Here's the letter. I don't think I agree. I'd argue there's much less ambiguous language they could have used then.
As you are aware, the supply of JYNNEOS available for distribution through the end of this year is
estimated to only be sufficient to immunize half of the individuals at highest risk for monkeypox. In the
absence of an adequate supply, we have evaluated the use of alternative vaccines and potential ways to
maximize the number of individuals immunized with the available vaccine supply. Use of alternative
vaccines was determined to be either impractical or inadvisable at this time.
More specifically, ACAM2000 may not be appropriate now for a potentially immunocompromised
population. The local and systemic toxicities of this vaccine may not be considered to be acceptable for
the prevention of monkeypox. Consideration was also given to delaying second vaccine doses by 3 to 6
months. However, following careful review of the available animal data with JYNNEOS, and
acknowledging the absence of data applicable to this situation, this option was determined to be
inadvisable, particularly because it might both be insufficiently protective while at the same time providing
individuals with a false sense of reassurance that they were protected against monkeypox when the actual
level of protection would be unknown and quite possibly inadequate.
As they did later on when speaking of doses of JYNNEOS.
Yes, this dose is appropriate for individuals who are taking PrEP or PEP. The Fact Sheet for Healthcare
Providers Administering Vaccine notes that Immunocompromised persons, including those receiving
immunosuppressive therapy, may have a diminished immune response to JYNNEOS.
That, and well, we are all pretty much immunocompromised at this point. Turns out multiple infections of a virus that attacks endothelial cells isn't a good idea.
the supply of JYNNEOS available for distribution through the end of this year is estimated to only be sufficient to immunize half of the individuals at highest risk for monkeypox
.
More specifically, ACAM2000 may not be appropriate now for a potentially immunocompromised population.
"Population" just means "group of people with this particularity" in epidemiology, not "the american population." Nothing in the text you shared suggests america is immunocompromised
Regardless of what the letter says, it's a moot point. A year and a half later the general pop of the US is largely immunocompromised. Unless you're living under a rock, it's pretty obvious that we are living through a mass disabling event and humanity is on the path of mass immune dysregulation
Here's the letter. I don't think I agree. I'd argue there's much less ambiguous language they could have used then.
As they did later on when speaking of doses of JYNNEOS.
That, and well, we are all pretty much immunocompromised at this point. Turns out multiple infections of a virus that attacks endothelial cells isn't a good idea.
I agree with teapot.
.
"Population" just means "group of people with this particularity" in epidemiology, not "the american population." Nothing in the text you shared suggests america is immunocompromised
Regardless of what the letter says, it's a moot point. A year and a half later the general pop of the US is largely immunocompromised. Unless you're living under a rock, it's pretty obvious that we are living through a mass disabling event and humanity is on the path of mass immune dysregulation