☕ DaasYochid ☕

you are discussing as if there is perfect data to decide what is better and there is a perfect way to implement a policy.

Not at all. I’m discussing whether to prioritize minorities in theory even if that would cost more lives. I’m not necessarily disagreeing that it might actually save lives.

I will once again quote Schmidt:

“Ethical, epidemiological, and economic reasons demand that rationing approaches give priority to groups who have been structurally and historically disadvantaged, even if this means that overall life years gained may be lower.”

(Whether we should measure in life years gained or number of lives saved is also something I disagree with him about, but that’s perhaps a different discussion).

To Daas Yochid. And you think there is something wrong with taking account of segments of the population who don’t have good access to health services and who have suffered a disproportionately high rate of infection and death?

If that will save lives, no. If it will cost lives, yes.

They are advocating for prioritizing minorities for the sake of social justice even if it will cost lives.

Don’t you agree that there is something wrong with that?

Vaccine Rationing and the Urgency of Social Justice in the Covid‐19 Response
HARALD SCHMIDT

Additional article information

Abstract
The Covid‐19 pandemic needs to be considered from two perspectives simultaneously. First, there are questions about which policies are most effective and fair in the here and now, as the pandemic unfolds. These polices concern, for example, who should receive priority in being tested, how to implement contact tracing, or how to decide who should get ventilators or vaccines when not all can. Second, it is imperative to anticipate the medium‐ and longer‐term consequences that these policies have. The case of vaccine rationing is particularly instructive. Ethical, epidemiological, and economic reasons demand that rationing approaches give priority to groups who have been structurally and historically disadvantaged, even if this means that overall life years gained may be lower.

with the exception of current smokers since they show disregard for their own health.

What about diabetics? Same thing?

I guess you can consider the title misleading, although I mostly chose it because it sounds good.

When I was a kid, and there was a food fight (stopped by rebbeim yelling “Bal Tashchis! and “Bizui Ochlin”, or teachers yelling, “There are children starving in third world countries!), it was friendly.

Anyhow, regardless of whether the mechutanim were angry, and regardless of how much money is at stake, I still think it’s a legitimate question what the breakdown should be.

What’s a charcuterie board?

Overpriced salami

Tell whichever side you can that for a couple of hundred extra bucks (a drop in the bucket of wedding expenses),

Easy enough to tell someone else how to spend their $.

Was any conversation held previously?

Previous to what?

It isnt part of the wedding. followign the wedding split makes no sense.

The counterargument would be that on an ordinary night they wouldn’t be ordering this food, it’s obviously only because of the wedding.

Only reason to differentiate would be if one side is much bigger than the other say Chossons side is twice the size of the kallah’s side.

Probably true, and that’s probably true even for the ikar catering as well – if they go over the minimum because the chosson’s side is bigger, they should pay the extra.

In this case, the families eating before the smorgasbord are probably relatively similar in size.

I changed some of the details to protect my friend’s privacy, so don’t get caught up on the details. (That’s the “moshol”, Ubiq)