PSA, text taken from thisfinecrew

[conuly]

The clowns running the FDA have proposed restricting access to covid vaccines, to people over 65 or who have certain medical conditions. There's a public docket for comments on the proposal.

Your Local Epidemiologist has a good post about the proposal, including that the people suggesting this know that nobody is going to do the placebo-controlled tests of new boosters they want to require.

Possible talking points include:

Families and caregivers wouldn't be eligible for the vaccine, even if they share a household, unlike the current UK recommendations.

Doctors, dentists, and other medical staff wouldn't be eligible either.

My own comment included that the reason I'd still be eligible for the vaccine is a lung problem caused by covid.

Seriously, this is just exhausting.

Comments

[sovay]

Seriously, this is just exhausting.

Insanely. Thanks for the heads-up.

(I'm eligible by chronic conditions but I'll be a lot safer if other people are eligible just by showing up.)

[spiralsheep]

I'm still boggling that people are prepared to humiliate themselves in public by arguing that "herd immunity" is a desirable goal while "herd vaccination" is supposedly not for $£ some $£ reason.

[low_delta]

restricting access to covid vaccines, to people over 65...

Does that mean people under 65 can't get the vaccine?

[siliconshaman]

I swear, they're trying to reduce the costs of social welfare by killing off those eligible for it! It's like the Tories brilliant idea during the first COVID lockdown..lets take those that are recovering from COVID but still infectious and need to be isolated, and put them in elderly care homes! It'll free up hospital beds!

Yeah, anyone ever hear of the term 'plague blankets'?

[spiralsheep]

I absolutely believe that at least some of the people responsible for pushing and enacting vaccination policies that kill elderly, disabled, and vulnerable people intentionally had what they wrongly thought would be a reduction in health and social security (welfare) bills as a goal, without realising that disabling more people long-term would result and negate their intention. I think this is an entirely reasonable extrapolation from their actions, bearing in mind the information they had at the time. I also think some of their colleagues would cheerfully admit to this intention instead of stupidity and incompetence (which was also a factor).