Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
IHAQ
God
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

Re: Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

Post by IHAQ »

cinepro wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 4:44 pm
IHAQ wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:06 am
You are misrepresenting the situation being asked about in the OP by suggesting John Dehlin getting the vaccine is an appropriate contrast. The OP is asking how did a significant proportion of the Apostles (100% of the Apostles >70 years old) and their wives all get the vaccine on the same day at the head of the queue, and why. An individual getting a vaccine more than a week into the programme is an entirely different thing. By all means start a different thread to discuss how and why John Dehlin got a vaccination more than a week into the program.
I still think it's an interesting question: which bothers you more? People in a very high risk group getting the vaccine in a way that promotes public health but offends your sense of "fairness", or a healthy, low-risk person getting the vaccine before other high-risk people do, but in a way that supports your sense of "fairness" because a somewhat arbitrary decision was made by a bureaucracy?
Again, you're misrepresenting it. It's not "people in a very high risk group getting the vaccine in a way that promotes public health but offends your sense of fairness" that's the issue. The issue is a very simple on about how and why a select group from one particular religion were afforded a privilege not available to others. If it's on the basis that they were religious leaders who would promote the getting of the vaccine to their congregants, then prioritising other religious leaders would be equally beneficial - but that wasn't done. Religious leadership is not one of Utah's stated key priority groups. If the Utah Health Authority hasn't afforded them the privilege (and it looks a lot like they didn't) then we're left with them taking the decision themselves. Had they taken it upon themselves to gather all religious leaders to their health facility as a cross-denominal initiative to lead the way on vaccination (with the approval of the Utah Health Authority) then that would've been the positive message you seem to be desperately trying to filter from this example of self importance by LDS Leaders. But they didn't do that.

If you are sensing any frustration on my part, it's simply my frustration with your ongoing misrepresentation of the situation we are discussing. I've articulated how you are misrepresenting it on a couple of occasions now, I won't be doing so again.
cinepro
CTR B
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:34 am

Re: Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

Post by cinepro »

IHAQ wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:16 am
The issue is a very simple on about how and why a select group from one particular religion were afforded a privilege not available to others.
On the day the 14 LDS Leaders got vaccinated, the vaccine had already been given to almost 200,000 people in Utah. So I'm not seeing how vaccines weren't made "available to others." And you say "select group", but you don't mention that the "select group" fell squarely into the state's permitted tiers for vaccination (and some of them are in the highest-risk group).
If it's on the basis that they were religious leaders who would promote the getting of the vaccine to their congregants, then prioritising other religious leaders would be equally beneficial - but that wasn't done.
Suppose you have a religion in an area that has 500,000 members (many of them elderly), and a religion that has 50 members in an area. If your goal is to set an example (and give confidence) to the most people possible, do you really think publicly vaccinating the leader of 50 people will have the same benefit as publicly vaccinating the leader of 500,000 people? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. It seems perfectly logical and scientific to vaccinate the leader of the larger group.

In Utah, it looks like there are ~1.9m Mormons, followed by 160k Catholics, and then 12k Baptists (and the Baptists aren't led by a single leadership structure in the area). So maybe the Catholic leaders and some prominent Baptist leaders could have been included. But statistically speaking, you're looking at diminishing public health returns at that point.

To be clear, I'm not saying that other religious leaders shouldn't also have been vaccinated. That's what they did in AZ. So I would agree with you that it would have been good to have other religious leaders included in the vaccination event. I'm with you there. But that doesn't mean there was anything inherently wrong with the LDS leaders (who were in the proper tier) getting vaccinated.

Religious leadership is not one of Utah's stated key priority groups. If the Utah Health Authority hasn't afforded them the privilege (and it looks a lot like they didn't) then we're left with them taking the decision themselves.
People over 70 were one of the stated priority groups. There was nothing wrong with vaccinating people over the age of 70, even if they're Mormon. And again, "Health Authorities" all over the country and the world freely acknowledge the benefit of getting prominent religious leaders to be publicly vaccinated as examples. Giving religious leaders "preference" to be publicly vaccinated is simply good public health policy.

For example, here's what one hospital in Miami is doing. Does the idea of these Church groups getting this privilege bother you? Or is it just good, scientific, public health policy? There are countless examples from all over the world of how religions are an important part of getting vaccines effectively accepted, and publicly vaccinating religious leaders is part of that process:
Every week the hospital opens up a limited number of appointments for 50 partner churches, synagogues and mosques to register members of their own congregations, as well as family members, friends and members of neighboring houses of worship. For now, the slots are limited to those 65 and older.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/corona ... 70010.html
Had they taken it upon themselves to gather all religious leaders to their health facility as a cross-denominal initiative to lead the way on vaccination (with the approval of the Utah Health Authority) then that would've been the positive message you seem to be desperately trying to filter from this example of self importance by LDS Leaders. But they didn't do that.
Sure, it would have been great to have other faith leaders get publicly vaccinated as well. But ecumenism is a different issue than public health. Given the choice, I would choose public health over ecumenism (although it would be great to have both).
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

Post by Lem »

IHAQ wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:16 am


I still think it's an interesting question: which bothers you more? People in a very high risk group getting the vaccine in a way that promotes public health but offends your sense of "fairness", or a healthy, low-risk person getting the vaccine before other high-risk people do, but in a way that supports your sense of "fairness" because a somewhat arbitrary decision was made by a bureaucracy?
Again, you're misrepresenting it. It's not "people in a very high risk group getting the vaccine in a way that promotes public health but offends your sense of fairness" that's the issue. The issue is a very simple on about how and why a select group from one particular religion were afforded a privilege not available to others. If it's on the basis that they were religious leaders who would promote the getting of the vaccine to their congregants, then prioritising other religious leaders would be equally beneficial - but that wasn't done. Religious leadership is not one of Utah's stated key priority groups. If the Utah Health Authority hasn't afforded them the privilege (and it looks a lot like they didn't) then we're left with them taking the decision themselves. Had they taken it upon themselves to gather all religious leaders to their health facility as a cross-denominal initiative to lead the way on vaccination (with the approval of the Utah Health Authority) then that would've been the positive message you seem to be desperately trying to filter from this example of self importance by LDS Leaders. But they didn't do that.

If you are sensing any frustration on my part, it's simply my frustration with your ongoing misrepresentation of the situation we are discussing. I've articulated how you are misrepresenting it on a couple of occasions now, I won't be doing so again.
Many religious leaders, thankfully, are not promoting the situation that the Mormon leaders showed by their simple-minded approach, but are putting real thought into it.
As the COVID-19 vaccine rolls out, Father Ponnet is far from the only religious leader raising questions about its distribution. Many have decried the decisions made so far, arguing that unequal access to the vaccine will only exacerbate existing racial and economic inequalities — both nationally and globally.

“The distribution of the vaccine is throwing a spotlight once again on racial inequality. ... We just need to open our eyes to see it and create models that will address it” both in the short term and long run, says Bishop Thomas Bickerton, who oversees hundreds of United Methodist churches in eastern New York and western Connecticut.

He and other religious leaders believe the vaccine rollout is a stark reminder of the need to address injustice in everything from health care to housing and an opportunity to begin to right systemic wrongs.

“We can see very clearly how inequitably resources are distributed — in this case, lifesaving resources,” says Rabbi Brant Rosen, who is the founder of the non-denominational Jewish synagogue Tzedek, which is Hebrew for justice. “If saving life isn’t sacrosanct then what right do we have to call ourselves people of faith?”

First in line

While CDC recommendations have specified that front-line workers, many of whom are minorities, should be prioritized in the vaccination process, some religious leaders believe this doesn’t go far enough.

Because Black and brown communities have been disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus, they should get the vaccine first — regardless of their occupation or age or whether or not they have preexisting conditions, says the Rev. Myra Brown, a Black woman who leads Spiritus Christi, an Independent Catholic Church in Rochester, New York.

“If you’re a person of color, this virus has told us you are at risk,” she says. “If I was getting the vaccines in a particular area I’d vaccinate people of color regardless of what the guidelines say.”

At the very least, health officials should not let privileged people cut to the front of the line, says Bishop Bickerton, pointing to the politicians who have been vaccinated ahead of the population they serve.

He intends to follow in the footsteps of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has said he won’t get the vaccine until it’s available for Black, Hispanic, and economically underprivileged Americans in his age group.

“I continue to be very concerned about a distribution model that is not effective and especially for Black and brown communities who live in marginalized communities and don’t get quick access,” says Bishop Bickerton. “It’s time to relook at the distribution model.”
https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2021/1/ ... -palestine
Additionally, this argument that there is nothing statistically unusual with grouping select Mormon leaders and their and their wives together is simplistic and naïve. It's like arguing "it could have happened that way anyway, so why not arrange it so?" Thankfully many other religious leaders are setting a far better example in their discussions.

On a separate but related note, this is not the first time by any means we've seen a depth of thoughtfulness from non-Mormon religious leaders that contrasts with a frequently shallow lds approach. A prime example was Bednar bragging that miracles happened when, knowing a covid shut down was imminent, he praised temple leaders for, in effect, arranging a 3day, 24 hour a day superspreader event in an area where the risks were known. That just seemed unbelievably naïve and tone-deaf.

Maybe its the overall length of time the religion has been around, but mature thoughtfulness while encountering the world's events seems beyond Mormon leaders just yet.
cinepro
CTR B
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:34 am

Re: Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

Post by cinepro »

Lem wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:13 pm
Maybe its the overall length of time the religion has been around, but mature thoughtfulness while encountering the world's events seems beyond Mormon leaders just yet.
I think we can agree we've pretty much exhausted the question posed by the thread title and in the OP. Once we've moved past public health and epidemiological science as our benchmarks and found ourselves at "thoughtfulness", I think I'm ready to say the variables we're using to judge this are so skewed it should be expected we see things differently.

So here's a summary of how I'm seeing it. I understand there are other ways to see it, and people can feel justified indignation at 14 elderly LDS leaders having gotten vaccines in what appears to be a preferential manner.

Did LDS leaders get preferential treatment? Unless they were able to somehow schedule appointments all at the same time (which is very unlikely), then almost certainly "yes."

Did they "jump to the front of the vaccination queue ahead of elderly church members"? Since they themselves are "elderly church members", the answer is no. They may have been placed ahead of other elderly church members (and non-church members), but the question as-worded is misleading, since it implies they are members of a different group than "elderly church members."

Was this preferential treatment "bad"? From a public health perspective, almost certainly not. It's possible that other, higher-risk people could have been found to get the vaccines instead of them, but in light of ~200,000 vaccines already having been given in the state at that time, a shift of 14 vaccines one way or the other isn't much of a shift. (Vaccine sites here in California are regularly giving out many more shots than that to standbye people who are very low risk to avoid throwing out viable but expiring doses).

Other factors than "public health" and science can be brought to bear on the question, and those other factors can lead to different answers. People answering the question based on different variables and priorities should expect to come to a different answer.

Are religious leaders sometimes given preferential treatment for public health reasons? Yes, all over the world religious leaders are being given the vaccine publicly to set an example and encourage people to feel safe getting the vaccine. This provides a public health benefit above and beyond the immunity effect of the actual vaccine. Certainly, those leaders can opt out or choose to wait, but that doesn't mean those leaders who didn't wait did the wrong thing. They just judge the situation differently. And there can be a cost to having religious leaders waiting if their followers are reluctant to get vaccinated.

Would it have been better to give the vaccine to other Utah religious leaders as well? If the problem is that the LDS leaders got access based on their religion, then it would be worse if even more people got access based on their religion. So it would be a good thing that other religious leaders weren't also given vaccines; less religious bias and harm was done.

It should also be noted that the Catholic Bishop in SLC is only 67, so he was not in the permitted tier at the time the vaccinations were given (and he still isn't). So his participation would have been placing him in a different risk-tier entirely (as would participation by any LDS leaders younger than 70).

If the problem is that there was an unrealized public health benefit because additional Catholic, Baptist and other religious leaders weren't included, then that is true. But it doesn't eliminate the public health benefit that was realized from the LDS leaders being publicly vaccinated. So it would still be a good thing that the leaders of the largest religion were able to set an example, even if more good could have been done with additional participation from other religious leaders.
IHAQ
God
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

Re: Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

Post by IHAQ »

cinepro wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:47 pm
So here's a summary of how I'm seeing it. I understand there are other ways to see it, and people can feel justified indignation at 14 elderly LDS leaders having gotten vaccines in what appears to be a preferential manner.
Thanks for laying it out like this, I think it's helpful to the discussion.
Did LDS leaders get preferential treatment? Unless they were able to somehow schedule appointments all at the same time (which is very unlikely), then almost certainly "yes."
I agree. It appears the Apostles who are over 70 and their wives have been afforded a preferential treatment in the matter of getting vaccinated. What we don't know is whether the preferential treatment was granted by the Utah Health Authority, or if the LDS Leaders simply granted it to themselves by virtue of a position of authority over a vaccination provider.
Did they "jump to the front of the vaccination queue ahead of elderly church members"? Since they themselves are "elderly church members", the answer is no. They may have been placed ahead of other elderly church members (and non-church members), but the question as-worded is misleading, since it implies they are members of a different group than "elderly church members."
I think this response is a pretzel of mental gymnastics. We've already agreed that they've had preferential treatment. What preferential treatment have they had? They've been vaccinated all together at the start of the process for vaccinating >70 year olds and so have jumped to the front of the queue of other 70 year olds. There is no suggestion that they should not have been included in the programme for vaccinating people of their age.
Was this preferential treatment "bad"? From a public health perspective, almost certainly not. It's possible that other, higher-risk people could have been found to get the vaccines instead of them, but in light of ~200,000 vaccines already having been given in the state at that time, a shift of 14 vaccines one way or the other isn't much of a shift. (Vaccine sites here in California are regularly giving out many more shots than that to standbye people who are very low risk to avoid throwing out viable but expiring doses).
I think that's a fair point as far as public health is concerned.
Other factors than "public health" and science can be brought to bear on the question, and those other factors can lead to different answers. People answering the question based on different variables and priorities should expect to come to a different answer.
Yes. There is a credibility question and a moral question here alongside the general point about public health. And it will come down to what the decision making process was behind the act of LDS Leaders getting themselves vaccinated first. I think this touches on the biggest problem in all of this, a lack of communication. No explanation has been offered for why the preferential treatment happened, nor at whose behest.
Are religious leaders sometimes given preferential treatment for public health reasons? Yes, all over the world religious leaders are being given the vaccine publicly to set an example and encourage people to feel safe getting the vaccine. This provides a public health benefit above and beyond the immunity effect of the actual vaccine. Certainly, those leaders can opt out or choose to wait, but that doesn't mean those leaders who didn't wait did the wrong thing. They just judge the situation differently. And there can be a cost to having religious leaders waiting if their followers are reluctant to get vaccinated.
But that isn't the situation with what we are discussing. This isn't a case of "Religious Leaders" leading the way to set the example. Other faiths have not been included. So is this a case of LDS leaders only seeing LDS as important? Does the Utah Health Authority only see LDS as important? This only becomes a factor when those Church Leaders come out and explain what they did and why they did it. The How? and the Why? questions in the letter in the OP.
Would it have been better to give the vaccine to other Utah religious leaders as well? If the problem is that the LDS leaders got access based on their religion, then it would be worse if even more people got access based on their religion. So it would be a good thing that other religious leaders weren't also given vaccines; less religious bias and harm was done.
It wouldn't be even worse for those LDS Leaders were they to be part of a wider health initiative designed to promote vaccinations across all congregants.
It should also be noted that the Catholic Bishop in SLC is only 67, so he was not in the permitted tier at the time the vaccinations were given (and he still isn't). So his participation would have been placing him in a different risk-tier entirely (as would participation by any LDS leaders younger than 70).
I agree. But it didn't happen so this isn't a point. Or maybe it is, are there any other religious leaders in Utah over the age of 70?
If the problem is that there was an unrealized public health benefit because additional Catholic, Baptist and other religious leaders weren't included, then that is true. But it doesn't eliminate the public health benefit that was realized from the LDS leaders being publicly vaccinated. So it would still be a good thing that the leaders of the largest religion were able to set an example, even if more good could have been done with additional participation from other religious leaders.
Has it been established that there has been a public health benefit realised from the LDS Leaders preferential vaccinations?
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

Post by Lem »

IHAQ wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:06 pm
Did LDS leaders get preferential treatment? Unless they were able to somehow schedule appointments all at the same time (which is very unlikely), then almost certainly "yes."
I agree. It appears the Apostles who are over 70 and their wives have been afforded a preferential treatment in the matter of getting vaccinated. What we don't know is whether the preferential treatment was granted by the Utah Health Authority, or if the LDS Leaders simply granted it to themselves by virtue of a position of authority over a vaccination provider.
Did they "jump to the front of the vaccination queue ahead of elderly church members"? Since they themselves are "elderly church members", the answer is no. They may have been placed ahead of other elderly church members (and non-church members), but the question as-worded is misleading, since it implies they are members of a different group than "elderly church members."
I think this response is a pretzel of mental gymnastics. We've already agreed that they've had preferential treatment. What preferential treatment have they had? They've been vaccinated all together at the start of the process for vaccinating >70 year olds and so have jumped to the front of the queue of other 70 year olds. There is no suggestion that they should not have been included in the programme for vaccinating people of their age.
Other factors than "public health" and science can be brought to bear on the question, and those other factors can lead to different answers. People answering the question based on different variables and priorities should expect to come to a different answer.
Yes. There is a credibility question and a moral question here alongside the general point about public health. And it will come down to what the decision making process was behind the act of LDS Leaders getting themselves vaccinated first. I think this touches on the biggest problem in all of this, a lack of communication. No explanation has been offered for why the preferential treatment happened, nor at whose behest.
Are religious leaders sometimes given preferential treatment for public health reasons? Yes, all over the world religious leaders are being given the vaccine publicly to set an example and encourage people to feel safe getting the vaccine. This provides a public health benefit above and beyond the immunity effect of the actual vaccine. Certainly, those leaders can opt out or choose to wait, but that doesn't mean those leaders who didn't wait did the wrong thing. They just judge the situation differently. And there can be a cost to having religious leaders waiting if their followers are reluctant to get vaccinated.
But that isn't the situation with what we are discussing. This isn't a case of "Religious Leaders" leading the way to set the example. Other faiths have not been included. So is this a case of LDS leaders only seeing LDS as important? Does the Utah Health Authority only see LDS as important? This only becomes a factor when those Church Leaders come out and explain what they did and why they did it. The How? and the Why? questions in the letter in the OP.
The question continues to be re-stated without properly addressing the OP issues, and I really appreciate your efforts, IHAQ, to keep bringing it back to the actual concerns.

My only addition would be to again note that only by the lack of separation of church and state was this preferential treatment arranged. Which is just my opinion, in deference to honor's objection--yes, you are correct that I do not know that for a fact, it is only an opinion based on multiple situations over the years, and the incredibly low probability that this was arranged the way all other 70year olds in the state had to arrange it.
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

Post by Lem »

IHAQ wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:06 pm
...There is a credibility question and a moral question here alongside the general point about public health. And it will come down to what the decision making process was behind the act of LDS Leaders getting themselves vaccinated first. I think this touches on the biggest problem in all of this, a lack of communication. No explanation has been offered for why the preferential treatment happened, nor at whose behest.
This article, which notes religious leaders can help by setting an example, show a much better approach to the process. A couple of excerpts related to our discussion, in particular to ihaq's point about a lack of communication:
Fauci tells Baltimore faith leaders equity will be key in Biden administration's vaccine plan

By Morgan Eichensehr
– Reporter, Baltimore Business Journal
Jan 22, 2021

Government and health leaders have an "obligation" to ensure vaccines are studied and distributed equitably, Fauci said. He told local church leaders that considerations about how to distribute vaccines in an equitable way are embedded into the Biden administration's plans around Covid-19 response. For example, Fauci said federal officials would be working with local leaders to set up community vaccine sites to increase access, including in predominately minority areas, and to launch mobile vaccine units to reach rural areas and areas where transportation and health care resources may be limited....

Fauci said he hopes to continue to work with community leaders, like those in Baltimore's faith organizations, to make Covid-19 interventions more equitable. Church leaders are often trusted and respected sources of information in Black and brown neighborhoods, he said, and can play an important role in helping to disseminate accurate information about the vaccines and their effectiveness and safety.

"It is very, very painful to see that a community is suffering disproportionately from a disease in which there is help at hand," Fauci said. "We need your help."

He also invited the faith leaders on the webinar — including Bishop Walter Scott Thomas, a pastor at New Psalmist Baptist Church, Bishop Donte L. Hickman Sr., a pastor at Southern Baptist Church, Bowyer G. Freeman, senior pastor at New Saint Mark Baptist Church, Brad Braxton, founding senior pastor of the Open Church of Maryland, and Rev. Robert Young, senior pastor at Wayland Baptist Church — to let federal officials know what they can do to better achieve their goals of responsible and requitable vaccine distribution.

https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/n ... aders.html
Arguing that 'preferential treatment isn't bad' misses the point that there are much better ways to invoke the positive influence of religious leaders than by violating church and state to engage in preferential treatment for one religion.
cinepro
CTR B
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:34 am

Re: Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

Post by cinepro »

Setting aside the specific issue of the 14 vaccines under discussion, I will point out that Utah seems to be doing especially well in the vaccine distribution dept.

As of 2/09, they have distributed 92% of available doses (second only to North Dakota). As a resident of California, I'm envious. For all the talk of differences between Utah and California for masks, lockdowns, public gatherings etc., Utah has gotten off to a great start when it really counted.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covi ... tribution/
Post Reply