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
 

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AkivaMCohen

20 Dec
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 Image
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 Image
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
Read 58 tweets
20 Dec
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
Read 9 tweets
18 Dec
LOLOL. They just keep finding new ways to screw up
Here's the motion to expedite, my disaster-tourist #Squidigation fan friends

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
Sid and Lin finally noticed that the briefing schedule wasn't going to work. Of course, the Court won't act on their idiocy anyway.

I also love the suggestion that maybe Congress will just pass on confirming the election of President Biden (or anyone)
Read 24 tweets
17 Dec
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.
Read 4 tweets
15 Dec
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

*pauses for breath*

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *ad infinitum*.

Y'all.

Y'all ...

I cannot. I just cannot
"Debate me" hero of free speech, Dan Ravicher, has blocked me.
For *checks notes* saying his election tweet aged like milk and *offering to take him up on his challenge to debate him for 20K to charity*
Read 4 tweets
15 Dec
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?
Read 96 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!