A blatantly untrue statement by a former White House official disparages a foreign government, and adds to an article's misleading context about US policy.
Jha's statement also makes no sense because, even if cost was the driving factor in drafting the guidance, the UK would be looking at vaccine cost vs. the cost of severe illness and medical treatment for the unvaccinated & weighing/comparing the total number. Clearly, even from a purely financial perspective, the UK doesn't see value in pushing this vaccine to the majority of the population. So even if they are only looking at $$$ (or pounds) they are defacto being guided by the principle to "first do no harm.'
There is something to point out in the wording from the UK Health Security Agency person: "most likely to benefit from vaccination.” That isn't "benefit the most from vaccination." It's a qualified, probabilistic statement; not an emphatic, absolute endorsement of vaccination for the at-risk subsets of the population.
Jha's statement also makes no sense because, even if cost was the driving factor in drafting the guidance, the UK would be looking at vaccine cost vs. the cost of severe illness and medical treatment for the unvaccinated & weighing/comparing the total number. Clearly, even from a purely financial perspective, the UK doesn't see value in pushing this vaccine to the majority of the population. So even if they are only looking at $$$ (or pounds) they are defacto being guided by the principle to "first do no harm.'
Great point.
I continue to be so disappointed in the constant push for vaccine boosters with no evidence. The FDA officials just seem like vaccine salespeople.
Excellent rebuttal to the NYT's lousy PR piece! I love that you actually contacted the people involved.
It is articles like this that so clearly show that the NYT no longer does actual reporting.
There is something to point out in the wording from the UK Health Security Agency person: "most likely to benefit from vaccination.” That isn't "benefit the most from vaccination." It's a qualified, probabilistic statement; not an emphatic, absolute endorsement of vaccination for the at-risk subsets of the population.
FDA “has concerns” but still rubber stamps Pharma COVID shots for 6mo. & older. Not even trying to hide their allegiance to Pfizer etc. - JAMA study be damned: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2809748?guestAccessKey=c37a3331-e3bf-4c77-a70d-8d89b04d0710&utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=covid_weekly_highlights&utm_medium=email&adv=000003518553