Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don’t know why cinepro using Dehlin as a rhetorical point would gain any traction on this forum. Dehlin has generally been someone who’s evoked a mostly ‘meh’ to ‘wtf’ response on this forum. I don’t know many current posters, if any, that would regard him highly. So, to act like we’d give him some sort of ex-mo celebrity pass is nonsense and tone deaf.

- Doc

[IHAQ]

All IHAQ did was deflect to the letter and say it was the author asking the question while he attempted to sidestep having a responsibility for owning a position. That's very Trump-like behavior.

Nope. I referred you back to the OP. I'm happy to own my position that I agree with the letter writer, the questions about How and Why LDS Church Leaders were prioritised above and beyond their 70 year old peer group are important ones within the wider context of separation between Church and State.

If, as you suggest, it was done to aid the promotion of vaccinations, then that can be simply said within the PR piece about the vaccination. Clergy is not a key group, and no explanation has been given. So some kind of preferential jiggery pokery has happened in the background and they don't want to publicise that. Wanting to know what and why is reasonable.

Trump like behaviour? Okay, whatever. *shrug* I've been patient with your name calling thus far. But that's as far as I go with you. Address the topic, or don't.

[IHAQ]

I don’t know why cinepro using Dehlin as a rhetorical point would gain any traction on this forum. Dehlin has been generally been someone who’s evoked a mostly ‘meh’ to ‘wtf’ response on this forum. I don’t know many current posters, if any, that would regard him highly. So, to act like we’d give him some sort of ex-me celebrity pass is nonsense and tone deaf.

- Doc

Well, we don't know what cinepro's point was as he didn't explain. Let's give him chance to do so.

[honorentheos]

Using petty as a retort in this way is kinda petty. Yes, this is also petty but that's about where we are now.

All IHAQ did was deflect to the letter and say it was the author asking the question while he attempted to sidestep having a responsibility for owning a position. That's very Trump-like behavior.

Trump-like behavior. Good grief. That must be a new thing, kind of like how every discussion finally ends up invoking hitler. How silly.

But if that's where you are, all I can say is what nonsense.

Or we could not take discussions so personal and take offense over disagreements.

[Lem]

Trump-like behavior. Good grief. That must be a new thing, kind of like how every discussion finally ends up invoking hitler. How silly. But if that's where you are, all I can say is what nonsense.

Or we could not take discussions so personal and take offense over disagreements.

My point exactly.

Yes, this is also petty but that's about where we are now.... That's very Trump-like behavior.

Back to the topic:

All IHAQ did was deflect to the letter and say it was the author asking the question while he attempted to sidestep having a responsibility for owning a position. That's very Trump-like behavior.

Nope. I referred you back to the OP. I'm happy to own my position that I agree with the letter writer, the questions about How and Why LDS Church Leaders were prioritised above and beyond their 70 year old peer group are important ones within the wider context of separation between Church and State.

If, as you suggest, it was done to aid the promotion of vaccinations, then that can be simply said within the PR piece about the vaccination. Clergy is not a key group, and no explanation has been given. So some kind of preferential jiggery pokery has happened in the background and they don't want to publicise that. Wanting to know what and why is reasonable.

Trump like behaviour? Okay, whatever. *shrug* I've been patient with your name calling thus far. But that's as far as I go with you. Address the topic, or don't.

[bolding added]

[cinepro]

Well, we don't know what cinepro's point was as he didn't explain. Let's give him chance to do so.

There is no "point." The discussion was focused on the LDS leaders, but there were a lot of variables at play (their ages, their religion, their races, their genders/biological sex etc.) In order to get some better perspective on how people are judging the situation, I thought it would be helpful to introduce a comparison.

So for those who are upset by the idea of >70yo LDS leaders getting vaccinated (probably with some sort of preferential scheduling), does it bother your more or less to have John Dehlin getting vaccinated? On what basis are you making that judgement? What assumptions are you making, and to what degree are you basing your feelings on the science? From a scientific standpoint, if there was one vaccine left and you had to choose between Russell M. Nelson or Dehlin, who would you choose if you wanted to save the most lives and end the pandemic as soon as possible?

I would also like to circle back to the Lem's accusation that the LDS leader's vaccinations were "unethical, possibly illegal." What law might have been broken?

Also, people seem to have expectations of "fairness" or randomness in the distribution of vaccines. Where is this coming from? Has the government or those in charge ever stated that the vaccine distribution would be random? Because it seems plainly evident that the distribution isn't random or first-come first served. At some point, a pool of vaccines are made available to selected tiers of people by what appears to be a "random" appointment system, but even that isn't "random" (the pool is selective). And before those vaccines are made available, many people have already been selected (for example, health care workers at hospitals that get vaccine shipments get their shots before those who work at hospitals that don't get vaccine shipments).

In a perfect world, there would be nothing "random" or "first-come, first-served" about vaccine distribution. It would be precisely targeted to get vaccines quickly to those who are most likely to die (end points) or spread the virus (nodes), and to get it to them very quickly. We don't live in a perfect world, so logistics and bureaucracy introduces some degree of randomness and inefficiency into the process (preferring speed over precision). But that doesn't mean the process is required to be random, nor should we mistake that for being a desired outcome.

The most "equitable" outcome is one that ends the pandemic as soon as possible, with as little death and hospitalization as possible. And that outcome would not be most quickly or efficiently achieved from randomness. Randomness is a bug, not a feature.

[Lem]

...LDS leaders getting vaccinated (probably with some sort of preferential scheduling)....

in other words, lack of separation between church and state. My point exactly.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Your questions have literally already been answered, cinepro. You haven’t introduced anything new to your position or your dehlin-trolling that’d change the course of the conversation. In case you’re confused by my response, let me ask you a question:

Why did you introduce Dehlin as a rhetorical device on this forum?

- Doc

[Lem]

I would also like to circle back to the Lem's accusation that the LDS leader's vaccinations were "unethical, possibly illegal." What law might have been broken?

Please quote me accurately, cinepro.

And if the vaccine was able to be given more quickly to the first person than it would have the second person, then the preferable choice was made.

And if the vaccine was able to be given more quickly because of the standing lack of separation of church and state in Utah, thus constituting that the choice was based on unethical, possibly illegal behavior, then I disagree the preferable choice was made.

[cinepro]

Please quote me accurately, cinepro.

And if the vaccine was able to be given more quickly because of the standing lack of separation of church and state in Utah, thus constituting that the choice was based on unethical, possibly illegal behavior, then I disagree the preferable choice was made.

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 before everyone else?