Absolutely incredulous. Keep in mind that RFK Jr. recently took his family swimming in sewage contaminated water. He is going to get a lot of people sick and killed with his ideas. If there was...
Absolutely incredulous. Keep in mind that RFK Jr. recently took his family swimming in sewage contaminated water. He is going to get a lot of people sick and killed with his ideas. If there was any justice in the world, he would get an infection from his own irresponsible behavior and suffer some causal consequences for what he believes.
It’s not all on RFK Jr. See the root source authored by Vinay Prasad and Martin Makary. (And of course the administration and political party that ultimately appointed them.)
Most Americans will qualify for the risk of severe disease. Notably, hypertension was left out of the table? (edit: as per CDC, evidence on hypertension is inconclusive) But this policy makes no accommodations for healthy young people who regularly interact with vulnerable or aged populations and is altogether irrational from a science perspective. You can’t ethically run randomized, placebo-controlled vaccine trials! (As pointed out along with other insights from the Ars Technica comment section.)
This would not be the first time he gets people killed. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/how-rfk-jr-falsely-denied-his-connection-to-a-deadly-measles-outbreak-in-samoa/
This would not be the first time he gets people killed.
I am directly affected by this. While I am not high risk, my girlfriend, who I live with, is - she is immunocompromised. I also like the ability to visit my father, who is now 78 years old and I...
I am directly affected by this.
While I am not high risk, my girlfriend, who I live with, is - she is immunocompromised. I also like the ability to visit my father, who is now 78 years old and I don't want to risk giving him COVID either.
So this is a giant Fuck You to me and others in similar positions, telling us we don't have the option to keep those near us who are at greater risk safe from unnecessary risk.
I wrote my FDA comment from this point of view. It just takes away the freedom of younger healthy people to protect their loved ones from COVID. Even if there are some long-term negative...
I wrote my FDA comment from this point of view. It just takes away the freedom of younger healthy people to protect their loved ones from COVID. Even if there are some long-term negative consequences, particularly with respect to mRNA vaccines (which I’ve experienced personally—delayed onset hives and dermatographia after my Moderna booster), I should be allowed to take that risk to keep my dad safe. Him getting COVID would likely be a death sentence. Besides, I’ve tolerated Novavax very well twice now (being not a mRNA vaccines I believe makes the difference in terms of immune response). Yet Novavax for the next season was cleared by FDA with very similar restrictions for under 62 a few days ago.
Taking access away at this point is authoritarian and paternalistic.
This caricature Markay and Prasad used:
We simply don’t know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI who has had Covid-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a Covid-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose.
It’s like… yeah, so? If they had six doses of COVID, a seventh is not going to be the thing that kills them. We’ve already done the uncontrolled experiment and we’re generally OK. Vaccine rates are abysmal anyway.
I don’t think anti-vaxxers will be swayed by a RCT showing a positive risk-benefit tradeoff in any case.
I'm immunocompromised. And that's before I get a kidney transplant. If I do manage to get a transplant, my risks increase multiple times over as suppressing the immune system keeps the body from...
I'm immunocompromised. And that's before I get a kidney transplant. If I do manage to get a transplant, my risks increase multiple times over as suppressing the immune system keeps the body from rejecting the transplanted organ.
Everyone’s going to have to smoke a cigarette in front of their pharm tech to get around this restriction if it goes into place and can’t be easily gamed.
Everyone’s going to have to smoke a cigarette in front of their pharm tech to get around this restriction if it goes into place and can’t be easily gamed.
I'm not as worried about folks who want it getting it — although that is a concern. I'm more concerned that more people on the fence about it will refrain and not bother, increasing the infection...
I'm not as worried about folks who want it getting it — although that is a concern. I'm more concerned that more people on the fence about it will refrain and not bother, increasing the infection rate. :(
Here's an earlier post from a different source. From skimming the article I don't think there has been any additional news on this (still technically potential/not finalized), but correct me if...
Here's an earlier post from a different source. From skimming the article I don't think there has been any additional news on this (still technically potential/not finalized), but correct me if I'm wrong.
Here's a link if anyone wants to leave a comment on the changes, ending in 2 days.
Absolutely incredulous. Keep in mind that RFK Jr. recently took his family swimming in sewage contaminated water. He is going to get a lot of people sick and killed with his ideas. If there was any justice in the world, he would get an infection from his own irresponsible behavior and suffer some causal consequences for what he believes.
It’s not all on RFK Jr. See the root source authored by Vinay Prasad and Martin Makary. (And of course the administration and political party that ultimately appointed them.)
Most Americans will qualify for the risk of severe disease. Notably, hypertension was left out of the table? (edit: as per CDC, evidence on hypertension is inconclusive) But this policy makes no accommodations for healthy young people who regularly interact with vulnerable or aged populations and is altogether irrational from a science perspective. You can’t ethically run randomized, placebo-controlled vaccine trials! (As pointed out along with other insights from the Ars Technica comment section.)
This would not be the first time he gets people killed.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/how-rfk-jr-falsely-denied-his-connection-to-a-deadly-measles-outbreak-in-samoa/
Duh, that's what the immigrants are for.............
Seriously Canada, please send help.
I am directly affected by this.
While I am not high risk, my girlfriend, who I live with, is - she is immunocompromised. I also like the ability to visit my father, who is now 78 years old and I don't want to risk giving him COVID either.
So this is a giant Fuck You to me and others in similar positions, telling us we don't have the option to keep those near us who are at greater risk safe from unnecessary risk.
I wrote my FDA comment from this point of view. It just takes away the freedom of younger healthy people to protect their loved ones from COVID. Even if there are some long-term negative consequences, particularly with respect to mRNA vaccines (which I’ve experienced personally—delayed onset hives and dermatographia after my Moderna booster), I should be allowed to take that risk to keep my dad safe. Him getting COVID would likely be a death sentence. Besides, I’ve tolerated Novavax very well twice now (being not a mRNA vaccines I believe makes the difference in terms of immune response). Yet Novavax for the next season was cleared by FDA with very similar restrictions for under 62 a few days ago.
Taking access away at this point is authoritarian and paternalistic.
This caricature Markay and Prasad used:
It’s like… yeah, so? If they had six doses of COVID, a seventh is not going to be the thing that kills them. We’ve already done the uncontrolled experiment and we’re generally OK. Vaccine rates are abysmal anyway.
I don’t think anti-vaxxers will be swayed by a RCT showing a positive risk-benefit tradeoff in any case.
I'm immunocompromised. And that's before I get a kidney transplant. If I do manage to get a transplant, my risks increase multiple times over as suppressing the immune system keeps the body from rejecting the transplanted organ.
I hate this timeline so much.
Everyone’s going to have to smoke a cigarette in front of their pharm tech to get around this restriction if it goes into place and can’t be easily gamed.
I'm not as worried about folks who want it getting it — although that is a concern. I'm more concerned that more people on the fence about it will refrain and not bother, increasing the infection rate. :(
Here's an earlier post from a different source. From skimming the article I don't think there has been any additional news on this (still technically potential/not finalized), but correct me if I'm wrong.