Report: Gov. Cuomo says addicts in rehab are next in line for COVID-19 vaccine, NYPD delayed

Share:

NEW YORK, NY- In the state of New York, the next in line for the COVID-19 vaccine is not law enforcement or first responders. It is not even the states general population or elderly people living in nursing homes. According to Governor Andrew Cuomo, next in line will be recovering addicts in residential rehab facilities.

During a virtual news conference in Albany, Gov. Cuomo said that the state was expecting to receive a combined 259,000 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

At this press conference, Cuomo also said that residents in facilities operated by the Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS) will be given the vaccine.

Cuomo said that in addition to urgent care center employees and “individuals who are administering the COVID-19 vaccines, for obvious reasons,” shots would be given to residents of OASAS.

According to its website, the agency runs 12 treatment centers across the state, with five located in or around New York City. The agency also certifies and monitors “hundreds” of “private facilities.”

Cuomo said that OASAS is next in line for vaccinations because residents live in “close quarters,” just like in nursing homes.

Cuomo said:

“These are congregate facilities. Congregate facilities are problematic. That’s where you have a lot of people in concentration.”

He added:

“Nursing homes are obviously the most problematic because they’re congregate plus older, vulnerable people. OASAS facilities, what we call the O facilities, they’re congregate, not necessarily older, but congregate facilities.”

Reportedly, residents and staffers will be vaccinated at both the state-run and privately operated rehab centers as well as at facilities run or licensed by the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities and the Office of Mental Health.

A Department of Health (DOH) spokeswoman said that emergency medical services personnel, medical examiners and coroners, and some funeral workers will also get the vaccine.

Luke Nasta, a director of the New York Association of Substance Abuse Providers said that the non-profit group had “lobbied” for rehab patients to receive the vaccination.

Nasta, who is also the CEO of the Camelot Family Foundation, which runs two residential treatment centers on Staten Island, said that it makes sense to give the shots to drug users because they are more likely to “get the disease and spread it.”

He said:

“We were overlooked initially. We got the governor’s office’s attention and Gov. Cuomo acted appropriately.”

CBS6 News asked OASAS for a comment and below is part of the statement that they sent:

“New York State has prioritized the vaccine distribution to high-risk populations, including those in congregate care settings where there is an increased danger of virus spread. Many people in these facilities also have additional risk factors that make them more vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19.”

It added:

“Unfortunately, there continues to be a stigma against those in recovery when it comes to equal access to health care. These individuals deserve the same access to medical care as everyone else and those at high risk of COVID should be vaccinated in line with other high-risk populations.”

Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik is among others speaking out against the decision, saying that the vaccine should not be prioritized for OASAS residents, over seniors who she says have been homebound since the start of the pandemic.

According to Commissioner Dermot Shea, NYPD officers are facing a delay in getting the COVID-19 vaccine. He cited issues with the state supply chain. During a wide-range briefing, Shea said:

“We are waiting. As recently as last week or a week-and-a-half ago we were hoping that we’d get it now and into the first week of January.”

He added:

“We’re relying on the state and city department of health to advise us where we’re in line. We certainly appreciate that everyone wants to get this and we have to wait our fair turn in line and that’s what we’re doing, but we’re anxiously awaiting it and want it as soon as possible.”

Shea’s remarks confirmed a memo that had been circulated within the Detectives’ Endowment Association union warning that the vaccine was going to be delayed. A copy of the memo, which was obtained by The Post, reads, in part:

“The State has not released the vaccine in the quantity needed for the NYPD. We’ve made numerous attempts to get updated information and when we get further word on its availability, we will immediately keep our members apprised of the new date and the method of distribution.”

Patrick Lynch, the president of the Police Benevolent Association union, blasted the delay for NYPD, saying:

“Once again, politicians in Albany and City Hall are wasting time with bureaucratic gymnastics instead of looking at the reality on the ground. New York City police officers aren’t just on the front line. We cover every part of the front line: from hospitals and housing complexes to the corner store.”

He added:

“We have more daily contact with New Yorkers than any other city agency. We are continuing to press the vaccines to be made available to police officers as soon as possible.”

Gary Holmes, a spokesman for the DOH, said that police will receive the vaccine soon, but that it is still being administered to others who take priority under state guidelines, including frontline health care workers and those in nursing homes.

He said:

“NYPD as first responders are eligible in phase 1b, that has not changed and any suggestion that we are holding back on providing vaccines is patently false. We are still in the middle of phase 1a, which includes frontline health care workers, nursing homes, and certain congregate care settings.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

NY Times article: Elderly white people shouldn’t get vaccine priority so America can ‘level playing field’ with minorities

December 19th, 2020

The following article contains editorial content written by a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

NEW YORK, NY- To say that liberals are off the rails is probably the understatement of the century. If you want proof of that, look no further than the New York Times.

The liberal rag is positioning the idea that when it comes to classifying people who should be prioritized to receive the coronavirus vaccine first, skin color should be the overarching criteria, more important than vulnerability or risk factors.

Breitbart News has reported that the Times earlier this month published an article which looked into how the vaccine should be distributed and who should receive it first. The headline of the article read:

“The Elderly vs. Essential Workers: Who Should Get the Coronavirus Vaccine First?”

No problem with that because during a pandemic, it is important to examine how the vaccine should be prioritized.

We have been told time and again that the most vulnerable population for the coronavirus is the elderly and those with co-morbidities—underlying health issues, overweight, things of that nature. Likewise, we can all agree that frontline healthcare workers and first responders are vulnerable by virtue of their professions.

What the New York Times did however is proposition the practice of eugenics. Yes, they went there.

According to a “medical ethicist” from the University of Pennsylvania, Harald Schmidt, he said that it is a reasonable expectation that essential workers should be put ahead of older adults. Where Schmidt goes off the rails is when he noted that essential workers are comprised primarily of minorities.

“Older populations are whiter,” Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.” [emphasis added]

Level the playing field.” So in other words, Schmidt is suggesting we sacrifice our older generation for the benefit of some sort of social justice. Targeting one segment of the population for elimination has been practiced before in our world’s history—see 1930’s Germany if you have any questions.

The Times continued that historically, committees which looked into making decisions on which part of the population to direct vaccines to used “scientific evidence to inform its decisions.” However in the new woke, social justice world, such people are “weighing social justice concerns as well.”

So in other words, this medical “ethicist” is proposing that the decision to save—or not save—lives would be based upon race.

Once again, look up “holocaust” and all of this should look familiar.

As National Review proposed, “how long before half-baked social science is being used by technocrats in positions of power and influence to ration medical care?” It is a reasonable question.

Democrats have proposed a single-payer system, the nationalization of health care. With people such as this suggesting that race be used as a criterion for possible life-saving measures, is it too much to suggest that under a nationalized health care program would likewise ration health care to leave out our elderly, most vulnerable population?

Schmidt is not alone at the University of Pennsylvania as far as making bizarre suggestions about rationing of healthcare to older adults. None other than Ezekiel Emanuel is also a medical “ethicist” at the university.

Emanuel, who is a Biden adviser on medical issues has suggested previously that anyone over the age of 75 is worth saving through life-saving medical procedures. After all, they’ve lived a good life and serve no purposes to humanity after reaching that age, apparently.

 

An infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Marc Lipsitch has suggested that teachers should also not be included as essential workers, if the goal is to reduce healthcare inequity.

“Teachers have middle class salaries, are very often white [emphasis added], and they have college degrees,” Lipsitch said. “Of course they should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of workers.”

So all these students who the Democrats want to pay college student loans for didn’t know they are considered beneath consideration for possible life-saving measures.

Elise Gould is a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, and she disagreed with Lipsitch’s comments.

“When you talk about disproportionate impact and you’re concerned about people getting back into the labor force, many are mothers, and they will have a harder time if their children don’t have a reliable place to go,” she said.

“And if you think generally about people who have jobs where they can’t telework, they are disproportionately black and brown. They’ll have more of a challenge when childcare is an issue.”

So what Gould said actually presents a mixed message, suggesting that we have to vaccinate teachers in order to save those who aren’t able to work from home, black and brown races primarily. The hell with white people.

The piece in the Times was unconcerned about in which order people should be vaccinated in order to save lives, but rather was more concerned with correcting what they believe are social “inequities.” In fact, the article says precisely that:

“[The question of ‘who goes next’ is] a question increasingly guided by concerns over the inequities laid bare by the pandemic, from disproportionately high rates of infection and death among poor people and people of color to disparate access to testing, childcare and technology for online schooling.”

The mere suggestion that race should be used as the primary reason for prioritizing healthcare for Americans is obscene. Suggesting the implementation of eugenics and brushing it off as nothing says more about us as a country than anything.

That means nothing to Rev. William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, a national coalition that deals with the challenge of the working poor.

“It’s damnable that we are even being placed in this position that we have to make these choices. But if we have to make the choice, we cannot once again leave poor and low-wealth essential workers to be last.”

Nobody is suggesting that poor or low-wealth essential workers will be “last” for anything. But it makes for good propaganda.

There are two choices to be made, suggests Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner.

“If your goal is to maximize the preservation of human life, then you would bias the vaccine toward older Americans. If your goal is to reduce the rate of infection, then you would prioritize essential workers. So it depends what impact you’re trying to achieve.”

Did you read that? The choices are slow the spread or sacrifice lives. In other words, pick the winners and losers.

All of this seems to confirm CDC data which shows that more American lives would be saved by prioritizing Americans over the age of 65 as opposed to essential workers. Yet someone like Emanuel would dispute that only because in his weak mind, people above that age are nearing the end of being useful citizens. They are, in his mind, a burden on the rest of the country.  

The so-called “committee” of medical experts advises the CDC on immunization practices and will shortly hold a vote on whom to recommend for the next phase of vaccination processes.

Last month, they held a meeting where it was suggested that essential workers…which number around 70% of the population if you check CDC guidelines…ahead of people 65 and older or those with high-risk health conditions.

So, who exactly are these “essential workers?” It may not be everyone who you think it would be. Included in the CDC guidance are tugboat operators, exterminators and nuclear energy workers.

Oh yes, and bank tellers. Included under bank tellers? Investment bankers, aka Wall Street fat cats. The list also includes fast food workers and “entertainment, sports and media.” Not for nothing but we could do without Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo. Just saying.

As the author in the Breitbart piece, John Nolte said:

“When it comes to prioritizing something such as vaccinations, the only question in a moral and just society is need and vulnerability. The only question is saving lives. You don’t punish my mom and my dad, you do not allow my parents to die, to serve your sick and twisted—your evil and despicable social justice cause.”

Think about this. We sacrifice the lives of millions of the unborn every year and now it is being suggested that we sacrifice those who have (or had) made our country into the greatest country on Earth.

Honestly it’s impossible to reconcile the fact that anything remotely resembling the implementation of eugenics is even a blip on somebody’s radar, especially people who hold the title of “medical ethicist.”

For the past seven months, we have seen what happens when race is used as a wedge to divide the country. Can you imagine what will happen if or when the American people are told that 30-year-old people of color are being prioritized for getting the coronavirus vaccine over the most vulnerable people in our population?  

California Gov. Gavin Newsom wasn’t even the least bit opaque about using race as a basis for distributing the vaccine. In a Sacramento Bee article in November, Newsom said that the vaccine would be distributed to communities “disproportionately affected by the disease.”

“Along the spectrum of making sure black and brown communities disproportionately are benefited, because of the impact the have felt disproportionately because of COVID-19.”

 

Surprisingly the Journal of the American Medical Association, which recently condemned “excessive force” by police as a “public health issue” cautioned against what California is proposing.

In an article, the journal said that the “ethical justification for prioritizing economically worse-off racial minorities rests on epidemiological, economic and social justice grounds,” then said it was unclear “whether government is permitted to consider race when seeking to ameliorate the effects of past and current discrimination.”

Nolte closed saying:

“We are on a very dark road in this country. In the name of social justice we continue to legitimize violence, riots, arson, aborting babies already born, and now this…Naked evil.”

We agree 100% Mr. Nolte.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Related Posts