Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

[cinepro]

Please quote me accurately, cinepro.

Okay, what law were you referring to when you said "illegal behavior"? And what ethical framework are you assuming is in place for the distribution of vaccines?

Again, I'll bring this back to the science and data. The 85+ group is the absolute highest risk age group for death or hospitalization from Covid-19. It's not even close.

Nationwide, 2.5% of the detected Covid-19 cases have been in that group, but 33% of the deaths. 21% of the 85+ group that have tested positive have died. There is no other demographic or risk group that I can find data for that comes close. Not even health care professionals (.34% Case Fatality Rate, compared to 21% for 85+).

So from a purely ethical standpoint, if you set aside what religion those people are, what is the ethical problem with giving people who are 95 (Russell M. Nelson), 86 (DHO), 86 (HBE), 91 (RMB) the vaccine? If our goal is to save as many lives as possible, regardless of the person's religion, shouldn't the 85+ group be getting vaccinated before everyone else?

[Lem]

Please quote me accurately, cinepro.

Okay, what law were you referring to when you said "illegal behavior"? And what ethical framework are you assuming is in place for the distribution of vaccines?

Again, I'll bring this back to the science and data. The 85+ group is the absolute highest risk age group for death or hospitalization from Covid-19. It's not even close.

Nationwide, 2.5% of the detected Covid-19 cases have been in that group, but 33% of the deaths. 21% of the 85+ group that have tested positive have died. There is no other demographic or risk group that I can find data for that comes close. Not even health care professionals (.34% Case Fatality Rate, compared to 21% for 85+).

So from a purely ethical standpoint, if you set aside what religion those people are, what is the ethical problem with giving people who are 95 (Russell M. Nelson), 86 (DHO), 86 (HBE), 91 (RMB) the vaccine? If our goal is to save as many lives as possible, regardless of the person's religion, shouldn't the 85+ group be getting vaccinated before everyone else?

And missing the point again. This thread is not about random 85 year old getting the vaccine.

What I hear you saying is 'Mormon leaders in Utah had a good reason to violate church and state separation, therefore they did it.'

Unethical behavior isn't excused because there is 'a good reason this time.'

[cinepro]

And missing the point again. This thread is not about random 85 year old getting the vaccine.

What I hear you saying is 'Mormon leaders in Utah had a good reason to violate church and state separation, therefore they did it.'

Unethical behavior isn't excused because there is 'a good reason this time.'

When you say "This thread is not about [a] random 85 year old getting the vaccine", are you saying that if this was a "random 85 year old" getting the vaccine, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

But because these people are LDS leaders you do have a problem with it? The only reason you have a problem with these old men and women (who are at very high risk of death from infection) getting the vaccine is that they're Mormon?

Because that's a little...weird.

Honestly, if it seems I haven't gotten your point until now, it's probably because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't objecting to the vaccinations of very high-risk individuals solely on the basis of their religion. But if that's what you're going with, I guess you be you.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. As I've said countless times, I think it is entirely ethical and legal to give elderly, high-risk people the vaccination, regardless of their religion. If they were Scientologist, Buddhist, Jewish, Catholic, JW, evangelical...I wouldn't care. I live in California, and if the state came out and said "Hey, we can vaccinate people quicker if we vaccinate all the old Jewish people first", I would fully support that.

[Lem]

And missing the point again. This thread is not about random 85 year old getting the vaccine.

What I hear you saying is 'Mormon leaders in Utah had a good reason to violate church and state separation, therefore they did it.'

Unethical behavior isn't excused because there is 'a good reason this time.'

When you say "This thread is not about [a] random 85 year old getting the vaccine", are you saying that if this was a "random 85 year old" getting the vaccine, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

But because these people are LDS leaders you do have a problem with it? The only reason you have a problem with these old men and women (who are at very high risk of death from infection) getting the vaccine is that they're Mormon?

Because that's a little...weird.

Honestly, if it seems I haven't gotten your point until now, it's probably because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't objecting to the vaccinations of very high-risk individuals solely on the basis of their religion. But if that's what you're going with, I guess you be you.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. As I've said countless times, I think it is entirely ethical and legal to give elderly, high-risk people the vaccination, regardless of their religion. If they were Scientologist, Buddhist, Jewish, Catholic, JW, evangelical...I wouldn't care. I live in California, and if the state came out and said "Hey, we can vaccinate people quicker if we vaccinate all the old Jewish people first", I would fully support that.

Dear god. Read the OP.

[cinepro]

Dear god. Read the OP.

I did.

When he says "Sure, they are over 70 and are currently eligible for the shot", then end of issue.

No problemo.

Full stop.

Who cares.

Everything that follows is irrelevant and meaningless from a public health and scientific standpoint. It is anti-science. Which is fine (we've seen a lot of that lately), but I don't support it or agree with it.

If it were revealed (and it may be) that lower-risk Church leaders were getting vaccinated out of policy in preference to higher-risk groups, then I'd have a problem with it. A big problem, because that would be slowing down our recovery from the pandemic. That would be unethical from a public health standpoint.

But the situation we're discussing? Nope.

[Lem]

Who cares.

Everything that follows is irrelevant and meaningless from a public health and scientific standpoint. It is anti-science. Which is fine (we've seen a lot of that lately), but I don't support it or agree with it.

1) Separation of church and state, and 2) fair unbiased access are concepts that are "anti-science"? Wow.

Well, that does explain your position.

[cinepro]

1) Separation of church and state, and 2) fair unbiased access are concepts that are "anti-science"? Wow.

Well, that does explain your position.

Obviously "science" can only speak to the goal, so what do you think the goal of the vaccinations is? What do you think it should be?

As I've said, I understand the goal of the vaccinations to be to end the deaths and hospitalizations from Covid-19 as soon as possible. If you understand it to be something different, then obviously we're going to disagree on what the best methodology is; we're working towards different goals. And that's fine.

So, having clarified what my understanding of the goal is, all other considerations are secondary to that. "Church and state"? Irrelevant. "Unfairness" and "bias"? Absolutely!

For example, if I were the Vaccine Czar for California, and my model showed that we were looking at eight weeks for distribution of vaccines to vulnerable populations, and the Scientologists or Catholics or Jews came to me and showed they had the infrastructure in place to distribute the vaccines to vulnerable populations in four weeks, but their plan would have them vaccinate their most vulnerable first, I would make that deal in a heartbeat. I might get pilloried for it, but cutting four weeks off the vaccine distribution time could save thousands of lives. Sounds good to me.

Fair and unbiased access? Not at all. Those concepts are meaningless if the goal is to end hospitalizations and deaths as soon as possible (they actually work counter to the goal by slowing things down). I would be totally biased towards getting the vaccines to the most vulnerable first, and those most likely to spread it second, in any way possible. There would be massive bias, and the people who desperately want a vaccine but are in low risk groups would be unfairly excluded. And there would be as little "randomness" as possible, because that would slow things down. Once we figured out who should get the vaccines, speed, not fairness or randomness, would be the focus. (Also, vaccines would be administered 24 hours a day until they were gone).

People would complain about the unfairness and bias, but thousands of lives could be saved that would otherwise have died. I would get tons of heat for it by anti-science people who want to extend the pandemic in the name of fairness, but I'd be okay with that. When supplies are limited, any decision is "unfair", so trying to find "fairness" is impossible. Resorting to "random" appearing distribution of scarce but vital resources is just a lame attempt from those in charge to try and hide the unfairness and deflect their responsibility (and fool the people).

[Lem]

1) Separation of church and state, and 2) fair unbiased access are concepts that are "anti-science"? Wow.

Well, that does explain your position.

Obviously "science" can only speak to the goal, so what do you think the goal of the vaccinations is? What do you think it should be?

As I've said, I understand the goal of the vaccinations to be to end the deaths and hospitalizations from Covid-19 as soon as possible. If you understand it to be something different, then obviously we're going to disagree on what the best methodology is; we're working towards different goals. And that's fine.

So, having clarified what my understanding of the goal is, all other considerations are secondary to that. "Church and state"? Irrelevant. "Unfairness" and "bias"? Absolutely!

For example, if I were the Vaccine Czar for California, and my model showed that we were looking at eight weeks for distribution of vaccines to vulnerable populations, and the Scientologists or Catholics or Jews came to me and showed they had the infrastructure in place to distribute the vaccines to vulnerable populations in four weeks, but their plan would have them vaccinate their most vulnerable first, I would make that deal in a heartbeat. I might get pilloried for it, but cutting four weeks off the vaccine distribution time could save thousands of lives. Sounds good to me.

Fair and unbiased access? Not at all. Those concepts are meaningless if the goal is to end hospitalizations and deaths as soon as possible (they actually work counter to the goal by slowing things down). I would be totally biased towards getting the vaccines to the most vulnerable first, and those most likely to spread it second, in any way possible. There would be massive bias, and the people who desperately want a vaccine but are in low risk groups would be unfairly excluded. And there would be as little "randomness" as possible, because that would slow things down. Once we figured out who should get the vaccines, speed, not fairness or randomness, would be the focus. (Also, vaccines would be administered 24 hours a day until they were gone).

People would complain about the unfairness and bias, but thousands of lives could be saved that would otherwise have died. I would get tons of heat for it by anti-science people who want to extend the pandemic in the name of fairness, but I'd be okay with that. When supplies are limited, any decision is "unfair", so trying to find "fairness" is impossible. Resorting to "random" appearing distribution of scarce but vital resources is just a lame attempt from those in charge to try and hide the unfairness and deflect their responsibility (and fool the people).

What a bizarre set of arguments. Glad my area has decided to take a more rational approach.

[cinepro]

"Separation of Church and State", "Fairness" and "bias" are not rational concepts in public health if reducing hospitalization and death are the primary focus. But you didn't say what you think the goal of the vaccine program should be?


Coincidentally, just after posting the previous response this article popped up in my Twitter feed:

Why aren’t progressive leaders doing a better job at mass vaccination?

A common problem seems to be a focus on process rather than on getting shots into arms. Some progressive leaders are effectively sacrificing efficiency for what they consider to be equity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The trade-offs between equity and efficiency are real: Rapid vaccination programs will first reach many relatively privileged people. But the trade-offs may be smaller than that sentence suggests. Covid has exacted a terribly unequal toll partly because people in vulnerable groups have suffered more severe versions of the disease, as a result of underlying health conditions.

The most effective way to save lives is probably to vaccinate people as quickly as possible.

[Lem]

So, it's easier and quicker to vaccinate the privileged. Of course it is. And then the privileged will be protected. Unbelievable argument. Sickening, really.

The trade-offs between equity and efficiency are real: Rapid vaccination programs will first reach many relatively privileged people. But the trade-offs may be smaller than that sentence suggests. Covid has exacted a terribly unequal toll partly because people in vulnerable groups have suffered more severe versions of the disease, as a result of underlying health conditions.

The article never actually explains why the trade-offs are smaller. What it implies, however, is that keeping the healthy privileged alive has a better return than protecting the unhealthy, non-privileged.

That's inhumane. No, let me be more specific, that's sick and shameful.