Why does it matter? It's been done already. We know it's happening. This isn't something new. The real issue here is the data has been in for years and you're still asking me to educate you.

"Well I didn't see it on the right wing sites I visit, so is it even happening?" Instead of just looking into it yourself.

We know for a fact that racial groups in the same socioeconomic conditions are more susceptible to medical harms. Covid isn't some unique exception.

He seems to be hung up on the causal part of causal relationship.
Perhaps the darker skin soaks in more covid-rays from the sun? Melanogenesis ripens one's spike protein receptors, or perhaps its just a matter of historic psychosocial trauma manifesting itself as depressed immune systems.

We're a few pirates short of causing global warming in this thread so far

Oh look, Goom lies again.

I was explicit that the cause is sociological but the medical effects are still real and measureable so the true nature doesn't matter.

"I make quality posts. Watch me lie about the most basic things you've already clarified multiple times".

Your interdimensional levels of sarcasm absolutely destroy me. Props, sir.

There's a gazillion confounders between race and health outcomes. Just because a couple of studies controlled for a handful of the most obvious confounders doesn't mean that they covered all of them, nor that they controlled even just all the big ones. Inferring causality from empirical data almost never works in social science.

Discrimination based on race would only be justifiable here if factors caused directly by race were the main driver of unequal health outcomes. I could live with your stance if studies were showing that racist doctors turning away black and brown patients with the words "we don't treat people like you here" account for 80% of health inequality while poverty, smoking, obesity, pollution, mental stress from living in a deprived neighborhood and so account for 20%. In reality, it's the other way round and the vast majority of health inequality is caused by these socioeconomic factors which are correlated, but neither directly caused by nor exclusive to minority status. There's just no feasible justification for prioritizing deprived black and brown patients over equally deprived whites.

Again: prioritizing scarce healthcare resources according to socio-economic risk factors would be a viable and ethical way of addressing this issue, and doing so would automatically benefit marginalized minorities at a "proportionately disproportional" rate, but without discriminating against whites. So why the fuck not just do that? *smh*

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 23 2022 04:38pm

If you had bothered reading you would realize that's basically what's already happening. No decision is being made solely based on race, and race isn't the only factor to determining under-served communities.

Again, not my job to educate you. Stop being lazy.

No, that's NOT what's happening when certain races get a big head-start in these points systems based solely on the color of their skin. In these systems, minorities will explicitly be assigned higher priority status if all the socio-economic factors considered by the model are equal.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 23 2022 04:41pm

Narrowly tailoring programs that discriminate based on race only to offset the impacts of explicit racial discrimination have been used for historical examples that survived court challenges. It was basically the entire history of affirmative action and parts of the voting rights act, and we can see how the further removed we are from historical institutionalized racism, the weaker those arguments get and eventually get struck down. So yeah, such policies can exist, and they've been at the fringes of constitutionally allowed targeting of race, sometimes treading on either side of the line, and with a decent argument for them. But as you have pointed out and thor can't process, that's completely different from simple discrimination on the basis race and trying to justify it based on outcomes. Which are obviously illegal and get struck down so fast that the states trying this nonsense dropped it at the mere hint of a lawsuit, save New York who just love walking all over the constitution and bringing it up to the courts and losing, like their approach to the second amendment. This isn't like desegregation and it can't be justified by saying black and brown people face explicit discrimination that limits their access to monoclonal antibodies and thus the government has a compelling interest in restoring that access. Although rather ironically, due to these states explicitly discriminating against white people, there now exists valid rationale to reserve monoclonal antibodies for white people and give it to them to the exclusion of all other races. Heh.

No black person was ever denied the ability to ride in the front of a bus based """solely""" on their race. It was also based on their physical location as being present on the bus, the fact they had legs to walk onto the bus, that they had air to breathe, that they weren't on fire, that the bus wasn't underwater and many other factors that would have precluded Rosa Parks being told to get her black ass to the back of the wagon. I mean, lets be real, if the bus happened to be driving through an active war zone and the kraut were dropping shells around it, she wouldn't be at the top of the bus driver's list of things to worry about.

And that's how it should be, because even if they have all other socioeconomic status the same, they have worse outcomes.

Duh.

We don't need specific studies for Covid. It's been validated for the medical system as a whole. It would be absoulutely insane to think Covid is the magical one exception.



Except in this case whites are still getting vaccinated but zero blacks were getting in the front of the bus.

Oh look Goom lies again. To the surprise of nobody.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jan 23 2022 04:52pm