Quote:
Originally Posted by haertig
Compared to what? Your accurate, non-lame and considerate attempt to get at me with your earlier comment? Why don't you go back and read your own previous words? I merely provided you a mirror to look into.
Be at peace. You threw an insult at me, I returned the favor to you. Now let's move on - I am fine to skip the snipes if you are.
|
And you're just love and consideration for others.
Be assured that I'm at peace though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haertig
I never said those things were not, or should not, be considered. However, they should not be the primary consideration. It is very difficult to get a handle on who has what pre-existing condition, which pre-existing condition is worse than other pre-existing conditions, etc. Collecting all that data, sorting through it, devising rules of who comes first - all that takes quite a bit of time and would delay the vaccine rollout for everyone. Then you have other groups that many want vaccinated sooner, like teachers. So who comes first - the teacher or the one with a pre-existing condition? The answer will depend on which of those two people you ask. Sometimes fighting over who gets to go first accomplishes nothing useful, and just delays the rollout for everybody. I have seen it published many times that age is the primary predictor of how well you will do if you catch the virus. Of course some elderly will do better than others. That is a given. But age is still the best predictor we have available to us. So it makes sense to use age as the primary thing to look at when scheduling vaccination. And that is what most, if not all, jurisdictions are doing. Other things can certainly be looked at, but as minor tweaks to the scheduling, not as the primary focus. They are trying to do that in my own state. They have taken it to the ridiculous level that I allude to above. We are on - I am not kidding - Phase 1B.4 right now (or at least that's where we were last week). What in the heck does that mean? What they are doing is trying to cram new levels between the old levels, which themselves were crammed between the older levels. It's like playing chess while changing the way pieces are allowed to move on every turn. It makes a real mess of the game, and ultimately, despite your best efforts, you really don't end up with a more "fair" game of chess in the end.
|
"Details" you seem to ignore :
1 - pre-existing conditions at risk with COVID are known (and they are classified in the ones that are more at risk than other, without forgetting some people can have multiple conditions)
2 - People with pre existing conditions are identified and known (They usually have health center / specialized clinics to deal with their conditions)
3 - Higher risk areas / setup are known
4 - Science and data modelling have shown that some ways (vaccination rollout) are better than others in saving lives, and prioritizing only based on age is clearly not the best solution.