5 ms·

I'm sure it's a total coincidence that there is a ready made excuse to justify KI rationing for people who are not military age in the event that we actually ne

I'm sure it's a total coincidence that there is a ready made excuse to justify KI rationing for people who are not military age in the event that we actually need to distribute the pills. Call me a conspiracy theorist but after the "noble lie" about masks not being necessary in early 2020, a government website telling me we don't need as much medicine for people too old or too young to fight seems rather dubious.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 4y ago
Your theory is poorly formed or poorly expressed. The site there suggest giving overwhelming priority to the very young. Edit: Folks, the FDA page I link prioritizes children over people of fighting age. It lists lower doses for children because they are physically smaller but repeatedly states that they are at higher risk of harm.
- dmix 4y ago
  The life boats on the titanic were for kids and elderly first too. They said the same thing about COVID with masks and vaccines for the first 6-12 months. It’s coming from an agency with messaging that significantly factors in priorities given limited supply. Of course kids and old people will be heavily preferenced in these guidelines. They always are. That doesn’t mean they should be valued the same way by individual citizens. Anyone who cares enough, evaluated their own risks, and can afford to prep is obviously not starting from the same perspective of some generic recommendation going to hundreds of agencies across the country. You can argue risk levels but I doubt you could honestly dismiss the utility of personally supply for people in non-high risk groups.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    Thinking it's bullshit and that they will ignore it is a totally different conspiracy theory than misreading the guideline and thinking it prioritizes people of fighting age over children. Those at highest risk are infants and children, as well as pregnant and nursing females because of the potential for KI to suppress thyroid function in the developing fetus and the newborn.
    - nwienert 4y ago
      The original comment may have it backwards but the idea/outcome is the same, their point stands. Still good to note the Gov messages what’s in their interest at the expense of individuals.
      - maxerickson 4y ago
        Their point is about false rationing for people that aren't of fighting age. The FDA isn't recommending that, they are recommending giving particular attention to children because they are especially vulnerable! Like why even believe that nuclear weapons are real or that potassium iodide is protective if you think that things are so far out of wack? The government is largely responsible for that knowledge.
  - taylorius 4y ago
    Because for normal, working age men, being sucked beneath a freezing, 5km+ deep ocean is just something you shrug off. Honestly, prioritising kids I get for sure, and pregnant women - but old people? Not so sure about their claim to a seat in the lifeboat, or a KI tablet in short supply.
kodah 4y ago
I don't think the FDA page is pre-rationing those substances. The United States, largely, does this on its own through economic activity because doing it through policy would be controversial, as you've shown. You would know these as Strategic National Stockpiles: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-strategic-stockpiles https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-strategic-stockpil...
pyuser583 4y ago
I wonder how many sites would ban you for saying this?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

maxerickson 4y ago

Your theory is poorly formed or poorly expressed. The site there suggest giving overwhelming priority to the very young. Edit: Folks, the FDA page I link prioritizes children over people of fighting age. It lists lower doses for children because they are physically smaller but repeatedly states that they are at higher risk of harm.

dmix 4y ago
The life boats on the titanic were for kids and elderly first too. They said the same thing about COVID with masks and vaccines for the first 6-12 months. It’s coming from an agency with messaging that significantly factors in priorities given limited supply. Of course kids and old people will be heavily preferenced in these guidelines. They always are. That doesn’t mean they should be valued the same way by individual citizens. Anyone who cares enough, evaluated their own risks, and can afford to prep is obviously not starting from the same perspective of some generic recommendation going to hundreds of agencies across the country. You can argue risk levels but I doubt you could honestly dismiss the utility of personally supply for people in non-high risk groups.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  Thinking it's bullshit and that they will ignore it is a totally different conspiracy theory than misreading the guideline and thinking it prioritizes people of fighting age over children. Those at highest risk are infants and children, as well as pregnant and nursing females because of the potential for KI to suppress thyroid function in the developing fetus and the newborn.
  - nwienert 4y ago
    The original comment may have it backwards but the idea/outcome is the same, their point stands. Still good to note the Gov messages what’s in their interest at the expense of individuals.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      Their point is about false rationing for people that aren't of fighting age. The FDA isn't recommending that, they are recommending giving particular attention to children because they are especially vulnerable! Like why even believe that nuclear weapons are real or that potassium iodide is protective if you think that things are so far out of wack? The government is largely responsible for that knowledge.
- taylorius 4y ago
  Because for normal, working age men, being sucked beneath a freezing, 5km+ deep ocean is just something you shrug off. Honestly, prioritising kids I get for sure, and pregnant women - but old people? Not so sure about their claim to a seat in the lifeboat, or a KI tablet in short supply.

kodah 4y ago

I don't think the FDA page is pre-rationing those substances. The United States, largely, does this on its own through economic activity because doing it through policy would be controversial, as you've shown. You would know these as Strategic National Stockpiles: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-strategic-stockpiles https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-strategic-stockpil...

pyuser583 4y ago

I wonder how many sites would ban you for saying this?