• COMING SOON! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D and the rising pandemic


log in or register to remove this ad


Zardnaar

Legend
Nobody's asking for perfection.

And, not being able to reach perfection is no excuse for not trying to be better. Using an arbitrary assignment scheme, when some folks are demonstrably at significantly higher risk, is shabby.



Please go back and read again - we are talking about vaccinating school faculty and staff, not the students.

I would argue everyone being somewhat happy with a certain amount of buy in is required.

At the end if the day you need someone saying here's what we're doing and how we're doing it in a way people will understand and not get to salty about.
 


I've already seen arguements on other forums if people complaining about who gets what and when.

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

Unless your name start with Z but who cares about them.?
Cool.

So I'm not just someone on a forum, I am a teacher in a school working with students from low income households in a county that is debating how to distribute its vaccines to the teachers and staff members of the schools.

I hope you weigh my experience in this discussion a little more strongly than some people complaining on other forums.

Fair is not the same thing as equitable. If two houses are on fire, and one has a family trapped inside, which one should firefighters approach first?

If two schools need to vaccinate their staff, and one school has a larger portion of low-income families more at risk of the virus, which school should receive vaccines first?
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Cool.

So I'm not just someone on a forum, I am a teacher in a school working with students from low income households in a county that is debating how to distribute its vaccines to the teachers and staff members of the schools.

I hope you weigh my experience in this discussion a little more strongly than some people complaining on other forums.

Fair is not the same thing as equitable. If two houses are on fire, and one has a family trapped inside, which one should firefighters approach first?

If two schools need to vaccinate their staff, and one school has a larger portion of low-income families more at risk of the virus, which school should receive vaccines first?

In America?

Isn't a lot of problems there over who gets what and how?

This sidesteps that, it's not a country big on equitable it seems.

Ideal world you are right, lmk next time you wake up in an ideal world.
 

In America?

Isn't a lot of problems there over who gets what and how?

This sidesteps that, it's not a country big on equitable it seems.

Ideal world you are right, lmk next time you wake up in an ideal world.
Yes and I am pointing out a situation in which my co-workers are attempting to make the world a little more equitable and ideal.

Dude, I don't know what point you are trying to make here, but this really seems like the time when you should be listening and asking questions instead of asserting your opinion on a situation you are obviously not familiar with.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Yes and I am pointing out a situation in which my co-workers are attempting to make the world a little more equitable and ideal.

Dude, I don't know what point you are trying to make here, but this really seems like the time when you should be listening and asking questions instead of asserting your opinion on a situation you are obviously not familiar with.

I thought alphabetically was a brilliant system relative to how they've been doing things so far.

I'm surprised they're not charging to line up, the line runs past a cheeseburger stand and they have rules saying you can't line up and/or they make it hard to line up.

Not cynical at all with the USA just when you think they can't do any worse they manage to surprise you.
 

Man I've just got to disagree with you very strongly. You are prioritizing "not angering people" over helping people who need it most. In any policy discussion, equity means helping those who need the most help first.

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.
 


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".
 

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

Legend
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.
 

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

Explorer
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

Hero
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

Lord of the Hidden Layer
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.
 

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

Mod Squad
Staff member
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.
 

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.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top