Race Discrimination

California Offering COVID Boosters to 50-to-64-Year-Olds in "Communities of Color"

How about communities of pallor? Looks like they'll have to figure out that they should claim "increased risk due to social inequity."

|

From COVID19.ca.gov (emphasis added):

Booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine are now recommended if you:

  • Got a Pfizer vaccination at least six months ago, and
  • Are 65 or older, or
  • Are a long-term care resident that is 18 or older, or
  • Are 50-64 and have an underlying medical condition, or
  • Are 50-64 and at increased risk due to social inequity (including that of communities of color)

You may also consider getting a booster if you:

  • Are 18-49 and have an underlying medical condition or are at increased risk due to social inequity, or
  • Are 18-64 and work or live in a high-risk setting (like a shelter)
    • The CDC defines high-risk jobs as:
      • First responders (healthcare workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff)
      • Education staff (teachers, support staff, daycare workers)
      • Food and agriculture workers
      • Manufacturing workers
      • Corrections workers
      • U.S. Postal Service workers
      • Public transit workers
      • Grocery store workers

Click on the "social inequity" link, and you'll see what the California government is getting at: "Health Equity Considerations and Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups."

Now you might ask: That's just a recommendation, but is it a requirement? Well, it is if you go to the main California My Turn vaccination site, because there you'll need to answer this question:

Are you in one of the following eligible groups?

  • Resident of a long-term care facility (for example nursing home or assisted living for seniors)
  • At high risk for COVID-19 complications
  • At high risk for COVID-19 exposure due to occupation or institutional setting
  • At increased risk of social inequities (Learn more)

The "learn more" takes you the same link I mentioned above, which makes clear that the government is really interested in "racial and ethnic minority groups." So if you're white and not Hispanic, and you really want to answer the question candidly, the way the state seems to be implying, you'd answer "no," and be told (emphasis in original):

— You are not eligible at this time —

But, hey, aren't we all at increased risk of social inequities of some sort, in some way or another? Plus, wait, aren't white non-Hispanics now a "racial and ethnic minority group" in California? Just check "Yes," check below under "I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information submitted in this application is true and accurate," and then you'll get routed to one of the participating immunization centers. That's what it takes to get your health protected, it appears.

NEXT: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 14A violation

    1. So what? If one branch or agency can violate your 14A rights, the rest can too. And they can keep doing it and ignoring your rights as long as they stick together.

  2. But, hey, aren’t we all at increased risk of social inequities of some sort, in some way or another?

    Of course not! If you’re in one of the groups that CAN be racist no such risk can apply. Get outta here!

  3. I agree that this is stupid, but I’d love to hear your honest case that you, EV, are just as at-risk as a minority homeless folks.

    Or even someone forced to interact with all-comers for a living like retail workers.

    But hey, it is always good to see the legal establishment types playing with race for a quick laugh, amirite?

    1. Lathering the rubes,
      the UCLA law prof
      tosses the red meat

    2. Snorkle: You’ll notice that I wasn’t objecting to the different priority for retail workers (of any race or ethnic group) as opposed to other workers. Nor was I objecting to any proposed special program for homeless people, if such a program existed [UPDATE: or the preference for people who live or work in shelters, which might be what you were referring to as to homeless people].

      But under the California approach, a 50-to-64-year-old black or Hispanic lawyer (query whether it extends to Asians) would be prioritized, while a 50-to-64-year-old white lawyer wouldn’t be, unless the latter stated generically that he was “[a]t increased risk of social inequities.” That’s what I was discussing here.

      1. Professor Volokh….How is this policy not an obvious case of racial discrimination?

        1. It would seem that it is.

          1. As obvious as the average Republican, race-targeting voter suppression system?

            1. Wow, so the Rev is such a bigot that he thinks that “minorities” aren’t capable of getting driver’s licenses, or reading directions, or following them.

              How long have you been a member of the KKK Rev?

          2. The poor reverend, discriminated against by the state of california.
            And all he can do is to make a stupidly partisan comment.

            1. Anyone who dislikes paltry polemics and low-grade partisanship would not be here.

              Well, maybe excepting deans looking to get early notice of the need to draft a periodic apology.

            2. “The poor reverend… all he can do is to make a stupidly partisan comment.”

              It’s a tight race between those and his “whuddaboutisms”. In fact, the current case likely qualifies as both.

              Twofer!

              1. Volokh Conspiracy fans whining about downscale partisanship . . . priceless.

                1. It’s like when they complain that I’m rude when I’m responding to their post proclaiming virulent racism

      2. Why social inequities? Wtf does that have to do with it?

        How about statistical inequities? Focus attention on groups with the highes percentages of medical problems.

        With a shortage, that’s basic triage, intended to maximize the saving of life.

        1. Why not focus attention on individuals with medical problems? That’s real triage.

        2. “How about statistical inequities? Focus attention on groups with the highes percentages of medical problems.”

          How about not being a moron?

          Patients are individuals. At least, they are when you’re not a racist pig.

          Do you triage based on individual characteristics

      3. But under the California approach, a 50-to-64-year-old black or Hispanic lawyer (query whether it extends to Asians) would be prioritized, while a 50-to-64-year-old white lawyer wouldn’t be, unless the latter stated generically that he was “[a]t increased risk of social inequities.” That’s what I was discussing here.

        Of course, your complaint doesn’t seem to be that 50-to-64-year-old Black or Hispanic lawyers have access to the booster, when they probably aren’t at increased risk of COVID complications, given their socioeconomic status – is it? You’d write the same post even if the CA eligibility rules carved out people of a high enough socioeconomic status that they’re not living and working in conditions that increase their risk of exposure to COVID or limit their access to healthcare.

        So why focus on the Black and Hispanic lawyers? Why not on the working-class people who are actually struggling more with the disease, and with lower vaccine rates?

        I suspect that you’d say that there’s no reason to distinguish between Black/Hispanic and non-“social inequity” races, at lower socioeconomic statuses, either. And there may not be. But preliminary evidence on vaccine hesitancy suggests that there may be reasons for why vaccine uptake may be different as between the races: white working-class people might ideologically resist getting the vaccine, and might indeed view booster accessibility as encouraging that resistance (since, in their view, the need for boosters so early on shows the inefficacy of the vaccines themselves), whereas for Black/Hispanic working-class people, the issue may be more about education, access, and community outreach – in which case, making the boosters easier to get may be more helpful.

        It is puzzling, sometimes, why our constitutional law needs to be so blind to the complexities of our lived reality. But its tenets are facts we must learn to live around. Policies that turn explicitly on race present a well-trod problem, under these tenets.

        What is less explicable is the apparent perspective some law professors take to that same lived reality, as they similarly seem to refuse to acknowledge any kind of reality outside their casebooks. When one writes a post about a facially racially discriminatory policy, without acknowledging the racially disparate dynamics of the COVID pandemic that the policy is apparently trying to address, and the best one can do is pose sophomoric “Socratic” questions about it, one wonders whether their ignorance is feigned or genuine.

          1. In what way was that “well said”?

            It’s a combination of reading comprehension failures,scientific ignorance, gross stupidity, and racism. What in there qualifes as “well said”?

        1. Of course, your whine makes no sense to anyone who has a brain.

          So why focus on the Black and Hispanic lawyers?
          Well, because CA is illegally and in violation of the US Constitution (14th Amendment) and in violation of the CA Constitution (whichever Amendment forbids the State to treat people differently based on skin color, which was just reaffirmed by CA voters in 2020) treating them differently than “white “lawyers.

          Are you just not able to read?

          Why not on the working-class people who are actually struggling more with the disease, and with lower vaccine rates?

          Reality check: You can’t get a “booster” if you haven’t had the vaccine already. Moron.

          Any of those people who want to get vaccinated can get the shots, for free.

          So what’s he supposed to be doing to help them?

          I suspect that you’d say that there’s no reason to distinguish between Black/Hispanic and non-“social inequity” races, at lower socioeconomic statuses, either. And there may not be.

          Well, since CA treating people differently based on their skin color is a Constitutional violation, there most certain is not such a reason.

          It is puzzling, sometimes, why our constitutional law needs to be so blind to the complexities of our lived reality.

          My lived reality is that you’re a lying sack of sh!t and a racist pig. By all means, let’s go by my lived reality.

          What’s that? Only your “lived reality” matters? Well, then, to answer your dishonest and moronic question: our constitutional law needs to be so blind to the fantacies of your lived reality because it bans patents of nobility. Which is essentially what you’re demanding: that you be treated as more special than everyone else, and put above the laws and rules that the rest of us are bound by.

          FOAD

          1. You must be one of those types they let take the bar exam in CA without going to law school.

            1. Says the guy whose “arguments” are so pathetic that that he can’t actually defend any of them.

              It’s rather pathetic, seeing someone like you whose self worth is based on getting unearned pieces of paper, rather than actually accomplishing anything

            2. You must be one of those types they let into law school despite having really shitty LSAT scores. Since you are a failure at reading comprehension, analytical thinking, and logic

        2. “It is puzzling, sometimes, why our constitutional law needs to be so blind to the complexities of our lived reality.”

          It’s not even slightly puzzling. “The complexities of our lived reality” are just an excuse to deny people equal rights.

          1. No, this is wrong, but the reason it’s wrong is a good insight into how your approach to thinking about these issues frequently collapses normative judgments into objective observations of the world.

            I can recognize that white, Black, Hispanic, etc., people have different lived experiences due to their race, without having to conclude that our law must somehow make up for that. I can also see that our law grants them “equal protection,” even if I find this a puzzling thing to do, since “equal protection” of an inherently racist status quo just means promoting white supremacy and perpetuating institutional racism. I can also acknowledge that any alternative to this system would be challenging to pull off equitably and may well create more problems than it solves.

            Hence – the “complexity of our lived reality.”

            But you, like most conservatives, instinctively grasp that saying things like “reality is complexed” can easily lead one to conclude that your preferred simplistic approaches to everything are likely to be suboptimal. So you’d much rather prefer to simply deny that lived reality is all that complex.

            1. I think you have it backwards. I don’t think there is a lot of objection among conservatives, at least the ones I know, to treating people according to their *individual* circumstances (I’m surely not a spokesman for conservatives, so welcome corrections fro the resident conservatives). What they object to is treating people like their individual lived experience must have equaled the median lived experience of some group.

              Want to give college admissions preference to kids who grew up very poor, whether the kid is from Appalachia or Watts – no problem. Want to give preference to Ben Carson’s kids (if he has any?) instead of some poor Hmong refugee – not so good.

            2. “of an inherently racist status quo ”
              Here is where your logic goes off the rails, simon.
              That phrase simply begs the question. And the appeal to complexity is just a claim that “I see the world with better eyes than you have.”

              This has nothing to do with radical left, progressive, moderate, conservative, radical right. It is just your wanting to apply the law unevenly. So man-up as the sexists used to say. And just admit it.

    3. But hey, it is always good to see the legal establishment types playing with race for a quick laugh, amirite?

      No, uisrong.
      It is now, and has always been, government which plays with race,among other bigotries. Slavery was government-mandated; Jim Crow was government-mandated; affirmative action is government-mandated.

    4. If you see a blatant case of racial discrimination snorkle, shouldn’t it be pointed out?

      1. What do you make of the Volokh Conspiracy’s remarkable Whiteness and odds-defying maleness?

        (That song is doubly appropriate, if you consider carefully.)

    5. “playing with race”

      Read the post again.

      “homeless folks” and “retail workers” are already covered in separate race neutral categories as being recommended. So what are you whining about?

      Its california that is playing with race

    6. I agree that this is stupid, but I’d love to hear your honest case that you, EV, are just as at-risk as a minority homeless folks.

      Did he make any such claim with regard to himself, or any other law professor for that matter? Why no, he did not.

      Or even someone forced to interact with all-comers for a living like retail workers.

      He also said nothing about retail (or similar up-close-with-the-public) workers. So why the blatant dishonesty on your part?

      On the flip side, I’d love to hear your honest case that homeless folks “of color” are more at risk than non-POC homeless folks.

    7. Snorkle babbles:

      I agree that this is stupid, but I’d love to hear your honest case that you, EV, are just as at-risk as a minority homeless folks.

      That’s not the valid comparison. The valid comparison is between “minority homeless folks” and “‘white’ homeless folks”.

      Do tell us why the ‘white’ ones are less at risk from Covid. it should be a fascinating claim

  4. With respect to inequality, are you as concerned by the stunning number of Federalist Society members and other fledgling clingers who get public employment as judicial clerks — not because of better grades, better test scores, better interviews, or other merit-related factors, but quite simply because they have the “right” ideological slant?

    (“Right” from the perspective of the Republican judges doling out those taxpayer-funded plums, certainly not “right” in the context of being popular in America, on the stronger side at our marketplace ideas, or on the right side of history.

    To be fair to those Republican judges, I note my doubt that their hiring choices are as White or as male as the Volokh Conspiracy is.)

    1. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      Waste of brain cells warning
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      For any one reading the above, Kookland is performing his weird trick of “footnoting” his assertions with a music video. I didn’t follow it, but hovering over it shows “youtube”. So there’s no need to click on it.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      Waste of brain cells warning
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      1. To which “assertion” do you refer? Or are you just looking for any chance to spout your racist, obsolete thoughts?

      2. If you mute him rather than replying he is less noticeable to you and those of us who already have muted him.

        If the Rev posts in a forest and everyone has him muted, has he still posted?

        1. If every clinger mutes me, I would continue to win — and you would continue to lose — the culture war that shapes modern America.

          This blog, in particular, would still be a failure (measured against stated aim).

          I am content.

        2. If a vat of malignant gall bladders is muted, is the bile it produces still bitter and odorous?

          Yeah, probably. But at least it’s no longer being inflicted upon his betters.

    2. I miss the old Rev who laced all of his posts with gay sex references. The new one just seems like a bot

      1. If you can’t distinguish me from the ‘male eruption’ guy (where has he been, anyway — awaiting sentencing for Jan. 6?), it’s time to call Kevorkian.

      2. Has it ceased spamming it’s rape fantasies here? I thought the one where it dreamed of being “forced” to orally service the entire NFL was pretty out there.

  5. Can somebody please sue these people back to the Stone Age?

    1. Now that the recall is over I’m expecting Gov. Gruesom to resume rotating week-long electricity of zip codes he has no presence in shutoffs momentarily. That Stone Age enough for you?

      1. “shutoffs” in wrong place obviously. Reason’s commenting software is pretty gruesome, too.

  6. And because this is an appropriate place for this…

    Now for some unconventional facts to consider….

    % of breakthrough COVID cases in Massachusetts for the week of 9-25 to 10-2: 3,741. (Fully vaccinated individuals)
    Total number of COVID cases in Massachusetts for the week of 9-25 to 10-2: 10,773.
    % of COVID cases in fully vaccinated individuals: 34%

    Number of breakthrough COVID deaths in Massachusetts for the week of 9-25 to 10-2 : 46
    Total number of COVID deaths in Massachusetts for the week of 9-25 to 10-2: 105.
    % of COVID DEATHS in fully vaccinated individuals: 44%

    Vaccination rate as of October 2nd in MA: 68%…

    Source:
    https://www.mass.gov/doc/weekly-report-covid-19-cases-in-vaccinated-individuals-october-5-2021/download

    Source: New York Times.

    Makes you think, I’d hope….

    1. Makes me think the NYT is not a reliable source for anything, including the date at the top of the page.
      No numbers relating to the Communist Chinese Virus are reliable because there are financial and political incentives to lie.

    2. Please don’t spam the same comment in multiple threads.

      1. Normally I don’t, but it was more appropriate here.

    3. “% of breakthrough COVID cases in Massachusetts for the week of 9-25 to 10-2: 3,741. ”

      There’s no percentage in that line, so you’re not only spamming this comment, you’re not proof reading it, either.

      1. Apologies for the mistake. Should have read “#”. I was concentrating on accurately reporting the numbers and dates.

    4. This is to be expected. Covid is dangerous to 80-90 year olds, so they got vaccinated. After vaccination some are still in danger.

      Covid is not a significant danger to under 20-year-olds (compared to, for example, traveling in a motor vehicle or a bad flu outbreak) and a large number are not vaccinated.

      Vaccination brings the Covid danger for the elderly down to a level that is closer to the danger it poses to unvaccinated young people. You should expect to continue to see cases and hospitalizations and deaths because the danger will never be zero to any population, vaccinated or not. And Covid isn’t going away. Look for the median age of those hospitalized to continue to be above 80, regardless of vaccination.

    5. @ Armchair – Vermont is more highly vaccinated than Maine.

      For the last 8 weeks continuously, Vermont’s breakthrough cases have been in the 33%-36% range.

      https://www.healthvermont.gov/covid-19/current-activity/data-summary

      Washington state and Minnesota state are similar to leaning higher. These are among the few states which provide good time-referenced data on breakthroughs. Most simply provide the total number of breakthroughs (see below for “this one weird trick”).

      The One Weird Trick most officials play is to use data inclusive from Jan2021 to (today) or some date, and then say:

      “SEE! SEE! Only 8% of the cases are breakthroughs!”

      Well, of course they are. You’re counting in your denominator all those positives in Jan-Feb-Mar when literally no one was a breakthrough case.

      Take a look at the last 8-10 weeks instead. Picture differs considerably.

  7. As has always been true, white is a color.

    1. And just as true…those referred to as “white” are not actually white, however close Edgar Winter might come to it.

    2. Indeed it is, but EV chased down the fact that when CA uses the word in the phrase “communities of color” it is referring to “racial and ethnic minority groups.” (both real, not scare, quotes.) So, no, “white” doesn’t qualify. (That whites might be or become a minority group in CA is of course immaterial.)

      1. This is beyond belief that this shit can be passed by govt. if the intent is not to discriminate and you have different %’s it might be due to cultural factors…Cali just shit on the Bill of Rights..

    3. As of today “white” has become “White” on CNN

      1. Which is weird because it’s only been a couple of years since capitalizing “white” was decried as horribly racist.

        1. Yes, I was suprised to see that as the upper left headline on CNN

  8. if you aren’t lobotomized or kidnapped getting a covid shot is one of the easiest things in the world. They’re bursting at the seams with shots at every corner of the street. I don’t see why every single aspect of life has to be victim olympics.

  9. The systemic racism is there, it just cuts in the opposite direction of what people think it does.

    This is racist AF.

    1. According to the California Bar, California is 40% white but the legal profession is 68% white. Clearly, that old anti-white institutional racism is hard at work holding down us white folk.

      1. As a proof that that’s not happening you’ve dishonestly come up with a pointless number. Congratulations.

      2. Up until fairly recently whites were a much larger percentage of the population If you have group A and a newly arrived group B even if you gave group B a 20% advantage in treatment there are plenty of nonracist reasons you wouldn’t necessarily see group B instantly rocket up in all societal positions and fields to demographic parity.

        If a bunch of white people suddenly moved to Mongolia to where they made up 15% of the population it would be bafflingly stupid for them to claim antiwhite racism just because Mongolia didn’t have a 15% white Legislature the instant they touched down on its shores.

        1. What, did they remove “Hispanic but identifies as white” from forms, for sinister reasons?

          1. Maybe because many Hispanics identify as White

      3. Too bad all those lawyers can’t get a booster because they’re the disfavored race. Maybe they should use their white privilege.

      4. So the deep state is tricking white people into the dismal career path of law? Damn, it’s worse than we thought, California must *really* hate white people.

    2. ” The systemic racism is there, it just cuts in the opposite direction of what people think it does. ”

      This is what makes shoving even more progress down the whimpering, racist throats of conservatives such an important and enjoyable endeavor.

      Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, anyway.

      1. So what you’re saying is you’re just here for the entertainment value of shoving your morals down the throats of people you believe are your inferiors?

        If so, that’s a really sad admission. If you’re just here for the lulz, maybe in reality you’re a 15 year old named Jason living in the Alabama who’s bored with roasting ants with a magnifying glass, so you come here instead to troll up the place.

        1. It’s a marketplace of ideas, DaveM.

          May the better ideas win.

          (The operators of this blog attempt to bolster their stale conservative arguments by misappropriating the franchises of mainstream, liberal-libertarian teaching and research institutions. That makes countermeasures especially worthwhile.)

          Here’s another blatant pinch . . . I like ’em both, but the Beach Boys should have known — and acted — better.

  10. Seems like a violation of Article I, §31 of the California Constitution. And by the way, one of the few sane things California voters have done recently is to resoundingly defeat a proposition that would have allowed race discrimination by the State.
    Likewise it seems like an equal protection violation under the US Constitution, and it’s hard to see how it could survive strict scrutiny. If plaintiffs challenging this state action thus have a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, then deprivation of access to a potentially life-saving vaccine against a deadly virus seems like it would count as irreparable injury.

    1. John,
      I got my booster today. The line was long. It contained people of all ages, all ethnic backgrounds and races. The only criterion that was checked was whether the 2nd shot was at least 6 months ago.
      So, de facto in CA, if you want a booster, go out and get it.

  11. Well, if I thought that I actually needed to get a booster shot, I wouldn’t hesitate to game such a silly, racist setup. Race is just a social construct after all. I’d fill out that web form with whatever answers were needed to get me access to the necessary medical care. These racist categories are just labels. They don’t have any real meaning.

    I don’t feel obligated in the least to interpret their rules reasonably or to give them the benefit of the doubt and act in a way they expect me to act.

    When I was growing up I learned how to deal with alcoholic adults. They’d make unreasonable demands one me, and I eventually just came to the conclusion that an unreasonable demand is no demand at all. It’s unreasonable. It deserves nothing, it is to be simply ignored.

    Same deal here. Unlawful commands don’t need to be honored. That’s true even in the military justice system.

  12. “At increased risk of social inequities…”

    Well, if you are a member of some group that was disfavored for booster shots, wouldn’t that be a social inequity, thus allowing you to fairly answer yes to the question?

    1. Exactly. Cite the statute as an example of social inequity against straight European Americans. No doubt there are other race based California programs that can be cited as well.

  13. I’m ethnically half Texan. Does that count? (I could probably trace something back to the Republic of Texas, so it’s national origin, too.)

  14. I have gotten 3 Pfizer shots. I’m pretty darn White — there’s some evidence that one of my Pilgrim ancestors married a Native American, which would mean I have the same NA ancestry as whats-her-name the Mass. Senator. But, I can’t prove it, and as I say: I’m pretty darn White (sorry).
    So I have two questions:
    1. Can I get another shot in California? and
    2. Who’s gonna pay my fare?

    1. Eric,
      As you are over 70, you can now get a shot in CA without any subterfuge

      1. Hi Don. Are you certain of this? It would be a fourth shot, i.e. a second booster.

        I didn’t think anyone was authorised a *second* booster already?

        1. No, Dewbie,
          If what I wrote implied that, I was not clear enough.
          From today’s direct observation, anyone in CA who wants a (3rd shot) booster, can get it if that shot is at least 6 months after the previous shot for full vaccination.
          You are correct; no fourth shot is approved and I doubt any site will provide it.

    2. Eric,
      I misread your question. You cannot get a 4th shot in CA no matter what color or ethnicity that you are

  15. Just answer yes if you want the shot. They may name the preferred minority groups, but provide no criteria for choosing one over any other.

    The latest accepted science says we are ALL descended from people from Africa.

  16. One other thing – this right here is why we do not want a government run single payer health care system. They just won’t be able to help themselves from playing favorites, one way or another. Semi-related – how many voices on the left have suggested that the unvaccinated should be denied care?

    Would it be nice to develop something such that everyone can get care if they need it? Sure (note to the right – I’m not saying it’s a “right”, just a preferred policy outcome). But don’t let the unprincipled chuckleheads that populate our governments anywesr near the controls. Or you get shit like this, where they influence who has a better chance at living.

    1. Such systems often outlaw private medicine, so it is illegal to be free people in a free country, pursuing better care than what the government provides.

      This is necessary so the government doesn’t look bad by comparison.

      It’s exactly like saying, “Here. Here is Social Security for retirement. But that is all you get. Any savings and investments you have must be forfeited to the government, and you are only permitted to live on SS, and nothing more.”

      1. I’d say, “Don’t give them ideas!”, except that I’m sure they’ve already had that one, and are just refraining for the moment to avoid a political backlash.

  17. What about those of us “at risk due to social iniquity?”

    1. When you put the word “social” in front of something it should be a clue that government should have nothing to do with it. Social justice is not justice at all.

    2. I’m sad about the amount of social iniquity risk I’ve experienced lately. It’s been far too low.

  18. How about this logic: if you are not at risk due to social inequity, then you can’t sign up for this vaccine. But that means you are a victim of social inequity.

    So if you’re not eligible, then you’re eligible.

  19. The right kind of discrimination is Ok now. Didn’t you get the memo?

  20. How long before the more naive white voters out there figure out that leftists are prejudiced against them and intend them harm?

    1. Probably not as long as it’ll take “communities of color” to figure out that leftists intend them harm as well.

  21. Gotta love the legal commentary – or, I guess, this is more “legal insinuation” – without any acknowledgment of reality.

    It’s not hard to understand the scientific rationale behind trying to “boost” vaccine participation among communities suffering from so-called “social inequity.” Data shows consistently lower rates of vaccine uptake in those communities. There are a lot of reasons for that, and various ways of addressing it, including potentially some that don’t require reference to race. But it’s not crazy to think that the discrepancy presents a distinct public health risk that needs to be squarely addressed in some fashion.

    I appreciate that laws attempting to protect public health during a global pandemic can sometimes formally step over lines drawn in our constitutional law – as we’ve seen before, when we tried to stop people from congregating in churches. And I also appreciate that, for some reason, our Supreme Court views adherence to abstract constitutional principles cynically cited by COVID hoaxers as more important than protecting public health – an attitude that conservative law professors appear to be eager to adopt. But none of that requires us to ignore the actual public health risks posed by tolerating racial discrepancies in vaccine uptake (or groups of churchgoers gathering indoors unmasked for extended periods of time, talking and singing). If the Constitution is a death compact, then so be it, and let’s acknowledge that.

    Meanwhile, over here we have some white law professor grousing about getting boosters that the science doesn’t even really demonstrate is that required or helpful. The booster rollout is itself being driven by politics and an over-conservative policymakers, responding in part to uppity complaints of vocal and educated COVID warriors who need to find something else to do with their time.

    1. An actual thoughtful comment, thank you! I would only underline a counter-point others have made here, which is that when you start using social standing as a qualification for getting a medicine, you’ve not only stepped over the line, you’ve stepped right into the ditch.

      The way you “tolerate racial discrepancies in vaccine uptake” is by the obvious expedient of getting the jab yourself, not by declaring some people half-citizens and others as super-citizens.

      Freedom, like sunlight, is the ultimate disinfectant of pluralistic societies. You don’t need the government to be your caretaker. You are your own caretaker. The government just exists to ensure you can do so, not to do it for you.

    2. But this doesn’t do anything to boost vaccination among undervaccinated groups. These are booster shots, which means the recipient has already voluntarily been vaccinated. These people by definition didn’t suffer from access to the vaccine due to social inequities.

      This is the government saying “ we think a booster increases the recipient’s chance at good health and a longer lifespan, and we’re going to allow that benefit to racial group A and deny that benefit to racial groups other than A”. It’s baldfaced racism. Whites Only water fountains with syringes.

      1. These people by definition didn’t suffer from access to the vaccine due to social inequities.

        That’s a really good good point, and one I had missed.

      2. These people by definition didn’t suffer from access to the vaccine due to social inequities.

        No, not “by definition.” Just because someone has been vaccinated, doesn’t mean that vaccine access doesn’t continue to be an issue for them.

        A lot of my white friends are reporting that they can get a booster by just walking into a drug store and asking for it, notwithstanding that no one says that it’s their “turn.” Query whether a Black person would have that experience.

        1. “Query whether a black person would have that experience”

          Where I live, they most certainly would. I’m booster eligible and got mine the other day. The guy in front me in the booster line was black. Nobody cared. His vaccination, like mine, was ordinary and unremarkable.

        2. As bevis reports, That is the way it is here in Oakland.
          Simon, you just want to proclaim racism, because it suits your politics. Here in Oaktown, the ground truth is different. I saw that yesterday when I got my booster shot.

        3. >These people by definition didn’t suffer from access to the vaccine due to social inequities.

          No, not “by definition.” Just because someone has been vaccinated, doesn’t mean that vaccine access doesn’t continue to be an issue for them.

          The vaccines are free. The booster shots are free. If they were able to make it to the vaccine site, and are able to make it to the booster shot site, then “by definition” “social inequities” are not their problem.

          1. Moreover, there is no shortage of vaccines.
            If someone has not been vaccinated, it is because the chose not to.
            If you want a shot, go get it.

        4. A lot of my white friends are reporting that they can get a booster by just walking into a drug store and asking for it, notwithstanding that no one says that it’s their “turn.” Query whether a Black person would have that experience.

          So, is the problem that you don’t have any “black” friends, so you can’t ask any of them.

          Or is the problem that you’re a left wing ass making up bullshit to push your racist agenda?

          Provide us links to actual evidence that black people are going to drug stores and asking for a booster shot, and being rejected, while similarly situated white people are getting the shot.

          You can’t. Because it isn’t happening. Because, as is usually the case with the Left, everything you say is complete and utter bullshit

    3. “over here we have some white law professor grousing about getting boosters”
      I guess that simon believes that the application of law is only meant to be when its convenient.

    4. Except there’s a plethora of vaccine available. In the absence of scarcity, you don’t boost vaccine participation in underserved ethnic groups by forbidding other ethnic groups from getting it, you boost vaccine participation with outreach to the underserved groups.

      1. Yeah that’s a problem with this. Back when there wasn’t enough vaccine to go around something like this could possibly be excusable. But in a time of plenty of vaccine, like now, this is simply punitive toward a group of people. Based on their race.

        How much easier and fairer it would have been to say they encourage everyone in that age group to get vaccinated then run a program to set up vaccine sites in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

    5. @SimonP
      Gotta love the racist left wing babbling without any acknowledgment of reality.

      It’s not hard to understand the scientific rationale behind trying to “boost” vaccine participation among communities suffering from so-called “social inequity.”

      It’s easy to understand: the people doing this are a bunch of racist pigs.

      People who aren’t racist pigs look for the unvaccinated of any group, try to figure out why they didn’t get vaccinated, and then try to overcome any obstacles that can be overcome.

      With the “black community”, for example, there’s memory of the Tuskegee experiments, and so a generalized distrust of the medical community.

      So if you want to overcome their distrust, the first thing you need to do is fire all the medical liars, like Fauci. Because there’s no reason for them to trust anything that comes from any organization run by him.

      The second thing you need to do is go after any and all powerful people who ignore lockdown orders / masking / social distancing requirements.

      Because so long as the politically connected are ignoring the rules, clearly there’s no reason why anyone else should follow them.

      Of course, you’re a garbage political hack, and the people you’d have to go after are pretty much all Democrats, so clearly you’re not going to do that.

      I appreciate that laws attempting to protect public health during a global pandemic can sometimes formally step over lines drawn in our constitutional law – as we’ve seen before, when we tried to stop people from congregating in churches. And I also appreciate that, for some reason, our Supreme Court views adherence to abstract constitutional principles cynically cited by COVID hoaxers as more important than protecting public health

      Shorter Simpon: never let a “crisis” go to waste. Instead, use the Constitution as waste paper to wipe your ass during it.

      BTW: There’s little to no scientific evidence for your claim that those orders actually “protect public health”. So you’re 0 for 2 on that front.

      But none of that requires us to ignore the actual public health risks posed by tolerating racial discrepancies in vaccine uptake

      And how are you going to stop “tolerating” those “discrepancies”? Send the Gestapo in to force every single black person to get the jab? Then hunt them down 3 – 4 weeks later to get the 2nd jab?

    6. SimonP: “If the Constitution is a death compact, then so be it, and let’s acknowledge that. ”

      You pathetic, innumerate, scientific ignoramus. I’ve been tracking the MN numbers, because they have a good website that gives a wide range of useful data.
      https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html#ageg1

      99% of Covid deaths are in people aged 40 or older.
      95% of all Covid deaths are in those 55 and older
      The death rate for Covid is 1.13% of people who test positive for covid.

      Letting loose hemorrhagic smallpox would be a “death compact”. Covid’s a slightly more infectious flu that doesn’t target young people.

      Get a grip

  22. Wow, EV, what a fine reading. Pretending it said racial minorities instead of those groups that are subject to social inequities.

    1. The title of the linked page is “Health Equity Considerations & Racial & Ethnic Minority Groups”. I don’t think much pretending was required on Volokh’s part.

    2. “Pretending it said racial minorities instead of those groups that are subject to social inequities.”

      Which “groups that are subject to social inequities” are not “racial minorities”?

  23. I don’t know if folks here are aware of it but California instituted this form of overt discrimination from the beginning of the vaccine distribution in early spring.

    The stated policy was to redress “inequity” and they announced that centers for vaccination would be located accordingly. For example, most people in middle to upper class cities in the east bay were told to drive to Antioch, unless they happened to live in heavily black Oakland. (Antioch is 1 to 1.5 hrs drive, in the central valley – as were middle-working class cities in Solano and east contra costa. Antioch is only 1/3rd euro white…so naturally it became a regional hub.

    Worse yet, the state implemented a confidential program with hundreds (or thousands) of minority community groups giving them a secret password for members, of any age, to get vaccinated. This only became public knowledge when a 30ty something white person got a spam like email giving out the password.

    Someone really ought to investigate the depth of “woke” racism in vaccine distribution – as an elder I couldn’t get it from my provider and only obtained it because I was healthy enough to travel.

    1. Fortunately, Max, I live in Oakland where I had not trouble getting a vaccine. Why anyone would drive to Antioch from here or San Leandro is beyond understanding.

      1. Well, Don, what did you have to do to get an appointment to get your jab? Did you have to give them your address? Did you go to a site, sign up, and get told “you can have an appointment here”?

        The situation being discussed is “CA’s racist early vaccine distribution screen”, not “How I got a jab after there were no limits”

        1. Greg,
          I wanted a shot. Up to the end of September, boosters were reserved fro a small class of immuno-suppressed persons.
          I went to my HMO’s cite and had literally 50 or more different appointment times offered over the following 10 days. I chose Saturday. Bad choice, because anyone who was a member could have gotten in line and gotten a shot as long as it was 60 days after the last preceding shot.
          By the way, if you look on the various relevant county or HMO websites, they still show limits. My comment is that those limits are de facto disregarded. By the PRESENT CA guidance, many people who got their shot yesterday were not eligible. Does that answer your objection?

          1. Don,

            maxparrish was talking about back in Feb / March / April timeframe, when lots of people were desperate to get the shot, and supplies were quite constrained.

            Not September, when supplies in the US at least are anything but constrained

        2. By the way, what is with this “jab” nomenclature.
          It has been made into a politicized word. It is a “shot” just like a flu shot.
          By the way, you should get your flu shot and your pneumonia shot.

          1. “Get the jab” is what my hard core Democrat strongly pro-vaccine friends would say (as in, “have you gotten your jab yet?”)

            It’s not a Covid vaccine, because it doesn’t keep you from getting Covid, and it doesn’t keep you from passing it on to others. You are correct, it’s much more a “flu shot” style operation than a vaccine.

            You are correct that it’s a “shot”. But there are lots of shots out there. Whereas I’ve only seen “get the jab” in reference to Covid.

            And while I got my two shots of Pfizer, i won’t be getting a booster, and I’ll probably, as usual, skip the flu shot (since it’s generally pretty ineffective).

          2. The thing is, when I get a “tetanus shot”, i expect that for the next 7 years I’m immune to tetanus.

            When i get a “vaccine”, I expect that for some defined number of years, I will not get whatever disease the vaccine protects against.

            The Covid things don’t meet those standards. Thus “the jab” seems much more honest

            1. No vaccine offers complete protection. It’s just that this one’s limitations have been more publicized than the others. Also, the risk of a breakthrough infection is strongly related to how much opportunity there is to be infected in the first place. There just aren’t very many people walking around spreading polio or the measles.

              https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/index.html
              > Almost all children (99 out of 100) who get all the recommended doses of polio vaccine will be protected from polio.

              https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measles/index.html
              > The MMR vaccine is very safe and effective. Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective.

              1. “No vaccine offers complete protection. It’s just that this one’s limitations have been more publicized than the others”

                Bzzt, thank you for playing, now take your BS and go away. 99% protection and 33% protection are not the same thing, and not in the same universe of the same thing.

                Smallpox has been eliminated by the smallpox vaccine. Up until Sept 1, the CDC correctly defined a vaccine this way:
                Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

                Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

                Here’s a simple metric: If, after having got the shot, you’re still worried about getting the disease it’s supposed to be protecting against, then it’s not a “vaccine”.

                “It’s just that this one’s limitations have been more publicized than the others”
                Yes, by its supporters. So bitch at your own side, not the people who don’t want to take the crap shot

  24. There is an intention behind being blatantly obvious in racial discrimination, isn’t there? As of early October, the White:Black vaccination rate ratio in CA is 1.2, as is the US average. Getting a 3rd booster shot is not an issue. When there is vaccine aplenty, to prioritize booster shots to vaccine-hesitant minorities send the message CA intends.

Please to post comments