You are ignoring that there's a push-pull between "death prevention" and "spread prevention" in the vaccine roll out and that vaccinating younger people will do more to mitigate spread than vaccinating older people.
Preexisting conditions may simply shift the balance
In other words: vaccinating the elderly? Mitigates deaths way more than spread.
The healthy young? Mitigates spread way more than deaths
Younger people with preexisting conditions? Mitigates death (more than healthy young, less than elderly) AND spread (vice versa)
But yes, @NateSilver538, you've reviewed the data from the research, therefore you have the skills to understand how that data should translate into prioritization decisions in a vaccine roll out
By the way, that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with asking questions. You could have said "hey, the data seems to show a much higher risk for the elderly. What's the thought process here?"
Instead, you went with I'm a lay person who's done a lot of reading it, I know better how to allocate a scarce medical resource than these doctors do
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ahahahahahahahahahahahah *deep breath, repeat ad infinitum*
They are appealing their trio of losses in Pennsylvania to the US Supreme Court. Cases decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on November 23, November 17, and OCTOBER 23
The argument in all three cases is identical: Bush v. Gore says that you can overrule the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on issues of Pennsylvania election law
They waited until a month and a half after the election, and until after the Electors had voted, to file a petition asking SCOTUS to review.
Despite one of these cases having been decided a week and a half BEFORE the election
Seriously people. Executive orders mean exactly nothing to what Trump legally can or can't do to fuck with the election results (which is zero). Stop letting idiots make you crazy
There are two very simple, very basic reasons executive orders are meaningless here. Understand them, please
1) the president cannot issue an executive order that grants himself a power he does not already have. For example, the president could not issue an executive order saying that from now on he can make laws they don't need to pass Congress
This is a catch-22. And yes, I see your "pay people more" answer, but nobody gets paid for this stuff directly and paying people for committee service (as a baseline) would quickly have real budgetary impact given the number of committees. There aren't always perfect solutions
This also seems to assume that everyone serving on any committee is in a better socioeconomic position than any female or POC colleague could be, which is obviously unlikely to be true. There are likely overworked white guys on any given committee who say yes anyway because
(pick 1) they think it's important; they think it's good for their career long term; they don't feel comfortable saying no.
That may be a real problem, but we can't solve all problems simultaneously. And sometimes dealing with one exacerbates another.
OK. I promised you a thread on the Wisconsin dissents, so here it is. Tl;dr: They are bad and their authors should feel bad
First, a quick spin through the majority/concurrences
The majority opinion was written by Brian Hagedorn, who joined the Wisconsin Supreme Court after serving as Chief Legal Counsel to Republican Governor Scott Walker. He also wrote a concurrence to his own majority opinion which ... um ... I've never seen before
In fact, let's ask some of the appellate specialists if this is just me not knowing enough. Hey, @RMFifthCircuit, @MatthewStiegler, @CecereCarl - you ever see a judge write a concurrence to his own majority opinion before yesterday?