Policy: What's the Opposite of Patronizing?

Yesterday, I learned that the Trump FDA has decided to restrict access to the annual Covid vaccine to adults over 65 and members of certain high-risk groups.

Most striking was the following aspect of the rationale put forward, which sounded vaguely familiar to me:

In the commentary, [Martin] Markary [sic] and [Vinay] Prasad puzzlingly argue that the previous universal access to COVID-19 vaccines was patronizing to Americans. They describe the country's approach to COVID boosters as a "one-size-fits-all" and write that "the US policy has sometimes been justified by arguing that the American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations. We reject this view." [bold added]

Yes. Basing a policy on the notion that adults can't make their own risk assessments is patronizing. Indeed, it is infantilizing -- just like the whole idea the we need an agency like the FDA to protect us from medications we might decide to take.

I'm on board for a smaller nanny state, but it should be obvious that taking something off the shelf like this isn't the way get there.

I went long enough without catching Covid that I wondered if I could be immune to it, but finally came down with it two summers ago during a trip to Britain.

It was like a mild flu. I am not old enough or at-risk enough (that I know of) for Makary and Prasad's tastes. Nevertheless, after being ill with Covid, I decided I'd get the jab every year when I went in for my flu shot.

Why catch this crud at all if I can avoid it?

If a medical authority warns that there is some risk involved in taking this vaccine for my own convenience, I would weigh that risk and change my practice if necessary -- if only the nanny state would let me do so.

The current Trumpist version of the GOP, obsessed as it is with doing what looks like the opposite of what "the libs" do, has made this exact error before: Florida's Governor, Ron DeSantis did it in Florida when his reaction to government-imposed vaccine mandates (improper, save for government employees) was to prohibit private businesses from insisting that their employees or customers be vaccinated (proper as both freedom of association and part of property rights).

Only in superficial detail is the government recommending that everyone get a shot the opposite of prohibiting almost everyone from getting it; or forcing everyone to get vaccinated the opposite of prohibiting business owners from dealing only with people who choose to get vaccinated. On a fundamental level, these are the same: The government is to some degree coercing a preferred course of action.

The actual opposite would be for the FDA to leave the market for this shot alone, and take other steps towards dismantling itself while private entities assume such roles as testing medications and publishing recommended vaccination schedules.

-- CAV