3 ms·

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 prior

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.

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.