Biden Admin greenlights racial rationing of therapeutics
NY and MN have, with FDA approval, set Hispanic ethnicity and non-white race as stand alone risk factors in distributing the scarce therapeutics for COVID, without requiring any other co-morbidities. Other woke states will follow.
That means in an environment where we don’t have enough for the high risk patients to begin with, they will now have to compete with perfectly healthy young people for those scarce doses based on race alone.
Thank the deity of your choice that Northam only has 6 more days.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
More racist clap-trap from Fox News with you acting as a dutiful parrot.
The guidance merely states that those making decisions can consider other factors beyond the list of specific medical conditions that support the conclusion of greater risk of progression to more serious disease. Ethnicity IS one of those factors as YOU were eager to point out when you were defending Trump’s failure to match the pandemic success of other countries.
The idea that a healthy black person will get preference from a hospital over sicker white people is the product of your overdeveloped since of white victimhood.
But keep it up. Maybe I will follow Napoleon’s dictum as you people continue to alienate the majority of Americans with your Europe Civilization chauvinism
LikeLiked by 1 person
You just hate it when your woke side racist clap trap gets called out. Funny that the liberal drum beat of calling Republicans racists all of the time proves just the opposite by liberals own actions. We are all aware of the left wing racial coddling for votes but even blacks are getting sick of being pandered to like idiots.
LikeLike
Utah is “woke?” Who knew!
I will say this, only racists would take umbrage at recognizing that different ethnic groups have demonstrably different risks. I think it highly unlikely that the people in Utah who drew up the point system acted in anything other than good faith when they assigned some weight to the fact of ethnic differences.
Leave it to Fox News to try to exacerbate white resentment with a twisted story like this one. White resentment is their rice bowl.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blacks are at greater risk because, for whatever reason, diabetes and hypertension and a few other co-morbidities are more common among them, But a Black man without those problems is not more at risk than a white man of the same age of similar health.
Those co-morbidities are accounted for as well, so the added 2 points, as Utah calculates it, are not justified the same consideration as 40 years age difference.
This is nothing but woke equity seeking.
LikeLike
“This is nothing but woke equity seeking.”
That is clearly your opinion. I disagree. The rate that non-whites get infected and the seriousness of their disease when they do is a multiple of what occurs for white people. For a wide variety of reasons. Some known. Some not known. Recognizing that epidemiological fact in this small way is something that I do not resent. You obviously do for some reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because you say so?
Have you data showing that Blacks matched with whites for age and co-morbidities fair any worse?
If not you are just speculating based on your own prejudices.
LikeLike
Have you data showing that Blacks matched with whites for age and co-morbidities fair no differently?
If not you are just speculating based on your own prejudices
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re the one justifying racial preferences in medical practice.
The burden of proof that such blatantly racist action is somehow medically justified is yours.
LikeLike
RE: “That means in an environment where we don’t have enough for the high risk patients to begin with, they will now have to compete with perfectly healthy young people for those scarce doses based on race alone.”
Hmmmm. One might also infer that the FDA is confirming the biological reality of race as a human phenotype.
In the Utah Covid-19 Risk Score, you get 2 points for being “Non-White race or Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity” The highest possible risk score ranges from 20 to 24.4, depending on age. In effect, white people under the age of 31 are ineligible for treatment even when their risk factors are identical to those of non-whites.
LikeLike
Ineligible?
Nonsense. Try thinking.
The person with the highest risk score gets preference if there has to a choice. If someone has a higher risk score that does not make them “ineligible.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, under what circumstances do you think a lower risk score would be “preferred” for treatment?
LikeLike
None. There is no point in a scoring system if it is not followed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then the ineligibility is real, if the scoring system is followed.
LikeLike
Uh, no. The ineligibility is not real. Having someone with greater risk at that moment means that you will have to wait for the next supply.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Having someone with greater risk at that moment means that you will have to wait for the next supply.”
You are aware that the treatments in question need to be administered within four days of exposure, right?
These triage rules amount to a race-based death sentence for some white patients under age 31. Are you OK with that?
LikeLike
I am OK with rules arrived at objectively by people ultimately answerable to the public are followed.
I cannot help but notice the hypocrisy embedded in your argument. Normally you go on and on about how mild and not very dangerous Covid is for young people but now it is a death sentence for an otherwise healthy and very young man if he does not get the very latest pill.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Normally you go on and on about how mild and not very dangerous Covid is for young people but now it is a death sentence for an otherwise healthy and very young man if he does not get the very latest pill.”
What part of needing to administer the treatment within four days of exposure do you not understand?
LikeLike
Do you have a link to the Utah schedule? I had it and misplaced it
LikeLike
Click to access Utah_CSC_Monoclonal_Ab_Guidelines_v16_09012021.pdf
It’s in the Fox article.
LikeLike
So, race counts as much as a 40 year age difference
LikeLike
Yup. Or, it is better to be non-white if you are less than 31 years of age.
LikeLike
You do know we are talking about Utah? Right? That is hardly a hotbed of “woke” thinking.
The Utah scoring system gives 2 points non-white ethnicity and 2 points for being age 31-40. It gives 4 points for being age 71-80. Do you have some evidence that these points do not reflect epidemiological reality?
I note that you did not take 80 minus 31 and wail that “race counts as much as a 49 year age difference.” You must be slipping.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you seriously claiming that a 31 year old Black man has an equal risk as a 75 year old white man, assuming they both are in the same general health?
Blacks are only at higher risk because they more commonly have other co-morbidities like high blood pressure or diabetes or asthma. The Utah system considers those separately. so they must be assuming melanin is toxic.
LikeLike
RE: “Do you have some evidence that these points do not reflect epidemiological reality?”
Utah’s guidelines do not justify using race/etnicity in patient selection based on epidemiological reality. Their justification is based solely on ethical grounds. There is a whole section in the document that explains this.
Moreover, if racial/ethnic cohorts present higher burdens of preexisting comorbidities, the non-racial/ethnic scoring for comorbidities should be adequate for triage and would ensure a higher number of non-whites receive treatment on their own.
LikeLike
An interesting factoid. Western Sub-Saharan Africa, which is predominately Black, of course, has an unexpectedly low mortality for COVID.
Care to guess why?
Hint: Malaria is endemic there.
LikeLike
No takers?
Because they take HCQ like it was chicklets for malaria.
Turns out Trump was right all along.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Turns out Trump was right all along.”
Okay, I will play.
It is interesting that you have been duped again by a debunked bit of nonsense. I guess you are not embarrassed by being seen to spread happy horseshit.
The source of the nonsense you are parroting is an eccentric Australian businessman and silly promoter of HCQ as described here. . .
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/ugandas-low-covid-19-cases-due-to-restrictions-not-hydroxychloroquine/
I will suggest again that when something seems too good to be true – in this case that “Trump was right all along” – that you apply a little critical thinking and research before making a fool of yourself.
Here are some real reasons. Surprise, your Trumpist HCQ theory is not one of them. . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54418613
https://qz.com/africa/2049407/why-has-covid-19-had-less-of-an-impact-in-africa/
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: Africans “take HCQ like it was chicklets for malaria.”
I have been trying to confirm this, but finding hard data on HCQ consumption in Africa isn’t easy. Apparently HCQ is available without a prescription in much if not all of Africa, but I can’t find any sales figures.
All of the “fact checks” I have read concerning the correlation between high rates of malaria and low rates of Covid-19 fail to say anything about actual HCQ consumption in the countries where malaria is common. Consequently, any claim they make that HCQ is not a factor related to the correlation is unreliable.
LikeLike
It is quite impossible to prove a negative as you would seem to be demanding. Generally, the burden of proof falls on those who make a claim.
In my research I found that HCQ is not even widely used for malaria anymore, much less eaten like candy. I also found the source of this story that is spreading among “conservatives” – a notoriously unreliable source with no evidence provided.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HCQ is a weak anti-viral and a moderate anti-inflammatory. It has been overtaken by progress. and I would not suggest it as a treatment now instead of Paxlovid.
But like all anti-virals, the sooner the better. and it appears that people who routinely take HCQ already had some degree of protection from serious outcomes.
Interestingly, the same seems true of Ebola, though the benefit is marginal, more people on HCQ for malaria survived Ebola, though still not many.
Anti-virals don’t cure viruses, they slow them down long enough for your immune system to win the race, Some antivirals are much better than others, but ANY antiviral that buys you a little time improves your chances.
LikeLike
Uh, your reasoned and careful comments about HCQ now do not cancel the bullshit you were pushing earlier to prove that “Trump was right all along.”
Face it, if you really believed that post about eating HCQ like Chicklets, you were duped, and you even used the same simile (eating it like candy) as the original bogus story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HCQ is available in Africa like Tylenol is here, People with malaria take it for years. You can’t trace it because there are no prescriptions, so it is hard to study.
LikeLike
RE: “In my research I found that HCQ is not even widely used for malaria anymore, much less eaten like candy.”
If you are referring to the three links you provided above, you found no such thing.
LikeLike
“HCQ is available in Africa like Tylenol is here”
That may be so (although I am skeptical of this “fact”), but you were still totally duped. Either that or dishonestly spreading Trump nonsense. You know which.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If you are referring to the three links you provided above, you found no such thing.”
Actually, I did. The first link contained this paragraph. . .
It is extremely unlikely that relatively low rates of the [coronavirus] infection in sub-Saharan Africa are related to the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine,” Michigan State University malaria researcher Terrie Taylor told us in April. “Neither has been the first-line treatment for malaria illness for many years,” Taylor said.”
embedded in that paragraph you will find this link. . .
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-faulty-malaria-coronavirus-connection/
which goes into more detail. It seems that HCQ is no longer prescribed or used as a preventative by many people because it no longer works. Past overuse had led to the emergence of HCQ-resistant malarial parasites.
Bottom line, the Trump HCQ-taken-like-candy theory is half-baked nonsense pulled out of the ether.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Actually, I did. The first link contained this paragraph.”
Wrong. No longer used as “a first-line treatment” and HCQ-resistant malaria tell us nothing about HCQ actual consumption, which is the point.
LikeLike
“Wrong?”
You are, not me.
Maybe you should read more carefully. Here is an excerpt from the report. . .
There’s little reason, however, to think that’s because of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, for the simple fact that few people in malaria-prone countries are taking the drugs.
Chloroquine was once the go-to drug for malaria treatment in Africa, Taylor explained, but is no longer because the malaria parasite evolved and developed resistance to the drug. Hydroxychloroquine, which is a slightly modified version of chloroquine that is generally considered to be safer, suffers from the same problem; Taylor said it never has been a first-line malaria treatment in Africa. … Chloroquine, she added, “has virtually disappeared from many of these countries.” In Malawi, where Taylor is doing research, getting chloroquine is “actually quite difficult,” she said, because it’s been withdrawn from the national formulary and is “only available by special request.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
As an aside, Trump was also right about bleach, according to Peter McCullough. In an interview with Joe Rogan, McCullough describes a bleach solution that can be used to kill SARS-COV-2 in the nose, sinuses and throat. Betadine can be used instead of bleach.
I don’t know the formula or the safety factors, but presumably the principle is sound.
LikeLike
Of course, disinfectant destroys viruses. Where Trump left the reservation when he suggested injecting it as a possible cure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except he did no such thing.
LikeLike
“Except he did no such thing.”
Actually, he did. I – unlike you – checked the facts before posting.
“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by INJECTION inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that”
-D. Trump
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was a spitballing question posed to his experts, not a recommendation to citizens
But you know that.
LikeLike
My statement was 100% accurate. Yours was false.
The “spit balling” (congrats – yet another euphemism for Trump nonsense!) was on national TV and was clearly part of his disinformation campaign trying to minimize the seriousness of the pandemic. Gee, this virus is not so bad, disinfectant kills it in less than a minute.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Where Trump left the reservation when he suggested injecting it as a possible cure.”
Placing liquid in the nose or throat is a form of injection. That, in fact, is why Dr. McCullough brought it up; to show how people foolishly rejected sound medical practices.
LikeLike
Nasal sprays are NOT injections. And, if you read what Trump was talking about, it was the lungs not the nasal passages.
LikeLike
Actually, Paul they are. Several years ago I was offered a flu shot via nasal spray and it is legitimately considered an injection. It was also the first time in taking a flu shot I had no adverse reaction to the vaccine.
LikeLike
RE: “Nasal sprays are NOT injections.”
Yes, they are, in the same way enemas are injections. Go ahead and look it up.
LikeLike
Trump didn’t say nasal spray or injection.
It was a question, directed at the Scarf lady(Brix?) as to whether bleach could be used in the body.
Was it wise to ask that question in front of TV cameras? Nope. But Trump is Trump. An idea pops into his head and he directs it to an advisor.
But he never advised anyone to inject or injest bleach.
LikeLike
I really wish you could have used my example instead of yours. 😇
LikeLike
“But he never advised anyone to inject or injest [sic] bleach.”
You are now attacking a claim that I have not made.
I did not say Trump advised anyone to inject disinfectant. He simply made a fool of himself by suggesting in front of the world press and a national TV audience that his science people should look into his idea that disinfectant might be useful if injected. In my other words from above. . . ” he suggested injecting it as a possible cure.” A true statement which you stubbornly refuse to read and understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Actually, Paul they are.”
Well, I will politely disagree. By this logic where you were offered a nasal spray INSTEAD of an injection, the Sabin polio vaccine delivered on a sugar cube was an “injection.” Or more broadly, consuming an aspirin tablet is also an “injection” since a substance that was outside your body is now inside.
In everyday speech – such as Trump engages in – an “injection” involves a needle. And you will find, as I did, that most dictionaries see it that way too.
LikeLike
Arguing about what is or is not an injection isn’t really relevant.
Trump was asking the experts a question, not making a recommendation, so what difference does it make?
LikeLike
Statement 1. OK
Statement 2 – Just another attempt to cover Trump’s idiocy and incompetency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” . . . so what difference does it make?”
It makes no difference. Trump made a fool of himself with his ignorant speculation (not his recommendation) no matter what “injection” he had in mind.
Why can you not admit that Trump making the leap from “Disinfectants kill viruses” to “Let’s put disinfectants in the body” was laughably childish? Does he not understand anything? Did he think his stable genius found a solution to viral disease that had eluded medical science for centuries?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I already wrote that it was unwise to pose the question in a public setting.
LikeLike
“I already wrote that it was unwise to pose the question in a public setting.”
Is that as close as you can come to admitting the question was laughably childish and that it betrays the presence of a laughably ignorant mind?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It reveals an impulsive mind with few filters.
Remember that Trump was the most energetic President we have had in our lifetimes. He kept hours few of us could match. It was his manner to throw out ideas for trusted subordinates to evaluate, and move on to something else until they reported back.
That can be quite useful when surrounded by loyal advisors who want to help you succeed.
But in the presence of a press dedicated to your failure it is counterproductive.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize how energetic one would be if they spent ALL morning watching the TV news, waiting to hear his name mentioned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It reveals an impulsive mind with few filters.”
Uh, you mean very like a child. Okay.
“Remember that Trump was the most energetic President we have had in our lifetimes. ”
I find that observation to be beyond bizarre. By every reliable report he was the most indolent President ever with short work hours and lots of empty time in his schedule. It is well documented how he spent far more days at resorts and playing golf than even seems humanly possible. Is that what you mean by energetic?
Granted, he was a poor sleeper and did some tweeting in the middle of the night when other sleepless Presidents may have reached for briefing books – something that Trump did not bother with. That hardly makes him “energetic.”
LikeLiked by 1 person