What point are you trying to make about it being higher than the general population? That they are doing ever so slightly better than arresting people at random?

According to OP’s comment in the original post, yes, that’s exactly what it’s supposed to look like. The gauze just has some food coloring to make that joke.

Yes, this summarizes the latest guidance:

On September 19, 2025, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to change what had been a universal COVID-19 vaccine recommendation (except for HHS’ recent change for those under age 18) to “shared clinical decision-making”, including for those 65 and older. For those under 65, ACIP added that the assessment should include “an emphasis that the risk-benefit of vaccination is most favorable for individuals who are at an increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease and lowest for individuals who are not at an increased risk, according to the CDC list of COVID-19 risk factors.” These recommendations, should they be adopted by the CDC Director, mean that all individuals are recommended to have an individual assessment and interaction with a health care provider to determine whether getting a COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for them. If that determination is made, insurers should cover the vaccine at no-cost, although it is possible that some consumers may face challenges. (source)

So the change is that it’s no longer routinely recommended for everyone, but it’s supported if the patient and healthcare professional agree. Simplicity of access varies and some states have mandated that a pharmacist qualifies to make this decision, while others haven’t, but as long as you don’t have a doctor who is anti-vax, you should be able to get one.

More info from the CDC here about what “shared clinical decision-making” means.

Small note: in the end, access to COVID vaccines has not been limited. There was swirl around this that made it seem like they would be, but then the CDC landed on guidance that basically boils down to, “it’s an individual’s choice with the guidance of their healthcare provider.”

I was livid about the swirl because I am an immunocompromised person while my partner is not, and the initial guidance implied he would not have access to the vaccine, despite living with me.

I want everyone who can get vaccinated to do so, and so it’s important to me to stop the perception that anyone is restricted from accessing it.

I’d recommend reading the book Influence by Robert Cialdini. It talks about six mechanisms that are most effective in making people do things, one of which is reciprocity. Getting something from someone makes us significantly more likely to do something for them.

You might believe you’re above these mechanisms of influence, and you may truly be mindful enough to avoid a lot of them, but these things work on our psyche at a deep level and it’s unlikely you’re immune to them.

All of this to say that if you’re ever in a place to accept money or things from people you disagree with or don’t like, think reeeally hard about whether you’d be willing to eventually compromise on your values for that freebie. Because you might eventually find yourself doing that unconsciously.

That’s how I read it. Sure seems like NYT wouldn’t want to put reporters at risk of criminal charges just for documenting what they see but here we apparently are.

Also hate crime? Against whom, exactly?! Oh right, corporations are people and basically the most protected class (behind, maybe, billionaires).

I think everyone here understands that. The person you were responding to used air quotes implying that’s what the right will view it as.