have been a lot better here, except that in Betar Illit, Modiin Illit and Bnei Brak, they would rather see the elderly die than follow the Zionist rules.
If you can understand Hebrew, listen to what Yehuda Meshi Zahav said after burying his mother yesterday. If you can’t understand the Hebrew, learn it, it will do you good.January 20, 2021 1:11 pm at 1:11 pm #1940667
Israel Number of Corona deaths per million: 450.66
Jordan Number of Corona deaths per million: 412.8
Palestine Number of Corona deaths per million: 371.59
Denmark Number of Corona deaths per million: 315.54
Lebanon Number of Corona deaths per million: 294.64
Turkey Number of Corona deaths per million: 291.6
Norway Number of Corona deaths per million: 98.17
rational: please get you zionist friends in touch with the Arabs. Or with Denmark or Norway. Even Abbas can teach them a thing or two how to deal with the pandemic better.January 20, 2021 1:56 pm at 1:56 pm #1940694
ujm, I asked another poster, and I would like to ask you. I am really interested in an answer:
what is the point of quoting statistics out of context?
you can say – Israel is Mth out of N comparable countries, that would give us an idea. You just pick countries from the list with lower numbers. Is Norway comparable to Israel? how big are their school classes? When readers see abuse of statistics they would either (a) skip it with no comment, (b) believe of opposite of what you are trying to proof, as your arguments are not convincing.January 20, 2021 2:25 pm at 2:25 pm #1940717
AAQ: How did Israel’s next door neighbors in the Palestinian Territories, Jordan and Lebanon do better than Israel? As far as statistics, if you’ll notice, my comment with statistics was a response to the previous comment with statistics.January 20, 2021 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #1940782ywnjudyParticipant
I’m a fan of the Rav Vosner Vaccine PDF, comprehensive and non-dictatorial.January 20, 2021 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm #1940877
ujm: my comment with statistics was a response to the previous
exactly, and we are polluting internets with these numbers for no reason. And the question you asked is a good one. With all these very noisy numbers, better to look at more numbers and look at robust statistics, such as order, rather than at direct numbers.
So, overall Israel is 56 out of 200+ countries in death rates. Lebanon is 71, Jordan is 62, Turkey 76. Not that far. European and other random countries of similar to Israel economic condition: Greece 49, Spain 17, Poland 32, Germany 45, Serbia 61, Argentina 25. I would say Israel is on average same as peers. And note that poor and non-free countries probably undercount COVID deaths.
If you have time, look at these statistics separately by month. You will probably see countries jumping up and down the list over time. Virus attacks very unevenly. Recall all these Sweden success stories (N 23 total).February 21, 2021 10:19 am at 10:19 am #1950374
I’ll add one more to the list: people who wear glasses.
😉February 21, 2021 11:05 am at 11:05 am #1950399
I’ll add one more to the list: people who wear glasses.
(BTW, the vaccinated still need to wear masks, for no good reason)February 21, 2021 12:19 pm at 12:19 pm #1950422YtParticipant
“ (BTW, the vaccinated still need to wear masks, for no good reason)”
There is a reason, we still don’t know if the vaccinated ppl can carry the virusFebruary 21, 2021 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm #1950433February 21, 2021 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm #1950434
Yes we doFebruary 21, 2021 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm #1950441
Besides for MadeAliyah ethical shtickle Torah (which does not yet apply since many who want to get vaccinated have not yet been able to), the study done in Eretz Yisroel found that the vaccine doesn’t just reduce symptoms, it seriously reduces infections. Unless you want to claim that people who are not infected can still spread it, getting vaccinated means there’s little reason to wear a mask.February 21, 2021 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm #1950444
(I’m not addressing the issue of that causing non vaccinated to abandon mask wearing. You can still argue that)February 21, 2021 2:05 pm at 2:05 pm #1950458
Glasses might be protective too. So (less seriously) is eating garlic.
One early statistic observation was a French observation that smokers are better than surviving Covid. This research did not age well. Presumably, observation can be explained as following: younger, generally healthier in general, smokers get hospitalized, and are more likely to survive.
Even latest Israeli research in Lancet – 99% reduction in difficult cases, 85% reduction after first dose. This is among health-care workers, not elderly.February 21, 2021 2:07 pm at 2:07 pm #1950473
>Besides for MadeAliyah ethical shtickle Torah<
Not ethical, practical.
>I’m not addressing the issue of that causing non vaccinated to abandon mask wearing. You can still argue that<
We can and we did and still found no reason for the unvaccinated to wear masks. If that remains the case, then this should not be controversial.
Of course it “does not yet apply since many who want to get vaccinated have not yet been able to” in the US. I think I’ll bump the thread when it does apply.February 21, 2021 3:50 pm at 3:50 pm #1950503
Not ethical, practical.
Ethical. Practically, if someone decides not to get vaccinated, they might still get Covid and ch”v die.February 21, 2021 3:55 pm at 3:55 pm #1950507
if you don’t mind catching the virus; that’s your problem is an ethical question, not a practical one.February 21, 2021 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #1950514
>if someone decides not to get vaccinated, they might still get Covid and ch”v die.<
I’m not an anti-vaxxer and I don’t discourage getting vaccinated.
>if you don’t mind catching the virus; that’s your problem is an ethical question, not a practical one.<
I answered the ‘ethical question’ in the thread and as of now I haven’t gotten any counter-arguments.
The main question was a practical one; why not reopen?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.