A quick thread about something I've been pondering. The two states I think the most about--Connecticut and New York--have radically different vaccination regimes.
Connecticut's system is entirely by age (plus teachers and day care workers). The idea is that by keeping it simple and vaccinating people quickly, you deal with equity issues by making vaccines less scarce and easier to get.
New York has done the opposite: a very complex system based on disability and health, jobs and age. The idea is that the complexity gives more entry points and so creates more equity.
So you'd think that these two neighboring states could be a natural experiment: which version actually gets to a better outcome?
Well, in Connecticut, 66% of the population is white, and 75% of vaccine doses have gone to white people. In New York, 63% of the population is white, and 78% of vaccine does have gone to white people. So while NY is a shade worse, it's pretty similar. (These are as of March 15.)
Obviously there are other, better ways to measure equity, and race is not the only category that matters. But I am fascinated at how these really different systems are producing pretty similar results.
What I do think it points to is that eligibility regimes aren't going to be the drivers of equity. That's going to come from other things that have different timelines and temporalities: access to health care, transportation, language.
For the curious here are my sources. Here's KFF's page tracking racial vaccination data for all states kff.org/coronavirus-co….
Connecticut's data page is here. As ever, I think the most interesting and telling part is this map of vaccination rate by towns. Note how cities (plus Mansfield, where UConn is) are the lightest splotches. data.ct.gov/stories/s/CoVP…
I've been thinking this morning that perhaps the correct measure of equity is not to compare the percentage of white residents to the percentage of vaccines given to white people. After all the CT claim is that speed cancels everything else out.
That is, perhaps the question is whether a greater percentage of Black people (or other racialized people) are vaccinated in one state than the other. The answer is no: in CT, 11% of Black people are vaccinated and 8% of Hispanic people. In NY it's 11% and 10% respectively.
(In New York, 22% of Asians are vaccinated, which is the same percentage as white people. Connecticut hasn't reported its Asian coverage rate.)
Anyway, this reinforces my point yesterday which is that you're not going to get equity (however you measure it) through eligibility rules; you're going to get it through things that take much longer and aren't seen as directly pandemic related, even though they are.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The worst part of the Nate Silvery nonsense today is that every epidemiologist, especially every infectious disease epidemiologist, is exhausted right now. They’ve been worried and overworked since January. Everything they’ve worried about, warned about, has come true.
It is exhausting and dispiriting to play Cassandra for months. Many of them have done so while their research budgets have been frozen, while their universities have imposed austerity on them. They’ve put their actual research on hold.
And they’ve done this while playing epidemiologist on call to all their friends and relatives, often while being forced to play Covid police (people call and bargain: can I do X? What about if I do it in Y way? Please?)
It'S nOt JuSt ThE uNiTeD StaTeS!! EuRoPe ShOwS uS CoViD cAn'T bE cOnTrOLlEd!!
Maybe cumulative deaths per million makes the point better. (Although it is notable how the US curve looks different from my arbitrarily selected European countries.)
Such is the way of academia that my main scholarly writing work this year won't be seen until July. But I remain proud of two very short things that I wrote about Covid. To wit:
A blog post about crises of care in disaster, using the Halifax Explosion to talk about Covid. lawcha.org/2020/05/05/cov…
I wrote that post to advertise that for the month of May, my book was @IllinoisPress's free ebook download. It isn't anymore, but you can still buy the book for half off with the code HOLIDAY50. press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/…
Donald Trump is tweeting proudly of a letter thanking him "for announcing that religion is essential." The organizers apparently spent 5 months and could only get 13 rabbis to sign. In contrast...
In contrast to Trump's 13 rabbis, here are more than 50 Orthodox rabbis on Trump's hate speech and authoritarianism. utzedek.org/rabbinic-state…
There is some controversy about whether the US government actually used the phrase "premature antifascist" to describe people who were actively antifascist in the 1930s, especially those who volunteered to fight fascism in Spain.
Whether or not the phrase was used officially, it is known that the US military denied commissions to people who would otherwise have been officers in World War II on the basis of their antifascist activities before the war.
1. I just retweeted @BreeNewsome quoting this tweet with the very correct indignation that in a time of crisis, people like Tim Scott are more worried about preserving economic precarity than actually helping people. Let me put this in some historical context.
2. The American welfare system, such as it is, has been based since the colonial period on the distinction drawn in the Elizabethan Poor Laws (Elizabethan as in Elizabeth I) between the worthy and the unworthy poor.
3. The very idea is a fiction: that there are "worthy" poor who are poor despite themselves (mostly disabled people, and the temporarily unlucky) and the "unworthy" poor who are poor because they are lazy.