This story (different source) was posted already (<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42020398">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42020398</a>).<p>I didn't read it before, but now I have and it's interesting.<p>Quoting their medical director:<p>> "Our request of the board is that we would be able to carry and offer those
> (vaccines), recognizing that we always have these discussions of risks and
> benefits," Dr. Perry Jansen said at the meeting. "This is not a blind,
> everybody-gets-a-shot approach. This is a thoughtful approach."<p>On the face of it, that argument makes the about restriction nonsensical.<p>Yet it is not correct in the way that one would want it to be understood — the 'discussions' have been between PH and government agencies. Even now, only the boldest doctor would feel safe to have a wide-ranging conversation about COVID. The 'safe and effective' line is truly the safest line for a doctor concerned to continue their career.<p>Their board director is reported as having said:<p>> [...] the board had overstepped the relationship between patients and
> their doctors [...].<p>The irony is of course that (for COVID shots at least), there never was any relationship between patients and their doctors.<p>In their arguments, both Dr. Perry and Dir. Aberasturi are both fundamentally misunderstanding what patient-centred care looks like, which frankly says lot.<p>The consequence is that COVID shots are effectively band in these counties, which is not so smart. But as a kick towards a 'reset', hopefully ending with doctors interacting more directly with patients would be no bad outcome in my view.