I knew cultural Marxism was going to kill people

by Rudd-O published 2020/12/18 11:34:00 GMT+0, last modified 2020-12-18T11:50:07+00:00
I just didn't imagine the killing would be so postmodern, it would be a racist Center for Disease Control who would be in charge of who lives and who dies.

The US CDC is going to recommend that 'essential workers' are vaccinated before the over-65s, despite their own modeling (page 19, archive link) showing this will result in more deaths.

Why? They say it is "unethical to prioritize the elderly" because they are not "racially diverse" enough (translation: they are more white than younger people).

Screenshot_2020-12-18 ACIP-Phased Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccines, November 23, 2020 - COVID-04-Dooling pdf.png

The authors do this by rating each group out of three for each of three metrics:

  1. Science (e.g. deaths and infections prevented)
  2. Implementation
  3. Ethics

Epchr0CWwAkddnY.jpg

First, science. The authors rely on modelling of the deaths prevented by prioritizing each of the three groups, for both a "disease-blocking" and an "infection-blocking" vaccine scenario.  In both scenarios, vaccinating the over-65s is predicted to save the most lives.  In the disease-blocking scenario (which sounds more relevant to the Pfizer vaccine) more than twice as many deaths are saved by vaccinating the elderly first, compared to essential workers.

EpclCyrUYAAf-bI.png

EpclPw9U0AAJCC9.png

Despite this, the authors conclude that the "Differences among 3 strategies is minimal" (sic). Each strategy is thus awarded 3 out of 3 points. Implementation is considered easier for the elderly than the other two groups, resulting in the scores below:

EpcmUi7UcAUceRy.jpg

So - with just ethics to go - the over-65s are in the lead.  Now, ethics in their report is itself split into three sub-categories.  The key consideration (helpfully highlighted in red with two minus points) seems to be that "racial and ethnic minority groups [are] are under-represented among adults>=65".

Epcn2oYVoAwE9yX.jpg

Other considerations that seem important are:

  1. Adults with high-risk medical conditions must have been diagnosed, which implies that they have access to healthcare (which counts against them).
  2. Essential workers are unable to work from home.

So in terms of ethics, vaccinating essential workers first looks best, scoring the maximum in all sub-categories. Now, note that the over-65s come in 2nd with 6 out of a possible 9 because "ethics".  This is translated to a mark of 1/3 in the overall assessment, meaning that essential workers zoom in line past the elderly — remember, the group of people most likely to die from COVID-19— by one point.

EpcrJNoUUAwtTmL.jpg

So the CDC's recommendation is that essential workers be next in line after healthcare workers, even though this choice will cause more deaths.

Of course, this recommendation is now being defended by the mouthpieces at the New York Times.  "Older populations are whiter...Instead of giving add'l health benefits to those who already had them, we can start to level the playing field a bit".  Level the playing field, of course, is a malignant euphemism for letting more of them die.  Later in the piece another doctor, named Marc Lipsitch, explains that teachers should not be considered essential workers for the purpose of being given priority vaccines by the CDC because, and I quote, "they are often very white".  Interestingly, a third expert, an economist named Elise Gould, counters Dr. Lipsitch that teachers *should* be prioritized. Why? Because the families they teach are disproportionately "Black and Brown", and those groups would benefit more than white people.

At least they are quite open about their racist intentions — their entire thought structure spins around them hating "white people" and making apologies for any outcome that gets more of them dead.  It is bizarrely unreal to see people who shrieked about "risking grandmas dying" in response to common sense and scientific arguments, immediately flip to: "There are too many grandmas of a certain color, so obviously we must risk grandmas dying for the good of the wokening".

The questions every critical thinker must ask now is this:

  1. In what world are ethical decisions made on the basis of outright racial discrimination?
  2. How did we get to a up-is-down, dry-is-wet, evil-is-good reality where letting more people (of a certain color) die is trumpeted as "ethical"?

Answers likely to fit are:

  1. That world is the cultural Marxist world of the current year 2020.
  2. In the current year, letting more people (of a certain color) die is the point.