How the CDC Voted to Kill Older White Americans, Citing Racial Vengeance as a Compelling Governmental Interest

No one has any obligation of loyalty to an eugenics-minded racist government such as this.

The committee openly acknowledged that its initial plan [of vaccinating younger minorities who didn't need the vaccine] would result in more deaths than "vaccinating older adults first." But, the panel said, the plan would reduce racial disparities--something they deemed more important than saving lives--because essential workers, unlike adults over 65, are disproportionately black and Hispanic, the two groups that have borne the brunt of the pandemic.

How did the committee reach that conclusion? According to meeting minutes, presentation slides, public statements, and even civil-rights directives, the now-scuttled plan didn't come out of thin air. Rather, it reflects the reductive, racialist worldview that is rapidly gaining ground in education, media, nonprofits, and now the U.S federal government--a worldview with concrete policy implications and concrete human costs.

That policy agenda was seeded by outside consultants like Matthew, who told the New York Times that racial inequality "requires us to prioritize by race." But it was also seeded by the CDC itself, which in September hosted a series of trainings on "racism, sexism, and other systems of structured inequality," in direct violation of President Trump's executive order barring such programs from government agencies. And it was even seeded by the chairman of the CDC committee, José Romero, who said in July that minorities "need to be moved to the forefront" of the vaccination line.

The result was an explicitly race-conscious plan that would have prioritized shrinking the case gap between races over saving the most lives.

This plan contained glaring double standards, such as an assumption that age-based policies would be discriminatory but that race-based ones wouldn't be. It relied on omission, distortion, and equivocation to make a highly contentious judgment seem self-evident, building bureaucratic consensus upon shaky foundations that were anything but apolitical or science-based.

That consensus coalesced in September, when committee members met to discuss their framework for "vaccine equity and prioritization."

Read the whole thing.

One nasty, dishonest step the CDC took was to claim that arguments against discriminating against the elderly were in fact arguments in favor of discriminating against the elderly.

They took HHS' concerns about denying ventialtors to old people based on their age and perverted them into arguments in favor of denying care to the elderly -- in the interests of racial "justice."

The HHS office, however, was worried about triage plans that discriminated against the elderly, "such that older persons might automatically be deemed ineligible for life-saving care without any individualized assessment." The president of the American Geriatric Society concurred, saying that age-based criteria "disfavo[r] older adults regardless of their function and health relative to COVID-19."

The CDC committee thus took two statements that championed the interests of the elderly and used them to justify a plan that would disproportionately kill senior citizens--implying that age-conscious alternatives were discriminatory, even as the race-conscious plan passed with unanimous support at a subsequent meeting.

If the comfortable Republican Establishment will not even raise a cry out outrage over the calculated murder of their own parents (or own selves!) -- and trust me, they will not; their liberal friends and/or spouses would call them "racists" for opposing race-based murder -- then what is the point of supporting this party?

Sometimes I wonder if it would just be better to support the left on the theory that at some point, the upper-middle-class white weakling class will eventually revolt against Woke #AntifaGovernment.

But will they? I don't think they will.

No corporate donor money in doing so, whereas there's a lot of corporate donor money in just accepting the agenda of the Woke #AntifaGovernment.

Meanwhile, Dr. Birx says it's your fault she had to lie about her Thanksgiving plans, so now she's retiring.

"I will be helpful in any role that people think I can be helpful in and then I will retire," she went on.

"I will have to say, as a civil servant, I will be helpful through a period of time, and then I will have to say, this experience has been a bit overwhelming. It has been very difficult on my family... I think what was done over the last week to my family."

Oh, I can't get enough of this lie. They're always claiming that when we're criticizing them, we're really "attacking their families," and that's out of bounds.

No, Birx. We're attacking you. Your family did not issue orders to us and then violate those same orders and then lie about having violated them.

You did. Not them -- you.

The infectious disease expert, 64, was outed on Sunday for not following her own travel guidance when she was joined by three different generations of family at one of her vacation properties on Fenwick Island in Delaware the day after Thanksgiving.

She was roundly criticized for not following her own orders after publicly urging Americans in the days leading up to Thanksgiving to limit gatherings to "your immediate household."

By "immediate household" she now says she meant "people outside your immediate household."

So again, that's on you, Racists.

posted by Ace at 05:03 PM

| Access Comments