D&D and the rising pandemic

[Ryujin]

In the city where I live, there is an area that has disproportionately high infection rates. This area has an odd dichotomy as it's a newer housing development with million dollar+ homes, but a high concentration of lower paid "essential" workers. This town has a long tradition of being a place where new immigrants settle and we have a significantly higher South Asian population than Caucasian population. The homes that I mentioned are frequently multi-generational. You can have three or four generations of family living under the same roof, getting by with many people paying into the mortgage. In this way the families are able to completely pay off a house in relatively short order and then purchase another, thereby getting a leg-up in life. Because of this, whole households are easily exposed to Covid-19.

I would (and do) heartily endorse people in this area being put at the front of the line, even over people like myself who have several possible comorbidities. I can isolate, for the most part, with very limited need to leave my home for supplies, or the rare occasion that I am required to work on-site. They don't have that luxury and are potentially exposed on a daily basis, in turn exposing their loved ones (including parents too old to work). It just seems logical to me.

 

[Deset Gled]

Alphabetically is fair in terms of who gets what and when without anyone getting to salty about it.

It's smart because people will understand it.

It's smart because the psuedo-randomness makes people think it's fair, when it's trivial for those in charge to manipulate the outcome.

Choosing any system like this gives the appearance of randomness. But the outcome of any such system is 100% known ahead of time. Thus, those in power can choose which "random" system they want, and effectively choose the results. In D&D terms, it would be like letting your wizard roll 5d6 for each of their fireballs at the start of the session, letting them know how many hit points the monster has, then allowing them to choose which of their 5d6 rolls they want to use against each enemy. Sure, there was a random dice roll at some point, but the player will always pick the fireball with the exact damage the need to win each encounter, easily manipulating to get outcome they want.

In the situation BTT gives, the superintendent could have chosen by alphabetical name of the school, alphabetical name of the principal, by age of the building, distance from the center of town, or any other system to appear random, but at the end of the day they were knowingly choosing which schools got the vaccine first and which got it last. There was nothing actually random about the order. Anyone who thought it was fair because of randomness was being played, and that's well before you even get into the discussion of whether or not random distribution is actually equitable.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's smart because the psuedo-randomness makes people think it's fair, when it's trivial for those in charge to manipulate the outcome.

Choosing any system like this gives the appearance of randomness. But the outcome of any such system is 100% known ahead of time. Thus, those in power can choose which "random" system they want, and effectively choose the results. In D&D terms, it would be like letting your wizard roll 5d6 for each of their fireballs at the start of the session, letting them know how many hit points the monster has, then allowing them to choose which of their 5d6 rolls they want to use against each enemy. Sure, there was a random dice roll at some point, but the player will always pick the fireball with the exact damage the need to win each encounter, easily manipulating to get outcome they want.

In the situation BTT gives, the superintendent could have chosen by alphabetical name of the school, alphabetical name of the principal, by age of the building, distance from the center of town, or any other system to appear random, but at the end of the day they were knowingly choosing which schools got the vaccine first and which got it last. There was nothing actually random about the order. Anyone who thought it was fair because of randomness was being played, and that's well before you even get into the discussion of whether or not random distribution is actually equitable.

It's not random but it simple enough for people to understand and know when they get it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In some research pulling together an array of things noted before, a group at Leicester University along with the ONS has noted that approximately 1/3 of all C19 patients have a return visit to the hospital within 5 months, and 1/8 of those who do, die. Those deaths are related to known C19 induced side effects like organ damage and diabetes. With the current standard for cutting off point recording Covid deaths being 28 days after a positive test, this may indicate C19 has a mortality rate that is higher than previously thought.

Until further information is gathered, the takeaway is probably that you really need to monitor your health closely after a bout of Covid.

Almost a third of recovered Covid patients return to hospital in five months and one in eight die

Almost a third of recovered Covid patients will end up back in hospital within five months and one in eight will die, alarming new figures have shown. Research by Leicester University and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found there is a devastating long-term toll on survivors of severe...

news.yahoo.com

 

[Deset Gled]

It's not random but it simple enough for people to understand and know when they get it.

Were discussing the availability of medical supplies to low income schools. You don't care if it's fair, equitable, or random as long as it's simple enough for them to understand?

That's deplorable.

 

[Umbran]

That's deplorable.

I'm not really a fan of plans that disregard real risks, but... can we keep the rhetoric a little less volatile, please and thanks.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I agree that it’s not the best plan, there is something to be said for a course of action that is perceived to be fair in its simplicity if it avoids the real-world consequences of politicization and non-compliance.

 

[Umbran]

there is something to be said for a course of action that is perceived to be fair in its simplicity if it avoids the real-world consequences of politicization and non-compliance.

Yeah, but it doesn't seem to have managed the goal.

The problem in this instance being, as has already been noted, that an impartial process, when imposed upon an inequitable starting situation, has predictably inequitable results.

Since that result is predictable, that means the plan ISN'T actually impartial. The inequitable result is chosen implicitly, which is not impartial at all.

 

[Umbran]

A friend of mine, the owner of one of the area's FLGSs, is now in the hospital with covid-19.

Wear your damn masks. Keep distant. Don't make people sick. Don't die.

 

[Deset Gled]

Deleted.