D&D and the rising pandemic

[Thomas Shey]

It takes a conscience, some forethought, and some bravery and willingness to tell entitled folks to please wait their turn.

More to the point, it requires that said entitled folks don't have enough ability to make a stink about it that it causes active harm. Which particularly when it comes to how things are managed at schools is a big "if".

 

[BookTenTiger]

That may be, but if you cook up resentment enough that those resenting how you're doing it throw blocks into process, you can end up just meaning even less of the people who need it get it.

So are you saying we should prioritize those with means over those who need the most help so that those with means are placated and won't get in the way?

I think it's a much better idea to convince those in charge (say, the Superintendent of Schools) to create equitable policies since, you know, it's their job to lead and communicate policy.

Which is what we are doing here.

 

[Zardnaar]

So are you saying we should prioritize those with means over those who need the most help so that those with means are placated and won't get in the way?

I think it's a much better idea to convince those in charge (say, the Superintendent of Schools) to create equitable policies since, you know, it's their job to lead and communicate policy.

Which is what we are doing here.

For me it's vaccinating as many people as possible as fast as possible.

How that is done I'm not to fussed on the details.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So are you saying we should prioritize those with means over those who need the most help so that those with means are placated and won't get in the way?

How in the world did you get that from what I said? What I said was that there's reasons to use a neutral distribution method that isn't ideal in terms of getting the vaccine to the people who need it most if it also doesn't build resentment in those who can interfere with the process. How you read that as my saying what you say above, I don't even vaguely understand unless you're trying to set me up as a villain here.

I think it's a much better idea to convince those in charge (say, the Superintendent of Schools) to create equitable policies since, you know, it's their job to lead and communicate policy.

Which is what we are doing here.

And I'm saying that people like that are often particularly vulnerable to pressure because of how they're chosen and who has the ability to compel them in a lot of places. If that's not true in the schools you're used to, you're lucky IME.

 

[briggart]

So are you saying we should prioritize those with means over those who need the most help so that those with means are placated and won't get in the way?

I think it's a much better idea to convince those in charge (say, the Superintendent of Schools) to create equitable policies since, you know, it's their job to lead and communicate policy.

Which is what we are doing here.

From a pragmatic point of view, what is the timescale for vaccinating all the school staff in the area? If it's a matter of few days (I guess we are talking about few thousand people) I don't think it makes a significant difference and depending on the logistics of your vaccination program (e.g. vaccine and medical staff are sent to the schools, instead of having vaccination centers where people need to show up on a given day to get a shot) a change in schedule could lead to delays.

 

[GreyLord]

Personally I think it's all screwed up how they are handing it out.

In MY OPINION...

It should be delivered based UPON RISK FACTORS.

The more at risk someone is of dying from the Disease should determine what priority they have of getting it AFTER the medical personnel.

If you have a 20 year old grocery clerk, in theory, they may get the vaccine LONG before a 63 year old with COP-D and a heart condition...

Or if you have a 22 year old teacher they may get the vaccine LONG before a 64 year old with diabetes and high blood pressure.

Etc...etc...etc.

Which makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.

ANOTHER Factor though...how about those who refused to wear a mask, regardless of risk factor.

You could have that 63 year old above who refused to ever wear a mask, social distance, and somehow by the grace of all has not yet gotten the virus...

Why should they be rushed to get it when perhaps a 50 year old who has HIV but has isolated for MONTHS now, worn a mask and did their best to social distance when they had to go out (to get groceries for example) will have to wait?

There's a bunch of how we are rolling it out that does not make a ton of sense if we are talking about fair and equitable here...

But I suppose there are smarter minds than I that are working how to distribute it in the best manner.

 

[Eltab]

Compare NY's vaccination plan to say TX's: too many 'who goes first' factors do not create equitable, they create delay. We already have too much "see how much I care!? why don't you care?" going on (see mask debate) and it is not helpful.

if we are going school-by-school, then alphabetical -or- pull names from a hat -or- roll dice -or- have all the Gym teachers run a 100 yd dash. If you want to get deeper into individual risk factors then you have to schedule individual not group appointments.

Do not turn the Perfect into the enemy of the Good.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Ew ew ew, I am done with this conversation and regret bringing it up here. I will reserve my energy and word for fighting racism in my county's school system. For those who have spoken against distributing vaccines to schools with the most vulnerable populations, I hope you do some more thinking about what is fair and what is equitable. If you have questions feel free to DM me, but I am done here.

 

[Umbran]

So are you saying we should prioritize those with means over those who need the most help so that those with means are placated and won't get in the way?

I don't think he's saying we should do that. Merely that sometimes standing up to powerful people can cost you your job. It takes bravery to risk losing your job in the middle of a pandemic.

Standing up to them is the right thing to do, but it can be hard.

Edit: I just realized something else - that administrator could now be between a rock and a hard place, which would explain being "shook" as you said. Rich parents with influence can cost them their job, but a clear notice that some attempt at equitable distribution is required might actually signal legal responsibility - they or the district may have some legal risk now.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think he's saying we should do that. Merely that sometimes standing up to powerful people can cost you your job. It takes bravery to risk losing your job in the middle of a pandemic.

Standing up to them is the right thing to do, but it can be hard.

Its not only that, but that it can, in practice, produce a perverse result where those who need it most actually get it later, because things get bogged down by administrative or legal challenges. Its absolutely not beyond those working of privilege to do that sort of thing if they they get it in their head that they're actively being pushed to the back of the queue.

I've never even suggested that "alphabetically" or "by lottery" is the best way to do it, but I think you want to make sure you don't get worse outcomes while trying to get better, and at least in some school districts I'm familiar with in the U.S. I can absolutely believe that could be what would happen here. If time wasn't an issue I'd be much more prone to suggesting fighting it out.

Edit: I just realized something else - that administrator could now be between a rock and a hard place, which would explain being "shook" as you said. Rich parents with influence can cost them their job, but a clear notice that some attempt at equitable distribution is required might actually signal legal responsibility - they or the district may have some legal risk now.

Well, that's the damned if you do, damned if you don't part, though at least now that he's been challenged on it he might have some legal/political ammunition for doing it the more appropriate way.