I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Believing out of context quotes in tweets is one thing but actually reading the entire article and coming to your conclusions is another level of triggered.Col Hogan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:48 amFrom start to finish... the translation stands. Those two are post-partisan racists. Lots of other things were discussed. It’s a tough decision that has to be made. We can Cuomoize the elderly in favor of an overly broad definition of essential, or we can save more lives.
Try reading again. Hint :
“ Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argued that teachers should not be included as essential workers, IF a central goal of the committee is to reduce health inequities.
“Teachers have middle-class salaries, are very often white, and they have college degrees,” he said. “Of course they should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of workers.”
This one leans closer to racism in its prescription but is still accurate in describing the playing field. It smacks more of white guilt (don’t know whether the professor is white so I guess I’m racist too) than racism. Personally, I’m not offended by the notion that minorities have had it tougher.
‘Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”