Imagine letting old people die because they're the wrong skin color and you want to rectify a historical injustice.
Now imagine being a doctor and actively advocating for that.
Now imagine being a doctor and actively advocating for that.
She suggests we should consider allocating healthcare resources using a *lottery.*
Allocating life saving resources using a lottery) is deeply irresponsible. The numbers clearly show the elderly are the most vulnerable, they should be vaccinated first after front-line workers.
Allocating life saving resources using a lottery) is deeply irresponsible. The numbers clearly show the elderly are the most vulnerable, they should be vaccinated first after front-line workers.
Historical injustices are bad, but trying to rectify an inequality through a lottery is absurd. Resource allocation via lottery may mean healthy people in a vulnerable community may be vaccinated before elderly people in that same community. That makes things worse, not better.
Ultimately the problem with is conflicting principles. The *ONLY* principle should be allocating according to a balance of need and effectiveness. In other words, the elderly and those with co-morbidities should be treated first. Anything else will move us off that goal.
Using a Lottery, or allocating according to some metric other then Age and co-morbidity during COVID is going to have very bad outcomes. Using race as a factor in allocation, as the article implies, is a bad idea. So, while the first tweet is click bait-ish I think it holds....
Because using race as a factor is going to result in a misallocation of resources.
We can't be doing this.
We can't be doing this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
