Now it’s chicken pluckers

Perdue seeks priority for poultry workers and families

The list of “essential workers” continues to grow.

It is pretty much impossible to determine how many “essential workers” Virginia has as the Dept of Health posts no numbers or definitions, but now meat and poultry workers AND THEIR FAMILIES are elbowing their way to the front of the line.

Nationally, with 210million Americans eligible for vaccination(18 and older) we have 30 million health care and long term facility residents at the front of the line, followed by 90 million “Essential Workers” so over half the US population will be vaccinated before we even start on the elderly.

And the list continues to grow. Those who most need the vaccine to survive are on their way to being last to get it.

36 thoughts on “Now it’s chicken pluckers

      1. I have to tell you that I would have kissed that “plucker” smack on the lips (Covid be damned) if he’d asked – cause I was sooo craving some Pollards Fried Chicken 3 evenings ago. I have to also mention that I never acquired a taste for feathers, so I totally appreciate what that woman or man does for a living.

        Chicken, being as cheap as it is, is a necessity for people to be able to get, especially with so many people out of work. While I admit that fried chicken is something we shouldn’t eat every other day, chicken is good roasted, baked, in soup and many other healthier ways.

        So, as with the producing of other protein . . . I bow to the chicken workers of America.

        He or she ?IS considered essential in my kitchen.

        I will proudly hang out in my home a while longer for those people to get vaccinated sooner.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. DO you have evidence that we will run out of chicken if Perdue’s employees do not get priority? They seem to have done just fine so far.

          If you’re going to play god and decide that some should die to avoid Perdue employees missing some time at work, you should have some very strong justification for it.


  1. IDK, I can stay at home and continue having first world problems for a while longer.

    I have empathy for those who MUST work to do essential (eat chicken much?) things. Also asking isn’t receiving.

    As Samuel L may say: Chicken Pluckers and mother&%#….we’ll see.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. No contempt for chicken pluckers per se, but the point is that once priority was given to essential workers ahead of medical need, every industry will declare its workers essential and use whatever influence they to elbow their way to the front.

      That was inevitable from the moment objective criteria were superceded by adminsitrative largess.


      1. Essential workers are those who cannot work from home. It is about 87 million of us.

        Notice who are in line in front of us:

        Medical workers.
        Nursing home staff and residents.
        Essential workers.
        Those underlying conditions
        Those over 65
        Everybody else.

        The top three have no choice but to expose themselves for our physical and financial benefits. You, I, Paul and a few others that I know of on this forum can, and do, isolate ourselves without undo sacrifice to our economic situation.

        Inconvenient, depressing perhaps, but very doable.

        Remember, the vaccines will be very limited for months to come. And please recall that the Administration has been more worried about the economic impacts of the partial lockdowns and school children. Giving us shots will make no difference in that.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. Medical personnel, nursing home residents, and those over 65 are objective criteria.

          Underlying conditions can be objective if we’re careful.

          But Essential Workers are whichever groups have the clout to be included. Remember that I have written many, many times that the only government that will not be corrupt is one that has nothing to sell.

          As soon as you give the government the power to award survival to what ever subjective group it chooses, you have guaranteed the process will be corrupted.

          The only way that the allocation of the vaccines will be fair is if we stick to objective criteria like age. Once some politician or bureaucrat has the power to pick and choose, he will be bought, if not with money than with political support.

          And the process has already started.


          1. It must be difficult to be so cynical about everything government.

            If we went by age alone, it would be months before nurses under the age of 60 or so, would get the vaccine. Or doctors. Or poultry workers, or anyone else you and I need to stay healthy in case we are ill or hungry.

            Triage is tough. Just ask the nurses and doctors in those regions where they are running out of ICU space. I really feel bad for those folks who are suffering the brunt of the politicization of the mask and lockdown issues. And I want them to be there in case I need their services whether COVID related or not.

            Right now 500 people in the Philadelphia police department are out sick. Yet you want only the old sergeants on desk duty to get the shot.

            If this is Libertarian thinking, then I can safely say that such a political party is devoid of any moral standing in the community.

            Right now thousands of rabid Trump fans are milling about in DC without masks. At least the protestors a few months back mostly wore masks. But your heroes are like the Sturgis Cycle Rally…they just don’t give a poop about anyone by their own petty, little selves.

            And they will want medical service in the next weeks when it might not be available.
            And all because Trump is still generating hatred for all things not Trump by insisting that he still won.

            The Rabbit Hole republican party is so corrupted by this jackleg president that they literally wet their pants to not stand up for what is right.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. Actually, triage is pretty straightforward.

            The three groups are

            Those who will survive without immediate intervention. For those you wait until the crisis is past to treat.

            Those who will not survive regardless of intervention. For those, you make them comfortable but otherwise let them go.

            And those for whom prompt intervention makes a difference. And that’s where you put your best efforts.

            If you apply those to the vaccines, about 90% of the ‘essential workers’ are in the first group. You vaccinate the 10% who are older or have complications, the rest you vaccinate when the shortage has passed.

            The second group is tougher. There are many in nursing homes who are within weeks of dying anyway, and vaccinating those is probably a waste.

            But applying the principles of triage, the maximum effort should go to vaccinating those for whom it is the difference between hospitalization and possible death first. Exactly the group being pushed back.

            So don’t confuse picking and choosing who to protect based on their perceived value with triage. It is no such thing, Triage is an objective process. This is playing God by assigning greater value to one life over another, or worse, assigning a greater value to one person’s inconvenience over the life of others.


          3. You left our one really important part of the triage: he doctors and nurses who have to make these decisions and talk to the families. The mental burden on them is well documented.

            Why don’t you mask up and volunteer to handle that for them. They are kind of busy, exhausted and depressed about people listening to hashtag LIBERATE and clogging the hospitals. After all that is a good portion of the yahoos who refuse to do their parts to help in a national emergency. Then they can hang out in bars and churches to their hearts content, and you can sort them out and talk to the survivors.

            Maybe then you can get your shots ahead of others.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Oh yes it does. Those are the same people you want to be healthy, alert and competent when you get sick.

            Or worse, even be there for you.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. No contempt for “chicken pluckers?” Your choice of words puts the lie to that claim.

        You characterize this guidance as “administrative largess.” You are full of shit. There are MANY objective reasons to put a high priority on “essential workers.” It may even be the best way to protect the elderly by more quickly damping down the spread. It may be also necessary to keep essential services flowing. And then there is the moral dimension. Is it moral to compel people to risk their health and their lives to serve other people who are free to maintain social distancing a while longer? Of course, as an Ayn Randian you recognize no such dimension. So even mentioning it is wasted on you.


        1. Perdue has been supplying chicken successfully all through the pandemic.

          This is not about us all starving if some Perdue workers miss a couple of weeks of work.

          This is about putting Perdue’s profitability and labor relations ahead of people’s lives.


  2. I guess we’re supposed to assume that vaccinating people who don’t need it will reduce transmission of the virus. Would it, really?

    And what difference would it make if the virus spreads less, but those most likely to die from it remain vulnerable?


        1. OK, just this once: to answer your first question, vaccinating ANYONE will reduce transmission.

          On the 2nd: the “difference” will be reduced cases/hospitalization. As to those who reman most vulnerable it will depend on their behavior and circumstance and the sources to research that are significant.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Your answers sound like speculations to me. My speculation is that deaths may rise despite vaccination, if the most vulnerable population is not vaccinated.


      1. What science would that be?

        What science tells us that protecting the spouse of a Perdue employee will prevent the spread of the disease more than a retiree who is active in her church?

        But here is some science to consider.

        One of the problems we face as the pandemic flares is the saturation of hospital capacity.

        If a 70 year old diabetic gets COVID he will very likely need a great deal of hospital care. But a 30 year old teacher most likely will just stay home for a week or two.

        So how do we protect the system from being overburdened?

        Does it not make sense, scientifically, to protect those most likely to need hospitalization?

        And if that 30 year old teacher does take a bad turn and need hospitalization, would she not be better off if the hospital had a bed for her?

        There is solid support for protecting those most likely to die or require enormous medical effort to stay alive.

        Doing otherwise is a political, not a medical, decision.


        1. Here’s the question I’m wondering about: If we triage vaccination SOLELY on the basis of age and medical condition, applying the same basis to healthcare workers, how would the outcome differ from a triage that vaccinated all healthcare workers, plus those who qualify on the basis of age and medical condition?

          I would guess that the strict triage (no healthcare workers) would be almost as effective as the less strict triage (including healthcare workers).


          1. The only caveat I could offer would be that keeping the healthcare workers healthy makes them available to preserve other lives.

            With hospitals approaching peak capacity, there is a value to not having a doctor or nurse offline for 2 weeks, even if they are very likely to survive either way.


          2. RE: “The only caveat I could offer would be that keeping the healthcare workers healthy makes them available to preserve other lives.”

            I can see the benefit. My concern is that exceptions start out small and reasonable-sounding, then they grow until they spiral out of control. So, if we could say that strict triage of vaccination was sufficient, we might avoid the exception problem.


        2. “What science tells us that protecting the spouse of a Perdue employee will prevent the spread of the disease more than a retiree who is active in her church?”

          The Perdue employee has to work or no paycheck. His wife has the risk, too. And the children. So a whole familiy is at risk if the employee gets sick.

          If a retiree is active in his church, he still has options, including not attending until the pandemic eases.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. That wasn’t the question.

            Is one any less likely to spread the virus than the other?

            If you’re going to justify playing god you should be able to show why.


          2. Yes. The retiree does not HAVE to attend church services. He can stay home.

            The wife of the Perdue employee has no choice in order for her husband to get a paycheck.

            Not hard to grasp, but I may not understand what you are driving at.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. And the Perdue workers wife doesn’t have to leave the house either.

            There is absolutely no support in science for this, it is all about political power.


          4. And even so, if she gets sick, the likely outcome for a younger woman is she will miss work for a week or two, while the older person will likely need hospitalization, if there is still room, and may well die.

            There are no non-medical essential workers under 50 years old who should be protected before the elderly, either as an ethical issue(likelihood of death) or as a practical issue(burden on health care system).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s