New York Announces That Scarce Covid-19 Treatments Will Be Prioritized For Non-White Patients

New York may have triggered a new constitutional challenge with its policy to prioritize non-white people in the distribution of certain COVID-19 treatments. There are growing shortages due to a failure of the Biden Administration to anticipate the demand for monoclonal antibody treatment and antiviral pills as well as testing kits. New York’s Department of Health has responded to this shortage with a policy that will make race one of the prioritizing factors in distributing available resources. The policy, in my view, raises serious constitutional concerns over racial preferences in the supply of potentially life-saving treatments.

The memo acknowledged that “supplies of Sotrovimab are extremely limited.” As a result, most people are unlikely to be able to get access to such antiviral monoclonal treatments in the coming weeks.

I spoke to two leading doctors in the area by phone on Sunday who were livid about the failure of the Biden Administration to prioritize therapeutics earlier in the year when there was still time. Both said that they have struggled to find these treatments. Neither agreed with the use of race as a factor in making individual decisions over access to the scarce treatments.

The policy requires that distribution be based on findings that someone has “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for severe illness.” The key “other factors” include the “risk factor” of being non-white:

Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as  longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19.

Using race as a factor in such medical decisions immediately triggers constitutional concerns. When you delve deeper into the basis for the race preferences, the constitutional concerns only multiply.

The memo relies on two documents from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). However, those documents identify medical conditions that are more prevalent in the minority populations. One document, entitled “People with Certain Medical Conditions,” describes those who are “more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19.” The obvious conditions are cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart conditions and other medical ailments. However, the CDC also discusses race as a factor:

Long-standing systemic health and social inequities have put various groups of people at increased risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19, including many people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities.

Studies have shown people from racial and ethnic minority groups are also dying from COVID-19 at younger ages. People in minority groups are often younger when they develop chronic medical conditions and may be more likely to have more than one condition.

The second document is entitled “Risk of Severe Illness or Death from COVID-19 — Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities.” The CDC notes that not only are certain conditions like obesity more prevalent in minority populations but “people from some racial and ethnic minority groups are less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White people.”

The lower rate of vaccinations in the minority populations could present a problem for some commentators on the left who have demanded that the unvaccinated be denied care or placed at the end of the line for care at hospitals.  While such a policy would be unethical for physicians, people from Jimmy Kimmel to Don Lemon have suggested possibly denying scarce medical resources to those who have not agreed to be vaccinated. That, however, would mean putting a disproportionate number of minority citizens on the “do not heal” list.

It is not clear how these columnists and celebrities will now deal with a policy that gives preference to racial groups in part due to their higher unvaccinated numbers.

The problem for courts is that there is no reason to make race itself a factor as opposed to the medical conditions. Whether someone is obese is a fact that is entirely separate from their race. Either that condition exists or it does not exist. New York could simply prioritize on the basis of those conditions regardless of race. Ironically, given the higher rate of these conditions in minority communities, there would still be a higher priority given to many minority patients. Yet, by dropping the race criteria, you avoid clearly discriminatory cases where someone with a more serious medical risk profile could be prioritized lower due to being white.

A court is likely to have difficulty with the use of racial classifications in light of the availability of race neutral factors based on the actual medical conditions.

Any challenge, however, could face a problem in establishing a record of race-based denials. The state seems to have taken a chapter from college admissions policies where racial preferences are difficult to challenge due to the inclusion with other factors. It is hard to establish that race as opposed to other factors was given the determinative weight.

Erin Silk, a spokesperson for the New York Department of Health, captured that argument in her telling response to Fox News:

Systemic poverty, which has clearly proven to be a risk factor in populations in New York State and nationwide, is added to the algorithm of prioritization similar to all other risk factors. It is merely mentioned as a factor that increases risk.

A litigant, even proceeding under a declaratory judgment action, would need to show standing and an underlying injury. That could be difficult if the state uses race as one of a number of criteria.  However, the reference to the algorithm is key. That programming will have to assign a weight given to the racial preferences. That could be easily established in discovery and the algorithmic discrimination could be the subject of an injunction.

This controversy is reminiscent of the litigation over racial preferences used by the Biden Administration under its controversial $4 billion race-based federal relief program for farmers. The awarding of relief based on race immediately raised objections of racial discrimination. As we discussed earlier, the exclusion has been struck down by judges in various states as racially discriminatory. What was particularly concerning was the discovery of a document that showed that the Biden Administration recognized that such racial preferences were presumptively unconstitutional.

New York is now proceeding on the same questionable course of using race preferences when it could base medical decisions on specific medical risk criteria. It is not only legally problematic but practically unnecessary. It will only add more uncertainty and division over pandemic care at a time when the scarcity of testing kits and therapeutics are increasing tensions in the country.

247 thoughts on “New York Announces That Scarce Covid-19 Treatments Will Be Prioritized For Non-White Patients”

  1. When you have decisions such as these, it just chills the drive by many people, for a system of national healthcare. If you have a government driven system that repeatedly make these race based decisions instead of treating people on the basis of their health and illness, then you will get a rising chorus of animosity towards the government and any health decisions they would make for all of us. I’m a retired physician and I am LIVID. First of all I would refuse to administer any such action and then I would figure out any way to lie, cheat or steal my way around any such order to save my patients, irrespective of their race. We can have a system of national health as long as the decision making is not in the hands of the federal government or the state and especially if democrats are in charge. This is especially terrible because it was the recent administration that de-emphasized therapeutics. That’s like saying you better get your pneumonia vaccine because we are going to stop making or de-emphazing the antibiotics used to treat the inevitable breakthrough cases. The stupidity and the ineptitude of the recent administration and the state of New York is breathtaking (sic). Literally for many people.

  2. This is a nearly perfect analysis. The one quibble I have with Professor Turley is his analogy to race based admissions programs, where he argues that it is hard to know what role race plays since it is ostensibly one factor among many. I don’t think this is an accurate description of these programs, but even if it were the analogy is inapt. Here, the criteria must all be met to receive an allocation. The medical condition criterion is met by being black, regardless of health. So a healthy black person will be allocated in circumstances where an otherwise identical healthy white person will not. There is no ambiguity.

    It still will be difficult to challenge this racist unconstitutional rule. A healthy white person who is not allocated is actually not injured simply because a healthy black person receives an allocation. Neither should be entitled to an allocation. Who will have standing to bring a claim? Perhaps an unhealthy person of any race could claim injury because, if supplies are short, there might not be an allocation for them even though a healthy black person receives one?

    There is another issue here. I believe this antibody treatment is now the only one available because the others don’t work against Omicron. But the CDC was wrong about the prevalence of Omicron generally and is likely even more wrong about its prevalence among the very sick. Omicron is much less pathogenic than Delta. Most of the sick, by far, likely have Delta. So all the antibody treatments should be available.

    1. I came down with COVID on Dec 31, likely got it from the hospital 2 days prior. Fully vaccinated, confirmed results from hospital lab test, mild symptoms, i feel fine today. Slept alot, fatigued dry cough, body aches, rapid onset, runny nose, green phlegm, no fever. I took no meds, no monoclonal Abs, nada. My immune system works just fine.

      COVID is no big deal. AOC agrees, partying at a drag bar in South Beach sans masks.

      As for the COVID Tx / race issue, it is a page from LBJ’s playbook, manipulating blacks to vote for Democrats. This brown Hispanic knows that. Chupamela!

      😉

      AOC pays COVID lip service: Maskless Squad leader gets HUGE kiss from Broadway star Billy Porter at packed Miami drag bar: Florida cases spike 948%
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10363679/AOC-spotted-partying-maskless-crowded-drag-bar-Miami-vacation.html

      1. I am glad you recovered!

        I also had breakthrough COVID after 2 vaccinations. I work in a high exposure environment. My symptoms were intense for about a week and then I steadily recovered. My wife, also healthy had it a few days later and it was very serious for nearly a month. She is healthy. Our adult son had it also and was feeling well after a few days.

        COVID is a big deal for some and not as much for others. It is not the flu. It can be very serious.

        The most likely scenario is that everyone will eventually get COVID in one form or the other and recover before things steady out.

        Few are talking about living a healthy lifestyle, exercise, sunshine, living a well balanced life. Mental health crises have skyrocketed in all age categories, but especially the youth. These play a role in its impact.

        Watching the representative from NY party on the beach with no regard for following the strict rules she advocates is an example of the attitudes of those who preach one thing and practice another. Preach Marxism and live in millionaire luxury. Preach no border but live behind a fence. Preach “Defund the Police” and surround themselves with security.

        I’ve been around long enough that I can smell BS from a mile away. COVID hysteria is a gift that keeps giving for those who wish to erode individual freedoms. We are now victims of the tyranny of the experts. “How dare you think for yourself! How dare you employ common sense? How dare you question we the experts?

        When they don’t have a good answer they fall back to the “We are the experts” defense.

        1. When they don’t have a good answer they fall back to the “We are the experts” defense.

          A physician colleague at the clinic asked me 3 weeks ago if I had gotten the booster. She wears 3 masks, I wear one, while seeing patients. When patients leave, I remove my mask. I told my colleague that I had not had a booster yet. Alarmed, she asked me my rationalization, knowing I am an HIV virus researcher at the medical school. My response was 2 words: “T Cells”. With that she turned around and walked away indignant.

          She is living in fear. I choose to believe in the science. The science states that T cells provide memory immunity once exposed to antigens like natural infection or vaccines. Antibodies, synthesized by B cells, do not provide long term immunity from viral infections, T cells do. The problem is that most people, including physicians, do not understand our complex immune system, so naturally confusion reigns. Flu Vaccines are about 50% efficacious. COVID vaccines are higher. But vaccines are not immune systems, they only teach / prime them to get ready.

          See:

          “SARS-CoV-2 spike T cell responses induced upon vaccination or infection remain robust against Omicron”
          https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.26.21268380v1

          “Adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19”
          https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00007-6

          Few are talking about living a healthy lifestyle, exercise, sunshine, living a well balanced life

          Exactly. Americans are a sick lot. Obesity, hypertension, coronary artery disease, Type II Diabetes, sedentary lifestyle, et al, are not healthy, yet the prevalence of these in our country are alarmingly high and getting higher. My brother in law caught COVID, was placed in a medically induced coma for 3 weeks, and was lucky to survive. He was in his early 40s, and had a BMI~ 40.

          Health is wealth.

            1. As you know I have always commended you for your hunger to learn about medicine. I think you should take online courses in the basic medical sciences to fulfill requirements, then a brick and mortar school, and then apply to PA school. However, I would like you to up your game as to doing literature searches re: medicine.

              Expect more from your sources, critique them, dont cut them any slack. Use meticulous sources, reputable, established publications, and recent publications (post-2018 is ideal, 2015 is OK, 2010 and prior dubious, anything prior to 2000: ignore it). Be rigorous. Demand more. Here is a resource to help:

              https://www.resurchify.com/ranking

              Notice that Cell is ranked 7, Nature is ranked 27, the Lancet is ranked 43, JAMA is ranked 313. I will leave it up to you to determine what your cutoff should be. Given my poor opinion of JAMA, you can guess what my cutoff is.

              Search for medically related articles on Zinc, for example, and use the suggested criteria. Do likewise with your future searches. Let me know how it goes.

              Iron sharpens iron. You want to use the best and the brightest resources to educate you on evidenced based medicine. And have fun. You are an inspiration, PR.

              Cheers

              1. Estovir,
                Thank you for your response and your encouragement. I appreciate the challenge to “up my game” regarding research.

                ” think you should take online courses in the basic medical sciences to fulfill requirements, then a brick and mortar school, and then apply to PA school.”

                I have some hesitancy about this because of how residents get sleep deprived (so I hear); does this happen to RNs and PAs? Having made myself sick in college from pushing myself a bit too hard and not being healthy enough, I fear that medical school of some kind would really make me sick.

                “Expect more from your sources, critique them, dont cut them any slack. Use meticulous sources, reputable, established publications, and recent publications”

                I agree with this overall.

                “(post-2018 is ideal, 2015 is OK, 2010 and prior dubious, anything prior to 2000: ignore it).”

                I agree with this to some extent, but I’m not sure of your reasons why post-2018 is ideal, then only 3 years before that is only OK, prior to 2010 is for some reason dubious, and anything prior to 2000 should be ignored. If there was sound research on something 50 years ago, then it should be worth knowing–if nothing else, for the understanding that there was some knowledge on the topic at that time. For instance, I have found a fair bit of decent-looking research on the function of zinc and magnesium in the body even as far back as the 60s and 70s. Why was this not more widely known? Has the extent of pharmaceutical company interference in medicine and health extended back that far (or farther)? If so, that should raise a great deal of alarm.

                Also, if the research is sturdy, why would the journal ranking necessarily carry so much weight? Maybe the information didn’t fit the predominant narrative about health?

                Also, the Prasad article on zinc was cited by a fair number of other articles, indicating that it likely has merit, and, since it dovetails with many other papers I’ve read and my (albeit still developing) understanding of systems and organelle function and their micronutrient requirements, I thought it worthy to post.

                I do not mean to be argumentative. I just don’t quite understand limiting oneself by dates and rankings. Perhaps it is just a rule of thumb?

                “Be rigorous. Demand more. Here is a resource to help:”
                Thank you for the link! I did not know about this site; it will be very helpful!

                1. I agree with this to some extent, but I’m not sure of your reasons why post-2018 is ideal

                  Diagnostics and instrumentation. Immunology, biomarkers, proteins, receptors, etc have all taken off since 2019. Few researchers had the knowledge or capability to measure these metrics. Now you would be hard-pressed to not find them utilized in research. Hospitals however still do not use them in medical practice, to give you an idea of how the two are not in synch

                  Off to the gym!

          1. T cells need magnesium, too, as does vitamin D and a boatload of other things–nerve function, oxygen sensing, muscle relaxation, insulin regulation, etc etc. The dang virus appears to deplete people’s (likely already insufficient) magnesium stores.

            “Mg might play a role in the immune response being a cofactor for immunoglobulin synthesis and other processes strictly associated with the function of T and B cells. Mg is necessary for the biosynthesis, transport, and activation of vitamin D, another key factor in the pathogenesis of infectious diseases.”

            Dominguez, L.J.; Veronese, N.; Guerrero-Romero, F.; Barbagallo,M. “Magnesium in Infectious Diseases in Older People.” Nutrients 2021, 13,180. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13010180

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827130/pdf/nutrients-13-00180.pdf

    2. Daniel,

      “ The medical condition criterion is met by being black, regardless of health. So a healthy black person will be allocated in circumstances where an otherwise identical healthy white person will not. There is no ambiguity.”

      Wow, that’s a big load of BS. If you actually read the memo and the actual criteria for priority you would have noticed that these treatments are reserved for those who are already sick or have a severe symptoms that would require hospitalization. These treatments are NOT for healthy people.

      The reason for the limited supply of these treatments is because only one is more effective against the omicron variant and if supplies are scarce a triage process is to be used.

      One of the considerations is priority to minorities IF it’s possible not a requirement that they SHOULD come first. The process still applies to everyone regardless of race.

      1. My mistake. By healthy I meant without a co-morbidity. So a person who tests positive without a co-morbidity will be denied an allocation if he is white but will get one if he is black. Should make it easier for a court to find that the white person has standing. Thank you for clarifying. Perhaps this racist unconstitutional rule can be challenged more easily than I wrote.

        1. But on the other hand the standing argument might still fail because under a race-neutral rule the white person who tested positive without co-morbidities would not be entitled to an allocation. The remedy would not cure the alleged injury. It would prevent the black person from getting an allocation but that does not help the white person.

        2. Daniel,

          “ So a person who tests positive without a co-morbidity will be denied an allocation if he is white but will get one if he is black.”

          No. That’s not what the memo is saying. Anyone who has a higher risk will be a priority. For example those who are 65 and older who already have a higher number of co-morbidity factors will be first in line regardless of race. Minorities including those who are black do have higher rates of diabetes obesity, etc. will constitute the majority of serious cases that would qualify under triage procedures.

          A white person wouldn’t have standing at all. He/she would have to prove that the treatments are only being applied on the basis of race. The memo is not saying that at all. It’s prioritizing who have the highest risk factors. Just because one of those factors involves being a minority which has been shown in study after study that they are at higher risk and have been affected the most does not mean treatments are going to be determined solely by that one factor.

          Since omicron is the dominant variant and only ONE emergency approved treatment available that is effective is in short supply BECAUSE it’s still experimental has to be rationed to those most at risk. It’s not about choosing one race over another.

          1. The memo says that being black or Hispanic meets the medical condition criterion, without regard to the actual medical condition of that person. So explain again how the memo doesn’t do what it says?

              1. One of the criterion is having a medical condition. The memo says bring black or Hispanic meets this condition, without regard to the person’s actual health status.

          2. Thinking is not Svelaz’s strong suit. In fact some might believe he doesn’t think at all.

            Minority with diabetes and obesity has a higher priority than a white person with diabetes and obesity.
            Minority with diabetes has a higher priority than a white person with diabetes.
            Minority with no illness has a higher priority than a white person with no illness.

            You are a racist.

            1. Anonymous (SM),

              “ Minority with diabetes and obesity has a higher priority than a white person with diabetes and obesity.
              Minority with diabetes has a higher priority than a white person with diabetes.
              Minority with no illness has a higher priority than a white person with no illness.”

              Clearly you either have no idea what the memo says or you are just making stuff up. You have not even provided an example of what exactly in the memo backs up what you claim.

              Comprehension seems to be your biggest problem here.

              1. SVELAZ, this question has been resolved. You are WRONG. You only post the talking points provided by the left. You are unable to read the documents yourself. You do not read the fine print.

                Go to the document you quoted from scroll down and look for yourself. YOU ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

      2. “One of the considerations is priority to minorities . . .”

        It doesn’t matter if race 1, 10, or 100 of the considerations. It’s still racist.

  3. The Democrat establishment in NYC are race-baiters. They haven’t yet learned how to be civilized.

  4. Have you noticed that step by step, government covid policy has entered the political arena? And it shows no signs of ending when the pandemic does. This will continue.

    1. This government covid policy is about political science NOT science and NOT public health.

      Our first red flag is their glaring dismissal of recovered immunity — which is the actual science they are completely ignoring in order to push a singular focus on mass vaccination!

      1. “Our first red flag is their glaring dismissal of recovered immunity . . .”

        Actually, the first “red flag” was the shutdowns. There have been countless, since then. And the flag bearer is Lord Fauci.

        1. Yes! Thank you. How could I miss Fauci’s biggest absurdity of them all: Isolate the healthy!

          In Fauci’s upside-down world no one is “healthy”….we are all “asymptomatic carriers of the disease”!

          And Dr. “I am science” Facuci’s astoundingly corrupt arrogance: You dare to question or criticize moi? No can do because *I* am science!

          Now mask up! Two masks are better than one! Layer them all over your face and then enclose your entire body in a space helmet and hazmat suit if you dare go outside!

          This, Is. Not. Public. Health. Policy!

          It is stupidity.

          1. “In Fauci’s upside-down world no one is “healthy” . . .”

            Exactly.

            We are all merely viral loads in the hands of an angry, tyrannical Fauci. (HT: Jonathan Edwards)

          2. In my prior life as a hospital medical staff president, chief of medicine in an Hmo, and member of the board and quality committee I and others had been trained to recognize as well as intervene with physicians who exhibited declining competence or had highly suspect habits that might impact patient care. My opinion is that there are many medical advisers to the president, one in particular, who should be considered for an intervention.

  5. Fortunately this is a virus with a 98+% survival rate overall and few if any deaths due to Omicron. Wonder how well to do s@@tlibs are going to finesse this one. They might for once actually be effected by the policies they force on the rest of us.

    antonio

  6. Turley said, “I spoke to two leading doctors in the area by phone on Sunday who were livid about the failure of the Biden Administration to prioritize therapeutics earlier in the year when there was still time. Both said that they have struggled to find these treatments.”

    These treatments should NOT be in short supply anywhere in this country! What the hell is going on?

    We are livid. It is outrageous and we all must stand up to the tyranny! Get loud! Stand up and say enough! Join Dr. Robert Malone and others at our protest march on January 23 in Washington DC!

    https://defeatthemandatesdc.com/

    1. Anonymous,

      “ These treatments should NOT be in short supply anywhere in this country! What the hell is going on?”

      Well, if you want to know what’s going on maybe you should read the entirety of the memo and it’s linked references to find out.

      The reason for the short supply is because these are STILL experimental treatments that just recently had emergency approval. Just like the vaccines were prior to full approval. THEN you would have noticed that only ONE of three treatments available is effective against the omicron variant which makes supplies scarce in an areas that has 90% of cases being the omicron variant.

      The scarcity of these treatments especially the only one that is effective against omicron requires they implement a triage process. Those highest at risk are those with immunodeficiency or unable to vaccinate due to medical conditions REGARDLESS of race.

      Minorities have been getting the brunt of COVID symptoms and hospitalizations. Therefore being considered a higher risk than “white” folks. That’s how triage works. Its based on who has a higher risk. Turley is either being ignorant or naive here.

        1. No Sam, that’s how ANY triage works.

          In New York it was minorities who first refused or were the least willing to be vaccinated and therefore the most at risk of being infected AND have more serious reaction to the virus.

          Remember when the majority of New York City residents who were not vaccinated were minorities? They are the biggest group of people who are being hospitalized and the biggest groups with cases of omicron. In ANY triage situation these people will be treated first according to their severity if their symptoms.

          These are treatments for those already sick. Healthy people don’t need treatments. The highest priority for these treatments is for those who are the most vulnerable REGARDLESS of race. Race is only being mentioned because the majority of those being affected ARE minorities who have a higher risk of having more serious complications from contracting COVID.

          1. “. . . that’s how ANY triage works.”

            Really?!

            EMTs arrive on an accident scene and declare: “Let’s treat the black wounded, first.” Or the “white wounded, first.” Or the “Asian wounded, first.”

            This will be a much more pleasant country, when the Left stops seeing everything through the lens of race.

            1. San,

              “ EMTs arrive on an accident scene and declare: “Let’s treat the black wounded, first.” Or the “white wounded, first.” Or the “Asian wounded, first.”

              That’s not what they do in any situation. EMT’s in mass casualty situations they focus on the most seriously injured first REGARDLESS of race.

              “ This will be a much more pleasant country, when the Left stops seeing everything through the lens of race.”

              Strangely you’re the only one focusing on race. I’ve been pointing out that those with higher risks or those with more serious symptoms REGARDLESS of race are a priority.

              1. Strangely you’re the only one focusing on race.

                Strangely, you’re lying. Okay, I’ll admit that’s not strange. But many people on this blog, including our host are focusing on race, because the language in the guidance (wait for it) is focusing attention on race.

                Long-standing systemic health and social inequities have put various groups of people at increased risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19, including many people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities.

                I’ve been pointing out that those with higher risks or those with more serious symptoms REGARDLESS of race are a priority.

                Right. Unless you’re a mouse in Fauci’s pocket, what you “believe” you’re pointing out is pure Jen Psaki-level /i> gaslighting.

                1. “. . . because the language in the guidance (wait for it) is focusing attention on race.”

                  There you go, again — disturbing the delusional with facts.

                  It’s almost incomprehensible that you have to state the obvious. But thanks for doing so.

              2. “That’s not what they do in any situation. EMT’s in mass casualty situations they focus on the most seriously injured first REGARDLESS of race.”

                That is right. They deal with those with the most significant injury and illness first, or if resources aren’t sufficient, they deal first with those most likely to survive that need treatment the fastest. Color doesn’t represent illness or injury. Only racists think that color does.

          2. “In New York it was minorities who first refused or were the least willing to be vaccinated and therefore the most at risk of being infected AND have more serious reaction to the virus.”

            On the one hand, the left says that those who don’t get vaccinated shouldn’t be treated, admitted to the hospital, or given some penalty. On the other hand, the left will say that blacks should get priority because fewer blacks are vaccinated.

            “The highest priority for these treatments is for those who are the most vulnerable REGARDLESS of race. Race is only being mentioned because the majority of those being affected ARE minorities who have a higher risk of having more serious complications from contracting COVID.”

            You are missing the point. You are using race to define the intensity of risk rather than using illness to determine risk. That is a roundabout way of injecting race into medical care. Are you a racist?

      1. Svelaz says: “The reason for the short supply is because these are STILL experimental treatments that just recently had emergency approval. Just like the vaccines were prior to full approval.”

        Come again? …. “Just like the vaccines were prior to full approval”??

        Care to share with us the documentation as to when the vaccines currently being administered in the United States received “full approval”?

        1. And no, the Pfizer jab – the one being administered in the U.S. today – is NOT approved and is still under EUA.

          1. https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2021/08/24/two-things-mainstream-media-didnt-tell-you-about-fdas-approval-of-pfizer-vaccine/

            “Americans, told that the Pfizer COVID vaccine is now licensed, will understandably assume that COVID vaccine mandates are lawful. But only EUA-authorized vaccines, for which no one has any real liability, will be available during the next few weeks when many school mandate deadlines occur.

            The FDA appears to be purposefully tricking American citizens into giving up their right to refuse an experimental product.

            While the media has trumpeted that the FDA has approved COVID vaccines, the FDA has not approved the Pfizer BioNTech vaccines, nor any COVID vaccines for the 12- to 15-year age group, nor any booster doses for anyone.

            And FDA has not licensed any Moderna vaccine, nor any vaccine from Johnson & Johnson — so the vast majority of vaccines available in the U.S., if not all, remain unlicensed EUA products.

            Here’s what you need to know when somebody orders you to get the vaccine: Ask to see the vial. If it says “Comirnaty,” it’s a licensed product. If it says “Pfizer-BioNTech,” it’s an experimental product, and under 21 U.S. Code 360bbb, you have the right to refuse.

            If it comes from Moderna or Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen), you have the right to refuse.”

            1. Okay. You’re right. Pfizer is the best! Of course they are just looking out for OUR health. As is the FDA! And Dr. Fauci, too. Of course.

              No corruption, no lies, no conflicts of interest, no deception!

              What criminals? What felons? What fraud? Look away, man! Boosters for all! Keep ’em coming! Dokter Fauci said so! Trust science!

              ——->>>

              “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

              Wednesday, September 2, 2009

              Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History

              Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing

              WASHINGTON – American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

              Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead….”

              https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

              1. And Pfizer KNEW that intentionally defrauding the public was STILL going to be profitable for them EVEN after paying the massive penalities! So they did it anyway. They KNEW this product was killing people. They KNEW it and put it out on the market anyway.

                Do not ever be so foolish as to believe these pharma companies (or Dr. Fauci!) are looking out for Public Health first.

              2. Anonymous, nice deflection there. Pfizer’s previous fraud charges are irrelevant to your own request for documentation showing approval.

                The rest of your rant is irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Isn’t that moving the goalposts? Me thinks it is.

                But thanks for admitting the truth about your incorrect claim.

                1. Not a deflection. If you choose to ignore the facts, and TRUST these pharma companies have YOUR best healthy interests first, that’s your stupidity.

        2. 12/2/21 A federal district court judge has rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, which in August was fully licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

          PENSACOLA DIVISION

          ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTIONS

          https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1GJK_7afp6XHoB0Yo4dKopBCL7BYUqI1765uXF6FBJ-0/mobilebasic?fbclid=IwAR2zOGWqglt0ve_K5HY4vstXBfftvBCXq8Tmy1TjpSFcg7PEn-92dPAbjYA

          1. Anonymous, pay attention. Comirnaty IS the bioNtech Pfizer vaccine. It’s the ONLY vaccine they produced. Comirnaty is it’s commercial name.

            From the approval letter,

            “ You may label your product with the proprietary name, COMIRNATY, and market it in 2.0 mL glass vials, in packages of 25 and 195 vials.”

            https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

            1. Pfizer is being intentionally deceptive about which version of its vaccine is being administered now, in order to continue to shield themselves from liability by jabbing the public wtih its product still under EUA.

              Read the court decision.

              1. Anonymous,

                “ Pfizer is being intentionally deceptive about which version of its vaccine is being administered now, in order to continue to shield themselves from liability by jabbing the public wtih its product still under EUA.”

                Nope. Because there is only one version. They have been administering the same vaccine.

                Since you’re the one with reading comprehension problems I won’t waste time trying to explain to you what the court is saying. Obviously you’re confusing the “Pfizer Vaccine” and “comirnaty” as two different versions. They are both the same thing. One is what is commonly known as the other is its official commercial name.

                Pfizer is not being deceptive, you’re just not grasping the distinction between the two, the common name and it’s official name. Moderna’s vaccine is called “Spikevax”. Johnson and Johnson’s vaccine is called “Janssen Covid-19 vaccine”. They are NOT different versions either.

        3. Anonymous,

          “ Care to share with us the documentation as to when the vaccines currently being administered in the United States received “full approval”?

          The Pfizer vaccine was granted full approval Aug 23, 2021.

          Here’s the documentation,

          https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

          From said document,

          “ We are issuing Department of Health and Human Services U.S. License No. 2229 to BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, Mainz, Germany, under the provisions of section 351(a) of the PHS Act controlling the manufacture and sale of biological products. The license authorizes you to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, those products for which your company has demonstrated compliance with establishment and product standards.

          1. That’s intentionally confusing to the consumer…..and only ONE vaccine….and one product version of that one vaccine.

            You said, “just like the vaccines” …before their “full approval.”

            You are mistaken.

            1. Anonymous, again, pay attention.

              All the current vaccines have been granted full approval. The FIRST to get approval is the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that goes by the commercial name COMERNATY. The one we are takkkng about and the one YOU requested documentation on was the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

              It’s not intentionally confusing at all. There’s nothing confusing about the word “approval letter”. Every media outlet made it known that it was approved.

              You claimed it was still under emergency approval. That was obviously not true.

                1. Anonymous,

                  “ Moderna has full approval? J&J has full approval?”

                  Yes they do. They came soon after Pfizer was.

                  I’m sure you have the ability to look it up yourself.

                    1. Anonymous (SM),

                      “ I did look it up. And you are wrong.”

                      If you did look it up then you would have no trouble providing documentation backing up your claim.

                    2. One has a hard time from the emails figuring out which one of the many WRONGS stated by Svelaz he is asking proof for.

                      I just sent this out. Perhaps it didn’t post. Maybe in a short while I will show you other documents that prove you WRONG.

                      “The license authorizes you to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, those products…”

                      You are WRONG again.

                      You said: “The Pfizer vaccine was granted full approval Aug 23, 2021.”

                      That doesn’t mean “full approval”. Svelaz, you are not to be trusted. Before I learned even more about this situation from newer documents, I found Aug 23 confusing in a way that made me wonder why the government was being so sneaky and unclear. I still don’t know the answer, but IMO, there is something wrong with our government’s relationship to the vaccine producers and reasons they are preventing competition. Is the administration Stupid or underhanded?

                      Yesterday I asked Daniel for his interpretation. The following was posted on another thread.


                      Daniel (and any other lawyer or person with in-depth knowledge of the law), many questions have been raised about the approval status of BioNTech and whether it is legally the same as Comirnaty or even identical to it. We discussed this earlier. When things are not clear, I believe someone is trying to hide something.
                      Here is a paragraph from January 3, 2022.

                      “9 In the August 23, 2021 revision, FDA clarified that, subsequent to the FDA approval of CMIRNATY (COVID- 19 Vaccine, mRNA) for the prevention of COVID-19 for individuals 16 years of age and older, this EUA would remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses.

                      You sound like an intelligent lawyer. What does that sentence mean to you? I know I am putting you on the spot because I don’t think you practice this type of law.

                      The paragraph continues:

                      It also authorized COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) under this EUA for certain uses that are not included in the approved biologics license application (BLA). In addition, the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine (Vaccination Providers) was revised to provide updates on expiration dating of the authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and updated language regarding warnings and precautions related to myocarditis and pericarditis.

                      …And follows is another troublesome spot:

                      “The Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers was updated as the Vaccine Information Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers, which comprises the Fact Sheet for the authorized Pfizer- BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and information about the FDA-licensed vaccine, COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA). ”

                      The following are the footnotes for 9 and surrounding dates:

                      “On August 23, 2021, FDA approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)8 and reissued the letter in its entirety for both Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine and certain uses of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA).9 Subsequently, FDA reissued the letter of authorization on September 22, 2021,10”

                      Legalese sometimes escapes the understanding of the common man. I am not trying to prove anything more than understanding what we are dealing with.

                      https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

                      Reply

              1. “Every media outlet made it known that it was approved.”

                HAHAHAHA

                Trust the messenger!

                HAHAHAHA

              2. “All the current vaccines have been granted full approval. “

                Svelaz, You are wrong here and six to a dozen other places on this issue. You don’t know how to read. You don’t know how to think.

                I already posted the FDA’s answer and I will post it again. I seem to be having a problem with WordPress.

                “The products are legally distinct with certain differences …”

                This response containing quotes from the FDA ends the questions involving BioNTech and Comirnaty.

                I am not concerned medically that BioNTech and Comirnaty are legally different. What worries me is that it appears the government is hiding things they do not wish us to see. Everything involving Covid is suspect, from the funding in the lab in Wuhan, China, to the vaccines and therapeutics.

                FDA quotes from 12./07/2021 follow (bottom of the release)

                “The products are legally distinct with certain differences …”

                “Therefore, providers can use doses distributed under EUA to administer the vaccination series as if the doses were the licensed vaccine.”

                “Will the emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine remain in effect after the approval?
                Yes. The EUA remains in effect for the two dose primary series in individuals 12 years of age and older and as a third primary dose for individuals 12 years of age and older who have been determined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise. ”

                https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna

          2. “The license authorizes you to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, those products…”

            You are WRONG again.

            You said: “The Pfizer vaccine was granted full approval Aug 23, 2021.”

            That doesn’t mean “full approval”. Svelaz, you are not to be trusted. Before I learned even more about this situation from newer documents, I found Aug 23 confusing in a way that made me wonder why the government was being so sneaky and unclear. I still don’t know the answer, but IMO, there is something wrong with our government’s relationship to the vaccine producers and reasons they are preventing competition. Is the administration Stupid or underhanded?

            Yesterday I asked Daniel for his interpretation. The following was posted on another thread.


            Daniel (and any other lawyer or person with in-depth knowledge of the law), many questions have been raised about the approval status of BioNTech and whether it is legally the same as Comirnaty or even identical to it. We discussed this earlier. When things are not clear, I believe someone is trying to hide something.
            Here is a paragraph from January 3, 2022.

            “9 In the August 23, 2021 revision, FDA clarified that, subsequent to the FDA approval of CMIRNATY (COVID- 19 Vaccine, mRNA) for the prevention of COVID-19 for individuals 16 years of age and older, this EUA would remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses.

            You sound like an intelligent lawyer. What does that sentence mean to you? I know I am putting you on the spot because I don’t think you practice this type of law.

            The paragraph continues:

            It also authorized COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) under this EUA for certain uses that are not included in the approved biologics license application (BLA). In addition, the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine (Vaccination Providers) was revised to provide updates on expiration dating of the authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and updated language regarding warnings and precautions related to myocarditis and pericarditis.

            …And follows is another troublesome spot:

            “The Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers was updated as the Vaccine Information Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers, which comprises the Fact Sheet for the authorized Pfizer- BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and information about the FDA-licensed vaccine, COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA). ”

            The following are the footnotes for 9 and surrounding dates:

            “On August 23, 2021, FDA approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)8 and reissued the letter in its entirety for both Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine and certain uses of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA).9 Subsequently, FDA reissued the letter of authorization on September 22, 2021,10”

            Legalese sometimes escapes the understanding of the common man. I am not trying to prove anything more than understanding what we are dealing with.

            https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

  7. I wonder if Rep. Hank Johnson fears America will capsize when too many blue state Dems flee the incompetent corruption and move to the competently-governed free state of Florida? Is America in danger of capsizing, Hank?

  8. Another DEM LEFT WING RADICAL SOCIAL JUSTICE policy from a unqualified and unelected NY GOVERNOR and her band of Social Justice Warriors. Another reson for those who can move to get out of NY and head for a RED STATE. Using race vs medical need is foolish and not right, Another Social Justice cause to be over turned by the courts

      1. Yesterday afternoon we drove up into southwestern N.Y. state; we live in Pennsylvania. It took about 30 seconds for me to notice that everyone (other than me and 2 others) was masked, something I hadn’t seen since the winter of 2020. The checkout person told me that the governor has put N.Y. under another mask mandate, although it’s not being strictly enforced. So, all through the Delta surge, New Yorkers weren’t masked, but now at the threat of a common cold, they are masked again. Yes, the governor of N.Y. is off the charts. She got to be governor because she was the lieutenant governor when Cuomo was forced out. The sad part of seeing all those masked faces was that I had started thinking that people were figuring out the covid and vaccine lies finally. But seeing all those people wearing their masks showed me that hasn’t changed.

        1. A lot of people believe the most frequently washed body part in 2021 was the hands.

          But, in fact, it was the brain.

  9. Not racist!!!

    Imagine the Lefties howling at a whites only policy.

    The Dems were racist before the Civil War, they established a base among southern whites after the Civil War, and now they have switched to a minority base.

    Dems have always been about color.

    And lying.

    1. As much as I am disturbed by this announced policy, you are really over the top. The Republicans have been deeply enmeshed in their Southern Strategy for decades, since Nixon. Race baiting is one of their key tools as well as Disenfranchisement.

      1. Give us some concrete examples of “disenfranchisement” going on today. Where, when, how, who.

  10. “Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor,”
    I thought the elderly and those with serious health issues were the ones at risk regardless of race and ethnicity?

  11. Well, by that logic, since 6% of the population (black males) commit more than 50% of violent crime, they are de facto public health risks. So at the scene of a shooting, black men should receive last priority.

    When will this craziness end?

  12. 100PercentFedUp.com
    Fauci: Vaccinated And Boosted Americans Should Avoid Public Settings As Well
    By Adam Wilson | Jan 2, 2022

    121shares
    Share
    Tweet
    Telegram
    Email

    Since the first vaccine was released, Fauci has touted the vaccine as our way out of the Covid-19 pandemic. Media pundits and politicians alike sold many skeptical people on the vaccine by saying it would represent a return to normalcy. Now, after supporting a vaccine mandate for things as essential as air travel and for your children, Fauci is admitting that vaccines are not working as intended. Fauci went on CNN this morning and admitted that he does not think that even vaccinated and boosted people should be out in public.

    https://100percentfedup.com/fauci-vaccinated-and-boosted-americans-should-avoid-public-settings-as-well/

    1. Canada’s PM Trudeau still insists that vaccinating everyone is the path out of this pandemic! Malicious Idiot!

      He said the unvaccinated are the “extremists” who are often “misogynists” and “racists”…..holee crap Canada you get what you vote for!!

      1. Here’s the Truth Bomb for Justin: the unvaccinated are the ones PAYING ATTENTION and following the science you malicious corrupt idiot.

  13. Ironic that right after the column on those claiming Biden hasn’t had any scandals we read about a state giving minorities an advantage getting life saving medical care because Biden hasn’t provided enough of the meds for everyone..in spite of the fact that he has spent a few trillion dollars on “Covid relief”.

    PS. Oh yeah, he also was shot down by the Court for RACE BASED Covid funds after acknowledging that it was unconstitutional, much as the eviction moratorium was handled in the same way.

    1. Ideology trumps everything wtih Democrat politicians and if anyone thinks that “few trillion of Covid relief” actually went to “Covid relief”…..I’ve got a bridge…..

  14. Biden, by executive order has banned monoclonal antibodies use by any Doctor. Biden just wants people to die.

    More people have died under Biden’s watch than Trump’s. Biden had the benefit of the Trump Vaccines.

    1. Iowan2,

      “ Biden, by executive order has banned monoclonal antibodies use by any Doctor.”

      When was that EO issued? Surely you have the info readily available.

      “ More people have died under Biden’s watch than Trump’s. Biden had the benefit of the Trump Vaccines.”

      Trump vaccines? The same ones Trump’s own supporters refuse to take because…..

      Trump’s own supporters are mad Trump took his own vaccines. They’re calling him a traitor for taking a booster.

  15. Scandal free! Come on, man! Incompetent, malicious Democrats are in charge. It’s not about Public Health where Democrats are in charge. Ideology trumps everything.

    FJBLGB

Leave a Reply