Posted by Curt on 18 December, 2020 at 4:42 pm. 6 comments already!


By streiff

Earlier today, my colleague Bonchie posted about the feeble effort of talentless grifter Charlie Three Wives to dunk on a [sorta] conservative woman who was refusing to have her life controlled by the irrational fear of a virus that causes no symptoms in most people which it infects and which has a survival rate of about 99.97%, see Insufferable Grifter Tries to Dunk, Gets Nowhere Near the Rim.

Well, there is someone out there to kill your grandmother, and you, if you are white and over 65. It is the Mengeles-in-training at the CDC.

I’ve been watching this for some time. Back in September, an article appeared in the top-tier Journal of the American Medical Association titled Fairly Prioritizing Groups for Access to COVID-19 Vaccines. One of the authors was “medical ethicist” Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm and the guy who was at the center of the “death panels” controversy. This is how the authors of this article describe the thought process for allocating the Wuhan vaccine.

First, prioritizing in-person health care workers and staff, as NAM and others suggest,1,5 prevents direct harm to workers and indirect harm due to spread of SARS-CoV-2 in health care facilities. It also indirectly prioritizes disadvantaged groups because reducing disease spread facilitates the provision of treatments such as hemodialysis and chemotherapy, which disadvantaged individuals need more often.

Second, prioritizing people engaged in essential high-risk activities, such as in-person education, childcare, and food supply work, would also prevent direct harm and reduce disease spread. Additionally, in-person workers are more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged than those able to work remotely. Prioritization among these workers should consider indirect benefit: if vaccination of those involved in education can contribute to reopening schools, this should precede vaccination of those involved in reopening other less beneficial venues, such as bars. Similar factors also support prioritizing people in congregate housing situations, such as assisted living, where community spread is more likely.

Third, the World Health Organization (WHO) and NAM suggest prioritizing individuals whose medical conditions increase their risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes if they become infected.1,5 This prioritizes disadvantaged groups because these conditions constitute medical vulnerabilities and correlate with socioeconomic disadvantage, and prevents harm. However, nearly 200 million individuals in the US have a high-risk condition.1 Limited vaccine supplies will require prioritizing among these individuals, with attention to evolving data about how conditions affect COVID-19 risk and vaccine efficacy.

Today we got a glimpse at the CDC guidance with some context provided. View the entire presentation here

Download the presentation as a PowerPoint.

Now let me resort to some tweets to highlight what exactly is being proposed.

Keep this next one in mind; we’ll come back to it.

A little earlier today, you had this making the rounds. A couple more “ethicists” are basically crowing about using the virus as an excuse to kill off elderly white folks.

My colleague Bonchie covered that in his post titled Hot Take: Old People and Teachers are Too White for the Vaccine.

There are two critical points here. First, these people are criminals. We hanged Nazi doctors for some of the same behavior. When given a choice between saving lives and being good little SJWs, the ideology wins every time. By their own data, they will kill, actually physically eliminate, several thousand elderly for the sake of “essential workers” who are, by definition, going to be a minority and low income. Never mind that the only danger the essential workers are in, again according to their own data, is an inconvenience.

This brings me to my second point.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x