People under 65 with no underlying conditions aren’t eligible under the F.D.A. approval, even if they live with someone at high risk of severe illness.
This "administration" is absolutely unhinged.
They want to kill so very many people.
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
44 points (97.8% liked)
politics
25434 readers
2265 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's all in Project 2025. Old people cost money.
It'll be framed as "freedom" and "protect children." It's not entirely wrong, in a way. It will certainly free many Americans from this mortal coil and protect children from a needle stick.
They want to kill so very many people.
My bet is that this administration will poison the vaccine. It'd solve a lot of their problems. It'd exterminate their undesirables. It would lower the social security allocation. It would also make people distrust vaccines.
That would require knowing cooperation from a great many people, aka a conspiracy
Yes. Its why there has been a boondoggle over the last few months: putting the infrastructure in place.
What's the problem? The person at high risk of severe illness can still take the covid vaccine?
Vaccine efficacy depends on the number in the population who take the vaccine. I guess we learned really fuck all from 2020.
Also, a certain portion of this population has been trained that "herd immunity" is some kind of slur that "THEY" use against the sheeple because it has the word "herd" in it.
No. Vaccine efficacy is only relevant to the person taking the vaccine.
Reduction in viral transmission depends on what the population does, but in the case of covid that was better controlled by masks than vaccination.
Covid is endemic in the US. The more people vaccinated, the less the virus will be able to mutate this fall. The less it mutates, the less lethal it will continue to become. By stopping the vaccinations, covid will spread faster and could become more dangerous as a result.
I don't disagree.
My point is that at risk individuals will remain at risk, regardless of the vaccinated status of people around them.
Anyone assuming their covid^1 vaccine will protect others is putting them in danger.
1^(other vaccines like measles and smallpox do protect others).
No, not everyone at high risk can get the vaccine.
Then this changes nothing for them.
Then this changes nothing for them.
.... Their caregivers who go out into the world and then come back into their home now can't get the vaccine, increasing the attack surface for the at risk persons.
Ok. Now we've hit on the misinformation I wanted to highlight.
A caregiver taking the covid vaccine DOES NOT protect the at risk individuals. This myth is actually putting vulnerable people at risk.
Vaccinated people can still become infected with the same potential virality (with fewer, milder symptoms and being infectious for less time).
Wear an N95 mask around the vulnerable. Don't rely on the covid vaccine for their protection.
I never said vaccination is a replacement for masking. That's a begging the question logical fallacy on your part. Of course the caregiver should also be masking.
I added the mask recommendation so that anyone reading this post knows what to do around people with vulnerable immune systems.
The vaccination status of the caregiver (or any visitor) is irrelevant. The at risk remain at risk.
The phrase "even if they live with someone at high risk of severe illness" is superfluous. Vaccination of others does not protect people at high risk of severe illness from Covid.
The vaccination status of the caregiver (or any visitor) is irrelevant.
No, our opinions on it are irrelevant to them. Only they get to decide what's relevant to them. And that's why restricting the eligibility to the vaccine for political reasons is immoral.
This is a different argument. This is "anyone who wants the vaccine should be able to have it". Agreed.
My point is that assuming that caregivers should get covid vaccines is unscientific and encourages dangerous behavior around those at risk. (Because it implies if you are vaccinated against Covid then you present no risk)
My point is that assuming that caregivers should get covid vaccines is unscientific and encourages dangerous behavior around those at risk. (Because it implies if you are vaccinated against Covid then you present no risk)
No, it does not imply that, at all. You are inferring it. Caregivers should get the vaccine, because everyone who does not have a medical reason not to should, because it is scientifically observed to reduce viral load and improve outcomes from an infection. That's a completely independent statement from masking recommendations.
This is not an argument about getting vaccinated. You are not reading correctly.
A caregivers covid vaccination status is irrelevant to the at risk. The covid vaccine does not stop transmission. It will not protect people at risk.
Putting it bluntly. You being vaccinated will not stop you killing your immunocompromised grandmother with covid.
I've noticed that a lot of people on Lemmy simply don't believe this, and consider it to be anti-vax propaganda.
The first time I got covid, it was from someone who had been vaccinated. She didn't wear a mask around me or tell me she had covid because she didn't think she could give it to me.
People tend to have only binary opinions and this is a technical topic that has been deeply politicised.
I think this particular argument of viral transmission is worth having, because it may just make someone think twice around their more vulnerable friends and family members.
I should have also highlighted that recently recovered can also silently infect with other strains.
After reading the article, it should still be relatively easy to get one if pharmacies and doctors don't play stupid. It seems like this move is meant to discourage people from even trying to get on or to cause hesitancy among providers in administering it.
I would hope so, but in either this article or some other, so far, CVS and Walgreens had not replied to request for comment. I think there is legitimate concern that doctors and pharmacies may cave to this administration because they fear retaliation.