To me it's pretty clear that the article is aimed at those whose vaccination status is a "choice" and/or "preference". The article uses those words repeated;y.

Everyone understands immunosuppression, but that's estimated at roughly 2.5% of the US population.

And I totallly agree that we need better education and support for people who "would" get vaccinated if not prevented from doing so by factors like transportation or time away from work.

(Although it doesn't help when certain people suggest that the people who might be able to help in that regard be shot should they attempt to do so...)

But again. It's pretty clear that the disadvantaged people for whom you're concerned are not the ones at whom the article is targeted.

Roughly half the country is vaccinated, if half is as you describe, than half is not, and if those people were in fact vacinated we'd have been at 75% and probably not in this mess.... again.

So, yeah. I think the anger is warranted.