CDC Wanted 87 Million “Essential Workers” Vaccinated Before the Elderly. Stop and Think Why That Is
It has now cut it down to "only" 30 million who will be vaccinated before those between 65 and 74
The CDC initially “hinted” (ie released a trial balloon) that after health care workers the next group to be vaccinated, was not the vulnerable elderly population, but the 87 million “essential workers”, The New York Times:
The C.D.C. committee hinted last week that it would recommend essential workers be next in line. About 87 million Americans work in food and agriculture, manufacturing, law enforcement, education, transportation, corrections, emergency response and other sectors.
After essential workers, the priority groups likely to be recommended by the C.D.C. committee are adults with medical conditions that put them at high risk of coronavirus infection, and people over 65.
This caused enough of an outrage that it could not be made policy. Instead, the CDC’s official guidance is that a smaller pool of 30 million “essential workers” along with the 21 million people over 74 should be vaccinated first.
On the face of it, this still seems insane. Why slow down the vaccination of the 21 million over 74 by inter spreading it with vaccinations for 30 million who are not vulnerable?
Why prioritize the 30 million not vulnerable over the 33 million in the 65 to 74 bracket?
And why in the hell try sneaking in the guidance to prioritize vaccines to 87 million (!) not vulnerable?
United States COVID-19 deaths age stratification.
CDC NVSS Deaths, February 1, 2020 to December 19, 2020. As of December 23, 2020.https://t.co/ludXPadCKM
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) December 24, 2020
If the vaccine is this super-safe and 95% effective wonder, then obviously it would be highly criminal to deny it those who are actually at risk because you got it in your head that 87 million (or 30 million) doses need to be spent before they get it.
It seems incomprehensible until you consider two things:
- The elderly were ridiculously under-represented in the COVID vaccine trials.
- Flu shots are notoriously ineffective in the elderly. So much so that massaged efficacy ratings in the 20-30% are bandied about as huge successes. A vaccine works by stimulating the body’s own immune response, but if that immune system is sluggish to begin with there isn’t much to work with.
The latter point means there is no way for the CDC to know whether vaccinating the elderly will grant them any direct benefit whatsoever. It could all be for naught.
The former point means there is in reality no way for the CDC to know receiving the vaccine is safe for them. With innately less active immune systems they’re theoretically less likely to experience allergic reactions, but there’s really no way to know there aren’t other hazards, since they were barely included in the trials.
So in reality the CDC desire to postpone the vaccination of the elderly may not have been a diabolical woke plot to set up more elderly white people for death, but has a simpler explanation. The CDC is:
A.) Afraid of bad press for the vaccine. If the 54 million of the over 64 went first and this did barely anything to reduce the number of cases and deaths, while causing adverse reactions, that would be extremely bad advertising for their private-sector friends.
B.) Aware that jabbing the elderly may work no better than a placebo, the CDC is doing the rational thing and hedging its bets by protecting them with herd immunity. The 87 million “essential workers” weren’t actually going to be vaccinated to protect the 87 million since they’re not at risk to begin with. All along they were going to be prioritized to protect the elderly for whom the vaccine might be entirely useless directly. (And cleverly the middle and upper classes again managed to force the productive toiling classes to serve as their test bunnies, all the while presenting it as a nicety and a privilege.)
In other words, the CDC is pursuing precisely the herd immunity strategy that has been demonized the whole year, except only through an artificial vaccine stimulant. Were it politically feasible it would have ideally chosen to keep the elderly away from the mRNA virus simulation entirely and for their sake inject everyone else instead. (Just as anti-lockdowners suggested to hide away the elderly for a while and everyone carry on and not fear exposure to live virus.)
Of course, the problem here is that if you’re asking someone to take on a risk to participate in the building of herd immunity the least you can do is leave it to them to decide what type of a risk they want.
Do you want to do it by taking your chances with a natural virus, or with a design of human technology?
It’s not actually a choice you have. If you want to contribute by getting over the virus naturally you will be denounced as a terrorist super-spreader one step down from Antichrist.
Betting on the infallibility of our present understanding of the human body and its interaction with tech is the only moral path you have.
Funny. If your hunch is that asymptomatic spread is a thing and that you’re sacrificing for the whole by wearing a muzzle and “sheltering at home” you are free to do so. No anti-lockdowner will smash your front door and throw you out into the street.
If your hunch is that this is a very deadly virus, but that there is almost no chance the human tech on the way could backfire you are free to inject yourself with it. You can inject yourself with machine oil for all we care.
It is only they who will not allow us to act according to our conscience.
If you want to during a mild respiratory virus pandemic keep on keeping on, and carry on to keep the civilization going, and as a natural side-effect eventually contribute to herd immunity in a tech-free way (that depending on your age might present as little risk as a couple of dozen bicycle rides) then that is verboten.
Because you know, the people who believe this is the first-ever virus where the healthy are drivers of the spread and that it is impossible for lab coats to ever get anything wrong, know better than you, and are more moral than you, and have therefore the right to decide for themselves, but also for yourself.
Funny that. The people who can’t permit you freedom of conscience even as you grant it to them, as insane as they are, are the moral ones.
You may back the site at: