https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-madison-251ffe2672b6c40ca7b8a0a7341959f2

Medical experts say the opposition is misleading. Health officials have long said there is a strong case for considering race as one of many risk factors in treatment decisions. And there is no evidence that race alone is being used to decide who gets medicine.

—

JP Leider, a senior fellow in the Division of Health Policy and Management at the University of Minnesota who helped develop that state’s allocation criteria, noted that prioritization has been going on for some time because there aren’t enough treatments to go around.

“You have to pick who comes first,” Leider said. “The problem is we have extremely conclusive evidence that (minorities) across the United States are having worse COVID outcomes compared to white folks. ... Sometimes it’s acceptable to consider things like race and ethnicity when making decisions about when resources get allocated at a societal level.”

—-

Considerable evidence suggests that COVID-19 has hit certain racial and ethnic groups harder than whites. Research shows that people of color are at a higher risk of severe illness, are more likely to be hospitalized and are dying from COVID-19 at younger ages.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43832564)

"It's ok to use race as a consideration factor when doing X, as long as it's not the *only* or *decisive* factor"

Unfortunately, spotting why this is bogus is impossible for anyone under 130 IQ, so it will work

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43832578)

*judge impotently shakes fist at tricksy lawyers*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43833876)

It won't "work" indefinitely, because (sit down for this part):

As soon as a significant plurality of white Americans regain full racial consciousness -- and you're a fucking idiot if you don't think that will ultimately happen on the current trajectory that kikes have charted out for us -- this gay little hehe "only" or "sole" hehe or whatever distinction that Jews currently use to muddy the water on this shit enough to placate normie cattle (who currently strive to be "colorblind") will go straight out the fucking window. Niggers in front of whites in line? Fuck no. Period.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43833070)

https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-rally-trump-claims-covid-19-treatment-is-anti-white-people-2022-1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43832887)

also, science demands that race be used as a critical factor in doling out medical care.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43832910)

The enemy of the people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43832980)

16 y/o Ja’Quarius gets capped in a driveby, coroner tests his corpse for COVID and it’s positive, DING! Covid death of a good keed

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43833157)

Black people do not have worse outcomes than whites due to their race. Black people have worse outcomes because, for whatever reasons not relevant here, they have higher rates of comorbidities such obesity and diabetes.

By simply using your rubric on obesity and diabetes, you can conduct your treatment assessments on fair, race-blind criteria that treats solely on the basis of risk. The fact this would mean more blacks get treated than whites is fine - they are the group at a higher risk, after all.

By implementing a racial filter for treatment, you would allow the prioritization of a healthy young black person over an old sick white person because you are confounding the variables you seek to assess against.

xoxo

hth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43833286)

The real logical fallacy in this kike sophistry is the one that I pointed out in my above poast in this thread

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43833320)

Even the recognition that different races have different bone marrow, organ transplant, blood types, etc has been made verboten by libs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43836176)

Liberals: that’s a lie!

MSM: Liberals are right and conservatives are lying/misleading. Even though liberals ARE doing X, X is good.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43833639)

yeah, because they're unvaccinated. I thought we were supposed to be denying care to unvaccinated people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43835477)

Some governments have implemented policies that are almost certainly unconstitutional as well as morally questionable.

Walter Olson

7 hr ago

26

8

(Photograph by Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald /Getty Images.)

Governments around the country have been directing medical providers to allocate potentially lifesaving COVID therapies among patients on the basis of race, a policy that is almost certainly unconstitutional as well as morally questionable. Now the Associated Press is out with an article on the resulting controversy, which it misleadingly summarizes thus:

Amid the omicron surge, some conservatives have taken aim at policies that allow doctors to consider race when allocating COVID-19 treatments. Medical experts say claims that the protocols discriminate against white people are misleading.

Almost every phrase here is likely to lead readers astray. Governments have been directing, not merely allowing, doctors to assign point value to BIPOC (black, indigenous, person of color) status in triage formulas for rationing scarce COVID therapies. The controversy over this predates Omicron, and has little to do with any one variant. And it’s not just conservatives and libertarians who object, as AP reporter Todd Richmond should have known, since he mentions a critique written for the Wall Street Journal by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, both men of the left. As for the medical experts, they are at best selectively chosen, while the legal experts are nowhere to be seen.

For those late to this controversy, here’s a few examples of how the preferences work. In dispensing the scarce kind of monoclonal antibody that is known to retain broad effectiveness against COVID, for example, the Minnesota Department of Health prescribed a point system in which BIPOC status was worth 2 points, the same as diabetes or age greater than 65. New York state adopted a similar policy of racial discrimination in making available the breakthrough antiviral Paxlovid: access to the drug would depend on having some risk factor for severe illness, but nonwhite status would count as such by itself, whereas white patients would have to demonstrate some extra factor putting them at risk. A Utah state framework for dispensing monoclonal antibodies “gives ‘non‐white race or Hispanic/Latinx identity two points, more than hypertension or chronic pulmonary disease,” reports Aaron Sibarium of the Washington Free Beacon, who has broken several stories on the issue. Further, the federal Food and Drug Administration has also issued influential guidance promoting racial preferences.

Controversial, right? Richmond, the AP reporter, finds exactly one critic to quote, and it’s … cable host Tucker Carlson. Carlson is tersely quoted as claiming the policy means “you win if you’re not white,” an easily refutable misstatement, since even under the points-added practice many nonwhite persons are denied therapy and many white persons receive it. As for the promised “medical experts” who brand the criticisms as misleading, they amount to one University of Minnesota senior fellow who drafted the controversial criteria for his state. (The criteria have since been withdrawn following public furor and legal scrutiny.) AP also calls on stage a political science professor to call the whole thing a right‐wing campaign ploy.

Neither the Constitution nor its Equal Protection Clause makes it into the story, which is a shame. As I wrote in 2020 when the question was one of government racial preferences in the distribution of vaccines as distinct from therapeutics, under the 14th Amendment

citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on a citizen’s race.

Courts thus apply “strict scrutiny” to any race‐conscious law or policy, requiring proponents to show that it fulfills a “compelling purpose” for the government and is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that purpose, tests that this policy would be unlikely to pass.

There are a few major exceptions but they do not apply here. Compensatory preference is OK when there has been recent, systemic discrimination against a minority group by the same level of government that wants to adopt the preference. (Inequality by itself, even when traceable to society‐wide discrimination, isn’t good reason.)

States will point out in response that persons from minority groups fare worse from severe COVID illness. This would, in itself, hardly justify awarding points based on the medically meaningless portmanteau BIPOC category, since some subgroups within that category, including many Asian‐American groups, appear to fare better than whites, not worse, in COVID outcomes. It's true that some factors that influence COVID outcomes do correlate with race as a proxy. But UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh points out that courts would be unlikely to uphold use of race as a proxy for claimed greater risk when authorities could instead focus on relevant direct risk factors such as poor socioeconomic status, diabetes, or asthma.

States have made no showing that COVID is intrinsically a disease of race, probably because there is no such case to be made: Multiple sources cast doubt on whether outcomes are in fact worse once proxy factors are accounted for. For example, a large New England Journal of Medicine study of Louisiana patients found “Black race was not associated with higher in‐hospital mortality than white race, after adjustment for differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on admission.”

In portraying the objections to racial preferences in therapy as a concoction of racial demagogues on the right, the Associated Press has done a disservice to the controversy and its readers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43844549)

https://thedispatch.com/p/race-based-allocation-of-covid-therapies

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5014679&forum_id=2#43852318)