|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
Vaccine hesitancy refers to a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The term covers outright refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others. Among the hesitant are groups known as "anti-vaxxers" or "anti vax", who are generally against vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy - Wikipedia
A vaccine breakthrough case is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals who are fully vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). CDC now registers such cases only if they required hospitalization. Here are the data from the beginning of July COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigations and Reporting - CDC
As of July 12, 2021, more than 159 million people in the United States had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
During the same time, CDC received reports from 48 U.S. states and territories of 5,492 patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died.
Total number of vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC Hospitalized or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases reported to CDC 5,492 Female 2,680 (49%) People aged ≥65 years 4,109 (75%) Asymptomatic infections 1,107 (20%) Hospitalizations* 5,189 (94%) Deaths† 1,063 (19%)
While that suggests such cases are rare, the agency acknowledged that "the number of reported COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases is likely a substantial undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections". And it is infected individual who spread the infection burying promoted by Fauci and other high level medical bureaucrats idea of achieving herd immunity. After emergence of Delta variant it is clear that the idea of achieving "herd immunity" via vaccination was most probably a fiasco and Fauci needs to be held accountable (as other high level medical bureaucrats who promoted the same idea) Now they changed the narrative from "vaccination totally preventing infections" to "vaccine preventing hospitalizations and death", but this does not save them from moral and intellectual bankruptcy. According to CDC data, over 1K fully vaccinated people died from COVID-19.
Of course, risks are different deleting on density of population. And vaccines have their uses (especially in large densely populated cities like NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc) for personnel closely working/interacting daily (for example in mass transit) with random people and this exposed to the virus more then other categories of population. But that does not mean that the idea of total vaccination of population of the country has merits. Especially questionable is the idea of vaccination of children.
With Pfizer just announcing the need of a third shot within 6 months of 1st shot this announcement alone should be a red flag. With proper testing a company should know the duration of effectiveness before they inject vaccine into unsuspecting people. the question arise what else will surface in weeks and months after the start of the campaign of mass vaccination, especially taking into account mass use of mRNA based Pfizer vaccine. They were no clinically test mRNA vaccine before and generally any vaccine against coronavirus. So this is an experimental drug that's injected in people in large scale. You instantly feel that the "known unknowns" and "unknown unknown" here to quote former Defense Secretary under Bush II Donald Rumsfeld (who actually died in June 2021 aged 88). 'Known unknowns'- Donald Rumsfeld's most famous — and infamous — quotes
"As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know," Rumsfeld said in 2002, suggesting Iraq could have been giving terrorists weapons of mass destruction despite the fact there wasn't much evidence of it.
"Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist," he said in 2002, regarding the same topic.
Another question is "Why we should trust Pfizer testing?" The fact that Pfizer is a criminal Big Pharma monster who will do anything for profit does not need to be proved. Google search for "Pfizer criminal charges" and you will find some really interesting information. For example Pfizer- Corporate Rap Sheet - Corporate Research Project. In one case it was guilty for illegal experimentation on children in Africa killing at least 11 of them Criminal Charges Against Pfizer for Illegal Human Experimentation in Africa - Rasta Livewire. As Health Policy newsletter stated in 2020 (Tough on Crime- Pfizer and the CIHR - PubMed)
"Pfizer has been a "habitual offender," persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards."
For example:
...Pfizer agreed to pay $430 Million in 2004 to settle criminal charges that it had bribed doctors to prescribe its epilepsy drug Neurontin for indications for which it was not approved. Pfizer Caught Engaging In Illegal Marketing Practices & Assessed Billions In Criminal Convictions - SGT Report
Evans goes on to explain how in 2010 Pfizer was ordered to pay $142 million US in damages for fraudulently marketing an anti-seizure drug called gabapentin, which was marketed under the name Neurontin. Pfizer was caught “fraudulently” marketing the drug “and promoted it for unapproved use.” It was discovered that the drug was promoted by the drug company as a treatment for pain, migraines and bipolar disorder, even though it wasn’t effective in treating these conditions and was actually toxic.
The trials forced the company to release all of its studies on the drug, including the ones it kept hidden. A new analysis of those unpublished trials by the Therapeutics Initiative suggests that gabapentin works for one out of every six or eight people who use it, at best. The review also concluded that one in eight people had an adverse reaction to the drug.
It’s quite obvious why the company never wants to go to trial and always ends up paying large sums to settle. Apart from bribing and paying physicians and other medical professionals, the paper points out that they dished out millions of dollars to more than 200 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials. A great quote comes to mind here from Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of medicine and former Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal.
The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid gents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”(source)
... Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing.
American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together "Pfizer") have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called "off-label" uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.
In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.
As part of the settlement, Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.
Israel statistics does not favor vaccination with Pfizer vaccine (the predominate type of vaccine used in this country):
Pfizer Sells -Booster- Jabs To Israel As COVID Cases Rebound - ZeroHedge
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Israel Vaccination Statistics from The Lancet
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Take away....
The Vaccine” failed to achieve a 1% increase in the survival rate between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.6,400 total deaths since day 1 of Covid19
36 deaths under the age of 45
1,500 deaths were under the age of 70
- 76.56% of Covid19 deaths in Israel were over the age of 70
- 18% of deaths were OVER 90 years old!
1,127,965 people age 65+
1,015,620 were fully vaccinated
112,345 were not vaccinated138 “vaccinated” deaths = 99.99% survival rate
715 “un-vaccinated” deaths = 99.36% survival rate>> 0.63% greater survival rate in the vaccinated group.
1,764,098 people age 45 to 64
1,408,492 were fully vaccinated
355,606 were not vaccinated14 “vaccinated” deaths = 99.99% survival rate
125 “un-vaccinated” deaths = 99.97% survival rate>> 0.02% greater survival rate in the vaccinated group.
3,646,848 people age 16 to 44
2,290,820 were fully vaccinated
1,356,028 were not vaccinated0 “vaccinated” deaths = 100% survival rate
36 “un-vaccinated” deaths = 99.997% survival rate>> 0.003% greater survival rate in the vaccinated group.
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Aug 12, 2021 | www.msn.com
I'm not vaccinated against COVID-19. The decision wasn't a drastic one; I thought of it as a personal decision that every person should make in consultation with a trusted health professional, which is what I did. It didn't occur to me that this decision merited justification to others. But that was before the current climate of social and political pressure, before the Delta surge, and before unvaccinated people like me started getting blamed for vaccine-resistant variants. Now I feel that explaining my decision has become necessary.
In explaining my decision, my hope is not to convince people to change their minds about whether to vaccinate but rather to help others understand why some may choose differently.Let me start by saying that I agree that the COVID-19 vaccine is an important tool in reducing the severity of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths due to COVID-19. In general, I am supportive of the availability and accessibility of safe, potentially life saving medications and preventative measures for anyone at risk of any serious illness. The more options when it comes to preventing and treating COVID-19, the better! But this does not mean that all options should necessarily be utilized by all people en masse, and this is how I arrived at my current decision to opt out of the vaccine.
The reported adverse events and risks of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines are rare, and most people don't seem to have any serious adverse reactions. But though rare, the risks are still real . Cardiac issues, blood clotting, stroke, and autoimmune disorders are all acknowledged adverse events that can occur as a result of the COVID-19 vaccine.
A colleague of my parents reportedly died from complications of the Moderna vaccine, a friend suffered from deep vein thrombosis, and a teenage nephew of another friend now has chronic cardiac issues. These are three examples from my immediate network of family and friends, and I know many others with their own stories. And while it's true that these are anecdotes and do not represent the majority, they are powerful nonetheless.
Now, we know that age, weight, and other comorbidities play a role in how COVID-19 impacts the individual, and for someone at serious risk from COVID-19, these rare risks are probably worth it. But what about for someone who is not at risk from COVID-19? The risk/benefit analysis for otherwise healthy, young individuals may be a different calculus.
Public health messaging has consistently portrayed the vaccines are safe and effective, and therefore everyone eligible should get vaccinated. But companies like Moderna and Pfizer are protected from lawsuits related to their COVID-19 vaccines until 2024.
It's just one of the many facets of the inconsistent public health messaging and moving of goalposts when it comes to the vaccine and herd immunity, which makes it hard to trust such guidance. A cocktail of mixed messages on who is at risk from COVID-19 and dubious masking guidance coupled with a lack of clear messaging on what exactly is the goal and rationale of these measures and policies adds to the skepticism many of us feel. The focus has now shifted from deaths and hospitalizations due to COVID-19 to a new hyper-focus on breakthrough cases, though the majority of them are benign.
But even while the experts push the vaccine, they have undermined it by arguing that vaccinated individuals spread the virus as effectively as unvaccinated individuals. It begs the question: If everyone now has to wear a mask because everyone is now back to being suspected asymptomatic carriers, why get the vaccine at all?
The personal risk/benefit analysis still plays a role and preventing serious illness is definitely important, but getting the vaccine to protect others (and calling unvaccinated adults selfish) no longer seems to be relevant if the vaccinated can spread it, too. In fact, some experts have advised only individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19 to get vaccinated, in order to prevent the evolution of even more vaccine resistant variants.
Along with the mixed messages is the obvious role that politics has played in COVID-19 policy. There was Kamala Harris saying she wouldn't trust a vaccine produced by President Trump -- then doing an about face. There was the way that Democratic politicians and even the CDC itself justifying Black Lives Matter protests during lockdown while criticizing Trump rallies as "super spreader" events. Most recently former President Obama hosted a huge, maskless birthday party in the midst of renewed mask mandates and concern over the spread of infection.
The inconsistent policies and public responses, the repeated "do as I say, not as I do" from those pushing restrictions, has led many like me to skepticism of any government issued guidance. And adding bribes, mandates, and censorship to the mix has only served to heighten that sense of mistrust. Perhaps most unnerving has been seeing experts who question and warn about adverse reactions to the vaccine being censored or blacklisted.
Why censor the adverse effects? Why not publicize them so we can make informed decisions?
Still, I didn't arrive at my decision on my own. I am lucky to have a relationship with a health professional who I feel comfortable asking questions without fear of judgment. I trust her guidance, having built a history with her and knowing that she has my best interests in mind. In fact, had she unequivocally recommended the vaccine specifically for me to the best of her clinical judgment, I would have gotten vaccinated that day.
Unequivocal recommendation, however, was not the message I received in my case as a young, otherwise healthy individual, who was also pregnant.
Another doctor I consulted with also generally recommends vaccination, but added that in my case, the concerns are understandable and waiting made sense. He connected me with an obstetrics clinic that has experience treating COVID-19 in pregnancy in the event I should require it, since the location where I normally receive medical care does not offer treatment unless hospitalization is required.
The bottom line for me, and perhaps others who are similarly ambivalent about the COVID-19 vaccine, is that trustworthy information and guidance is key. And those of us opting out of the vaccine are not doing so out of ignorance or selfishness. We have simply been paying attention to the mixed messages, the hypocrisy, the changing standards, and the censoring of counter-evidence. And we have not been convinced that this is something we need to do, for our own good or that of our communities or country.
The COVID-19 vaccine remains one effective tool among many in the fight against COVID-19. Clear, transparent information about what the vaccine does, what its risks and limitations are, and what other options exist especially for prevention and early outpatient treatment are what is needed to restore trust.
The mandates, bribes, social pressure, censorship, and ever changing policies that don't present clear scientific rationale need to stop. But at least the doctor/patient relationship should be prioritized in the meantime, so that we as individuals can make informed decisions for ourselves, enabling us all to emerge sooner rather than later from this seemingly never ending health crisis.
Suri Kinzbrunner previously worked as a teacher and preschool director and is currently homeschooling her 7 children. She studied cognitive neuroscience as an undergraduate at the George Washington University in Washington D.C. and worked briefly in this field before becoming a parent. She is especially passionate about issues related to parenting and education.
The views in this article are the writer's own.
|
|
|
Aug 01, 2021 | www.msn.com
Something very strange has been happening in Missouri: A hospital in the state, Ozarks Healthcare, had to create a "private setting" for patients afraid of being seen getting vaccinated against COVID-19. In a video produced by the hospital, the physician Priscilla Frase says, "Several people come in to get vaccinated who have tried to sort of disguise their appearance and even went so far as to say, 'Please, please, please don't let anybody know that I got this vaccine.'" Although they want to protect themselves from the coronavirus and its variants, these patients are desperate to ensure that their vaccine-skeptical friends and family never find out what they have done.
The Atlantic Missouri is suffering one of the worst COVID-19 surges in the country. Some hospitals are rapidly running out of ICU beds. To Americans who rushed to get vaccinated at the earliest opportunity, some Missourians' desire for secrecy is difficult to understand. It's also difficult to square with the common narrative that vaccine refusal, at least in conservative areas of the country, is driven by a lack of respect or empathy from liberals along the coasts. "Proponents of the vaccine are unwilling or unable to understand the thinking of vaccine skeptics -- or even admit that skeptics may be thinking at all," lamented a recent article in the conservative National Review.
Writers across the political spectrum have urged deference and sympathy toward holdouts' concerns about vaccine side effects and the botched CDC messaging about masking and airborne transmission early in the pandemic. But these takes can't explain why holdouts who receive respect, empathy, and information directly from reliable sources remain unmoved -- or why some people are afraid to tell their loved ones about being vaccinated.
What is going on here? Sociology suggests that pundits and policy makers have been looking at vaccine refusal all wrong: It's not an individual problem, but a social one. That's why individual information outreach and individual incentives -- such as Ohio's Vax-a-Million program, intended to increase vaccine uptake with cash prizes and college scholarships -- haven't worked. Pandemics, by definition, are collective problems. They propagate and kill because people live in communities. As a result, addressing pandemics requires understanding interpersonal dynamics -- not just what promotes trust among people, but which behaviors convey status or lead to ostracism.
Shifting from an individual to a relational perspective helps us understand why people are seeking vaccination in disguise. They want to save face within the very specific set of social ties that sociologists call "reference groups" -- the neighborhoods, churches, workplaces, and friendship networks that help people obtain the income, information, companionship, mutual aid, and other resources they need to live. The price of access to those resources is conformity to group norms. That's why nobody strives for the good opinion of everyone; most people primarily seek the approval of people in their own reference groups.
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2021 | www.msn.com
Out of unvaccinated Americans surveyed in a poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 64 percent believe the vaccines are ineffective against variants.
U.S. health officials say the Delta variant has caused 83 percent of new cases in the country, the AP reported. In comparison to those not confident in the vaccine's protection, 86 percent of vaccinated Americans have some belief in the vaccine's effectiveness in the face of variants. Out of the unvaccinated Americans surveyed in the poll, 35 percent said they will probably not get the shots while 45 percent were sure that they never will.
"We always knew some proportion of the population would be difficult to persuade no matter what the data showed, (and) a lot of people are beyond persuasion," said infectious disease specialist Dr. Amesh Adalja who works at Johns Hopkins University.
Only 3 percent said they definitely plan to get vaccinated and 16 percent said they probably will get their doses.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2021 | www.msn.com
During a WABC 770 AM radio interview with New York businessman John Catsimatidis, Paul, a trained ophthalmologist, said that he made his decision based on the fact that he already contracted COVID-19 in March 2020.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that individuals who previously had COVID-19 should still get vaccinated because there is no timetable for natural immunity.
Paul said that until he feels assured that immunity through vaccination is more effective than natural immunity, he will skip taking any shots.
"Until they show me evidence that people who have already had the infection are dying in large numbers, or being hospitalized or getting very sick, I just made my own personal decision that I'm not getting vaccinated because I've already had the disease and I have natural immunity," Paul emphasized.
In the interview, Paul said that people who had contracted COVID-19 and recovered did not need to wear masks.
"We have 11 million people in our country who've already had COVID," he said on Fox News at the time. "We should tell them to celebrate. We should tell them to throw away their masks, go to restaurants, live again, because these people are now immune."
Paul told WABC 770 that taking the COVID-19 vaccine is a personal decision and should not be compulsory.
"In a free country you would think people would honor the idea that each individual would get to make the medical decision, that it wouldn't be a big brother coming to tell me what I have to do," he said. "Are they also going to tell me I can't have a cheeseburger for lunch? Are they going to tell me that I have to eat carrots only and cut my calories?"
He added: "All that would probably be good for me, but I don't think big brother ought to tell me to do it."
According to the CDC , 61.1 percent of adults have received at least one vaccination shot and 49.2 percent of the adult population is now fully vaccinated.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2021 | www.msn.com
Klobuchar's bill would carve out an exception to Section 230, the 1996 law that protects internet platforms from liability for content that users post, for health misinformation proliferating during public health emergencies -- like the misinformation that has been running rampant about vaccines for Covid-19.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=3533
"We need a long term solution" that goes beyond removing accounts spreading falsehoods about the crisis, Klobuchar said. "This legislation will hold online platforms accountable."
Why it matters: Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been pushing to amend or revoke the Section 230 statute -- often for opposite reasons . Many congressional Democrats argue that social media platforms have leaned on Section 230 legal protections to flout responsibility for false and potentially dangerous content on their sites, like the medical misinformation that has undermined the uptake of Covid-19 vaccines.
The Biden administration is struggling to fight vaccination misinformation , a problem that has contributed to vaccine hesitancy and a plateau in inoculation rates at a time when the Delta variant is sweeping the country and the U.S. appears to be backsliding on recovery.
Klobuchar's Health Misinformation Act of 2021, co-sponsored by Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), is one attempt to address that, and it would extend beyond just the current crisis. Under the measure, tech platforms would be on the hook for propagating false or misleading health content during any public health emergency that has been declared as such by the secretary of Health and Human Services. The secretary, with input from experts and the leaders of other federal agencies, would be tasked with defining what qualifies as health misinformation.
What's missing: Republican support. Political polarization around vaccinations is intensifying as some Republican lawmakers and conservative activists attack the vaccines and the administration's strategy for deploying it. In this climate, without Republican buy-in, Klobuchar's bill faces an uphill battle.
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2021 | www.msn.com
Unvaccinated Americans widely believe that the COVID-19 vaccine is riskier than the novel coronavirus itself, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.
How do people feel about the COVID-19 vaccine?
- The finding comes as the United States has hit a plateau for COVID-19 vaccinations, even as the more transmissible delta variant of the virus continues to circulate through the country.
- Per Yahoo News , the poll result "contradicts all available science and data and underscores the challenges that the United States will continue to face as it struggles to stop a growing ' pandemic of the unvaccinated' driven by the hyper-contagious delta variant."
According to Yahoo News , the poll found 29% of unvaccinated Americans believe the virus poses a greater risk than the vaccine. However, 37% feel the vaccine is riskier, while 34% remain unsure.
Why don't people want to get the vaccination?
- In total, 93% of unvaccinated people surveyed in the Yahoo News poll said they would either never get the vaccine or they will wait to see what happens to others before they do.
The Yahoo News poll also looked into why people aren't getting vaccinated. It found several reasons among the survey participants, including:
- There isn't easy access to a vaccination site (4%).
- People can't get time off from work (3%).
- Some already had COVID-19 (9%).
- People aren't worried about getting COVID-19 (12%).
- Others don't trust the COVID-19 vaccine (45%).
Unvaccinated Americans widely believe that the COVID-19 vaccine is riskier than the novel coronavirus itself, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.How do people feel about the COVID-19 vaccine?
- The finding comes as the United States has hit a plateau for COVID-19 vaccinations, even as the more transmissible delta variant of the virus continues to circulate through the country.
- Per Yahoo News , the poll result "contradicts all available science and data and underscores the challenges that the United States will continue to face as it struggles to stop a growing ' pandemic of the unvaccinated' driven by the hyper-contagious delta variant."
According to Yahoo News , the poll found 29% of unvaccinated Americans believe the virus poses a greater risk than the vaccine. However, 37% feel the vaccine is riskier, while 34% remain unsure.
Why don't people want to get the vaccination?
- In total, 93% of unvaccinated people surveyed in the Yahoo News poll said they would either never get the vaccine or they will wait to see what happens to others before they do.
The Yahoo News poll also looked into why people aren't getting vaccinated. It found several reasons among the survey participants, including:
- There isn't easy access to a vaccination site (4%).
- People can't get time off from work (3%).
- Some already had COVID-19 (9%).
- People aren't worried about getting COVID-19 (12%).
- Others don't trust the COVID-19 vaccine (45%).
... "Like everything in life, this is an ongoing risk assessment," Dr. Inci Yildirim , a Yale Medicine pediatric infectious diseases specialist and a vaccinologist, told Yale Medicine.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2021 | www.msn.com
Originally from: Guess who undermined public confidence in vaccines- by Andrew C. McCarthy
Harris had stated that any such effort pushed by then-President Trump was untrustworthy . This was consistent with the Biden campaign theme that the Trump administration had been incompetent in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic - a position that morphed, when President Biden took office, into a claim that the Trump team hadn't even had a workable plan on vaccine distribution (a claim so patently false that even Anthony Fauci, director of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, denied it).
The vice presidential candidates' debate was Harris's highest-profile appearance of the campaign. She took the opportunity to explain that she would not get a vaccine pushed by Trump. That is what got the habitually placid Pence's dander up. He turned to Harris and memorably admonished , "Stop playing politics with people's lives."
This is a vignette worth keeping in the front of our minds as Biden cynically exploits his bully pulpit against Facebook. The president and his administration are endeavoring to shift blame to the social media giant for the predictable effects of their own demagoguery.
The propagandist-in-chief inveighed against Facebook on Friday for " killing people " by spreading misinformation about the efficacy and potentially damaging side effects of the vaccines. The claim is nearly as shameful as Biden's recent portrayal of state election-procedure reforms (e.g., curbs on drive-thru voting) as the reestablishment of Jim Crow and a threat to democracy on a par with "the Civil War."
Biden's attack on Facebook is reprehensible. Though he won't be called on it by the Democratic media complex, these are outrageous lies comparable to what the president accuses his predecessor of routinely spewing.
The administration is upset because, after his campaign discredited the vaccine effort, Biden over-promised what he could deliver once he took charge of it. He claimed that by Independence Day 70 percent of adult Americans would have received at least one dose of a vaccine. In fact, the Mayo Clinic put the July 4 count at about 55 percent. (It has inched up to 56 percent in the two weeks since, and just under half the eligible population has been fully vaccinated.)
Patently, this is not Facebook's fault. Facebook is a social media platform with billions of users . As a matter of human inevitability, there will be some misinformation on it. That is the nature of speech in a large, pluralistic, free society. It is to be expected of a free-communications medium that is nudged by law to be minimalist in regulating the exchange of information and to avoid content discrimination.
Even so, Facebook has been tireless in informing users about where and when vaccines are available, and in disseminating exhortations that Americans avail themselves of them. It also contends that 85 percent of U.S. Facebook users have been or want to be vaccinated.
There is abundant reason to be skeptical about that claim - really, how would Facebook know? At the same time, it would not be surprising at all if Facebook, as a user community, does in fact have a higher vaccination rate than the nation as a whole on Biden's watch. After all, none of Facebook's principals cavalierly undermined the government's vaccine effort for what they perceived to be a fleeting political advantage. It was Biden officials who did that.
... ... ...
Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute , a contributing editor at National Review and a Fox News contributor. His latest book is " Ball of Collusion ." Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy .
KRISTA B 5h
No, it's people wising up.
You can still get Covid-flu with the vaccine.
You can still spread the Covid-flu with the vaccine.
You still have to wear a mask if you have the vaccine.
There have been many documented injuries after accepting the vaccine.
There is a 99% chance you'll recover if you're not obese, and not diabetic.So, what's the advantage to an unproven, unguaranteed non-vaccine? None. So.... Why?
It's not Facebook, or Biden. It's people, finally wising up.
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2021 | www.msn.com
"Masks have value, unquestionably. But masks are not going at the root of the problem – vaccination is. So, we do not intend a mask mandate. We do intend to double down on vaccinations. We'll be speaking about it through the week and beyond, new approaches to vaccination. This is where we make the difference," de Blasio said.
So far, the mayor says 4.8 million New Yorkers have received at least one dose of the vaccine. The mayor says 4.5 million are full vaccinated.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2021 | www.forbes.com
... ... ..."I wouldn't be declaring mission accomplished. I think this is going to be a long fight," Gottlieb said Sunday. "You're seeing a decoupling between cases, hospitalizations and deaths because there's so much immunity in the population" not just through vaccination" but also through prior infection... But this is likely to become an endemic virus. We're going to have to deal with it. "
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2021 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Drugmakers' Spending on Stock, Dividends and Executive Pay Exceeds Research, Democrats Say Posted on July 11, 2021 by Jerri-Lynn Scofield
By Michael McAuliff. Originally published at Kaiser Health News .
The largest drug companies are far more interested in enriching themselves and investors than in developing new drugs, according to a House committee report released Thursday that argues the industry can afford to charge Medicare less for prescriptions.
The report by the House Oversight and Reform Committee says that contrary to pharmaceutical industry arguments that large profits fund extensive research and innovation, the major drug companies plow more of their billions in earnings back into their own stocks, dividends and executive compensation.
And they can do it largely because Congress has imposed few restrictions on their pricing in the United States" including in the Medicare program, which is not permitted to negotiate drug prices, House Democrats say.
"What we have found is shocking," said Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.). "Drug companies are actively and intentionally targeting the United States for price increases, often while cutting prices in the rest of the world."
According to the data crunched by the committee, the 14 largest drug manufacturers paid themselves and investors $578 billion from 2016 to 2020 through dividends and stock buybacks, while investing $56 billion less" $522 billion" on research and development.
On top of that, the report says, some of that R&D money is spent researching ways to suppress competition, such as by filing hundreds of new, minor patents on older drugs that make it harder to produce generics.
"Despite Big Pharma's lip service about innovation, many drug companies are not actually spending significant portions of their research-and-development budget to discover innovative new treatments," Maloney told reporters in a conference call. "Instead, these companies are spending their research-and-development dollars on finding ways to game the system."
"How can Pharma say with a straight face "¦ that lower drug prices for Americans will have to come at the expense of research and development?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked on the call.
The release of the report during a congressional recess seemed aimed at least partly at boosting support for the House Democrats' Lower Drug Costs Now Act , which, among other things, would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, let Americans with private insurance pay those same rates and limit U.S. prices to an average price other countries pay.
Pelosi said she would like to see the measure, numbered H.R. 3, included in a massive bill that Democrats are preparing under what is known as the budget reconciliation process. That process allows taxing and spending bills to be packaged together and get though the Senate on a simple majority vote exempt from a filibuster. Democrats are expected to use the process for a number of key initiatives, including possible changes in Medicare eligibility and benefits, outlined by President Joe Biden and congressional leaders and panned by Republicans.
"With the savings on the lower drug prices, we can invest in transformational improvements in American health care," Pelosi said. "We have an historic opportunity to do so as we craft the reconciliation bill. We'll see how we proceed there."
Some more moderate Democrats have raised concerns about H.R. 3, in part echoing industry assertions that curbing drugmakers' revenues might cut their ability to innovate. Pelosi can afford to have only a handful of Democrats defect in the House, and all 50 Democrats in the Senate are needed to pass a reconciliation measure.
Among the starker examples the report highlights, the company Novo Nordisk spent twice as much on executive pay and buying back its own stock as on R&D over the five years.
The drugmaker Amgen especially cashed in on the 2017 tax cuts pushed through a Republican Congress, spending five times as much on buybacks as on research, the report says.
According to the report, if the 14 large companies maintain roughly their current practices, they will pay themselves and investors $1.15 trillion over the next decade, which the committee notes is double the estimated cost of H.R. 3.
The report also singles out internal documents from the pharmaceutical giant AbbVie as an illustration of "research and development" being aimed at suppressing cheaper competition, in this case by seeking new minor patent enhancements on the rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, which costs $77,000 a year.
"An internal presentation emphasized that one objective of the "˜enhancement' strategy was to "˜raise barriers to competitor ability to replicate,'" the report says, likely delaying lower-priced biosimilar drugs at least until 2023. It also notes that the company identified about $5.19 billion in R&D for Humira, about 7.4% of the drug's net U.S. revenue.
In another case, the report highlights an internal presentation from Celgene, which makes the $16,744-a-month cancer drug Revlimid and has since been bought by Bristol Myers Squibb.
The report says Celgene targeted the United States for its profitable price hikes and admitted in a presentation that it was because of the country's "highly favorable environment with free-market pricing."
In some other cases, the combined $3.2 billion that the 14 companies' top management earned over the five years was conditioned on U.S. price hikes.
A spokesperson for Novo Nordisk said its buybacks were entirely justified and included them in what he described as the company's overall long-term investments.
"These investments have led to the discovery of innovative treatments that have made substantial impacts on peoples' lives," said Michael Bachner, director of communications for Novo Nordisk.
"Given the complex challenges in the health care system, we remain committed to developing solutions in cooperation with policymakers and other stakeholders," he said. "We will continue to work towards maintaining a sustainable business that will foster innovation and provide patients with access to needed new therapies."
Frank Benenati, a spokesperson for AbbVie, took issue with the report's emphasis on Humira's R&D costs. He said the report "is misleading in that it focuses on the R&D spend for one drug, not the total R&D spend, which was approximately $50 billion since 2013."
Other companies did not immediately answer requests for comment, but a spokesperson for the industry's lobbying arm, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the release of the report was political and aimed at backing legislation that PhRMA said would harm Medicare.
"While we can't speak to specific examples cited in the report, this partisan exercise is clearly designed to garner support for an extreme bill that will erode Medicare protections and access to treatments for seniors," said PhRMA spokesperson Brian Newell. "Every year, biopharmaceutical research companies invest tens of billions of dollars in the research and development of new cures and treatments, as well as our significant investments in time and resources creating treatments and vaccines to combat the global pandemic."
Despite the report, he said, net prices on drugs are coming down, when rebates to customers are included. He added that the greater problems are with high deductibles charged by insurers and with profits taken by middlemen such as pharmacy benefit managers.
"We are committed to working with policymakers on commonsense, bipartisan solutions that address the real challenges patients face," Newell said. "Working together we can make sure medicines are affordable and accessible for everyone."
timbers , July 11, 2021 at 7:25 am
It's good Nancy Pelosi said those really mean things about drug companies on the call and Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney told us she was shocked SHOCKED the committee found that gambling was going on in the casino and that Dems are pushing this NOW when they now know for sure they can't pass it because President Machin will veto it.
And kudos to article being fair and balanced by quoting the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America without breaking out into hysterical laughter:
"Despite the report, he said, net prices on drugs are coming down, when rebates to customers are included. He added that the greater problems are with high deductibles charged by insurers and with profits taken by middlemen such as pharmacy benefit managers. "
It's all those millionaire pharmacy managers and assorted working class folk that is driving up the cost of drugs.
Nikkikat , July 12, 2021 at 2:54 pm
I also chuckled at Maloney being SHOCKED, shocked I tell you!
We all known we were fronting the money for R and D and paying the highest prices in the world. We also know that Pelosi and the rest are not going to do anything about it.jo6pac , July 11, 2021 at 8:11 am
Of course they do they're not the late Dr. Silk.
Arizona Slim , July 11, 2021 at 8:21 am
Dr. Salk was truly one-of-a-kind.
When I was a younger Slim and in the employ of the University of Pittsburgh, I noticed the revered status of Salk Hall. It was considered to be a very special part of the Pitt campus.
On another note, this part of the post really bopped me over the head:
"[W]ould allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices."
Sounds good, but just how hard of a bargain is Medicare going to drive? IMHO, the harder the better, but won't those Medicare negotiators eventually want to take jobs in the pharmaceutical industrial complex?
jo6pac , July 11, 2021 at 9:15 am
Thanks for the correct spelling and story
Arizona Slim , July 11, 2021 at 10:03 am
You're welcome!
On a somewhat related note, I also worked on the University of Arizona campus. While there, I knew the man who shot that famous photo of the little girl taking the oral vaccine with numerous adults looking on. Photographer was George Kew, and darn if I can find that photo online.
The Rev Kev , July 11, 2021 at 10:11 am
Not this one by any chance, Slim? You have to click the one under "˜Images'-
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jonas-Salk/images-videos
Arizona Slim , July 11, 2021 at 1:28 pm
No. This was the oral vaccine that was developed by Dr. Sabin. ISTR George telling me that his photo was featured in Life magazine.
Mikel , July 11, 2021 at 8:17 am
"How can Pharma say with a straight face "¦ that lower drug prices for Americans will have to come at the expense of research and development?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked on the call.
Because they will cut R&D further to maintain their big pay days and perceived status. Not too subtle. That is what they are saying.
When people show you who they are, believe them.allan , July 11, 2021 at 10:27 am
Throw in the billions that Big Pharma spends on marketing prescription drugs directly to consumers,
legal only in the US and New Zealand (say it ain't so, Jacinda)
and which can lead to worse health outcomes, and you have a real problem:"¦ For health care that is mediated by a clinician's order or prescription,
DTC [Direct To Consumer] advertising by manufacturers increases the need for clinicians
to help patients understand product claims, medical need, cost, and nonmedical alternatives.Evidence that physicians have been either misled or otherwise persuaded to act based on fraudulent pharmaceutical marketing in recent decades, however, suggests that professionals may need further education or support to serve as the arbiter of deceptive marketing.3 Moreover, the expectation that clinicians will prioritize the patient's well-being in making care recommendations breaks down when the clinician is linked with the manufacturer, as is the case with some advertised products that help patients to find a physician who can prescribe without ever meeting the patient face to face. Scrutiny of such arrangements to ensure they do not undermine the intent of existing licensure and regulatory regimes that govern prescribing seems warranted.
"¦ Patients' trust in physicians puts them in a position to help mitigate the harms of DTC advertising. However, trust in physicians and health care institutions may be at stake if medical marketing by practitioners, health care organizations, and manufacturers of health care products continues to increase unchecked.
Christopher Horne , July 12, 2021 at 2:40 am
Also, the many perks their salespeople use to get doctors to perscribe
the drugs! Conference attendance and travel, meals, vacations and God
knows what else. After all, the bottom line is the companies have to sell
the drugs in order to make the big profits.John Zelnicker , July 11, 2021 at 11:12 am
So, PhRMA says negotiating prices with Medicare will harm the program and "erode Medicare protections and access to treatments for seniors".
Yeah, right! They're going to stop selling drugs that are still insanely profitable if they can't charge even more insanely profitable prices. /s
Christopher Horne , July 12, 2021 at 2:43 am
"¦.And I gots some fine swampland in Florida for sale for you.
Sickening. No doubt the rationale is "˜if I don't do it, someone else will.bill dietrich , July 11, 2021 at 11:15 am
Stock-buy-back operations, were illegal until 1982, when Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman John Shad, a former Wall Street CEO, redefined unlawful "stock manipulation" to exclude stock buybacks. Another joke on us by R Reagan. https://banyanhill.com/buybacks-destroy-corporations/
drumlin woodchuckles , July 11, 2021 at 6:48 pm
If an SEC Chairman can redefine stock buybacks as not unlawful stock manipulation, then another SEC Chairman can un-redefine stock buybacks back to being unlawful stock manipulation.
Perhaps Congress could make accepting an SEC Chair nominee contingent upon that nominee's willingness to un-redefine stock buybacks back to being illegal. Perhaps it the confirmed nominee breaks such a promise, Congress can authorize zero funding for SEC until SEC Chair issues such a ruling.
Hayek's Heelbiter , July 11, 2021 at 11:32 am
And you mustn't forget that a huge amount of the basic research funded by the taxpayers is cherrypicked and then financialized by Big Pharma.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/10/2329
This report shows that NIH funding contributed to published research associated with every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010""2016. Collectively, this research involved >200,000 years of grant funding totaling more than $100 billion. The analysis shows that >90% of this funding represents basic research related to the biological targets for drug action rather than the drugs themselves.
Susan the other , July 11, 2021 at 12:20 pm
Whereas it's a perverse incentive to tax big oil's corporate profits (because they will just invest in capital improvements for a business that is already operating beyond full capacity "" a business that needs to be restricted to contain CO2 emissions as well as conserve oil "" it is a very good idea to tax the crap out of pharma's corporate profits because they haven't been "capitalists" for as long as I can remember. They need to start being actual modern pharmaceutical companies. They should also be deprived of any government help-at-all-whatsoever until they stop profiteering, and if they do not comply then it's time to nationalize them too. Good riddance.
Adam Eran , July 11, 2021 at 12:27 pm
This imbalance between C-suite pay and R&D may be new, but Marcia Angell wrote years ago that big pHRMA paid 55% of its gross for marketing, but only 15% for R&D (in NYRB). Most of that R&D is targeted at extending the patent life of already patented drugs (think: "Time release viagra").
Mariana Mazzucato's TED talk about government-as-innovator notes that 75% of pharmaceutical innovation comes from government-funded research.
bill dietrich , July 11, 2021 at 1:51 pm
Stock-buy-back operations, were illegal until 1982, when Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman John Shad, a former Wall Street CEO, redefined unlawful "stock manipulation" to exclude stock buybacks. Another joke on us by R Reagan. https://banyanhill.com/buybacks-destroy-corporations/
lincoln , July 11, 2021 at 1:53 pm
The Lower Drug Costs Now Act sounds like a very good idea. U.S. consumers have been overcharged for essential medicines for far too long. And drug manufacturers unfortunately play a big part in this. But drug prices are also high because of an extensive chain of rebates (aka kickbacks) between drug manufacturers and insurers. I hope this legislation will address the price manipulating actions of health insurers and Pharmacy Benefit Managers as well.
John Buell , July 11, 2021 at 2:40 pm
I would like any data on spending for marketing. Just from viewing commercial TV I surmise the ad budget is quite large and perhaps even greater than when Dr. Angell wrote
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2021 | www.forbes.com
KEY FACTS
"Given how transmissible this variant is," Gottlieb told CBS News' This Week it's likely about 85% of the U.S. population will end up with some level of Covid-19 immunity.
With about 55% of the population at least partly immune due to vaccination and one-third of Americans having been naturally infected, Gottlieb noted that millions of Americans remain vulnerable and now have a "choice in terms of how [they] acquire immunity."
PROMOTED
Even those immune through natural infection are at heightened risk, Gottlieb said, pointing to data showing immunity among individuals naturally infected with Covid-19""and particularly those who are older""declines after about eight months.
The physician predicted Covid will effectively act as a "second circulating flu this winter," though he said its prominence "could be a little worse." CRUCIAL QUOTE
"I wouldn't be declaring mission accomplished. I think this is going to be a long fight," Gottlieb said Sunday. "You're seeing a decoupling between cases, hospitalizations and deaths because there's so much immunity in the population""not just through vaccination""but also through prior infection... But this is likely to become an endemic virus. We're going to have to deal with it."
|
|
|
Jul 07, 2021 | www.cnn.com
In a brief statement issued on Monday, the government said that as of June 6, the vaccine provided 64% protection against infection. In May -- when the Alpha variant dominated in Israel and the Delta strain had not yet spread widely -- it found that the shot was 95.3% effective against all infections. The government added that the vaccine was now 93% effective in preventing severe disease and hospitalizations, compared to 97% reported in the medical journal The Lancet in May. The statement cited top line figures, but did not release underlying data or other details about its analysis. A team at Hebrew University said in a separate statement that it was too soon to tell how much the Delta variant was affecting vaccine efficacy.In another statement Tuesday, Israel's Ministry of Health released some data about illness caused by Covid-19 and offered an expanded explanation of the vaccine's protectiveness. Despite an apparent decline in the vaccine's ability to prevent all infections during the spread of the Delta variant, the statement emphasized its continuing benefit in preventing severe cases.
Israel has deployed the Pfizer vaccine to everyone over the age of 12, and its early and quick rollout gave scientists one of the first real-world snapshots of its efficacy.
The government said the drop in efficacy is likely due to the spread of the Delta variant in Israel. This more infectious strain of the virus was first identified in India earlier this year and is also known as B.1.617.2.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN more granular data was needed to determine the exact reason for the drop in efficacy in Israel. While "the Israelis know what they're doing," the data is sparse, Fauci said, adding that the circumstances of the reported drop in efficacy are unclear.
Still, Dr. Richard Besser, former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told CNN the data from Israel is worth paying attention to, because Israel started vaccinating before the US and so "if there's going to be a problem, we'll likely see it there before we see it here in the United States." "I take this as actually encouraging information, that these vaccines are still highly effective in terms of preventing hospitalizations, severe illness and death," Besser said.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2021 | www.reuters.com
Fact Check-Claim that vaccinated people are six times more likely to die from the Delta variant than those who are unvaccinated is misleading
6 MIN READ
Social media posts have claimed that those who have received a COVID-19 vaccine are more six times more likely to die from being infected by variants than those who have not been inoculated. While the data was indeed taken from a Public Health England (PHE) briefing held in June, it was taken out of context.
Several blogs have spread the claim and screenshots of the blogs are being shared on social media.
The headline of a blog post, published on June 23 by DC Clothesline, reads: "Vaccinated people found to be 600% more likely to die from covid "variants" than unvaccinated people" ( archive.fo/nF2fM ).
"Death rate from variant COVID virus six times higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated, UK health data show," reads a headline from a similar blog published in Life Site News on June 18 ( archive.fo/yQAi3 ).
Examples of the blogs being shared on social media can be found ( here ), ( here ) and ( here ).
Referring to data compiled by Public Health England (PHE) in a technical briefing released on June 18 regarding the SARS-CoV-2 variants ( here ), the authors of the blogs make several calculations.
On page 12 of the briefing, it shows that 26 people have died since February 1 after testing positive for the Delta variant of the virus, having also been fully vaccinated for more than two weeks. In total, 4,087 tested positive more than two weeks after their second dose. Meanwhile, 35,521 people who were unvaccinated tested positive for the Delta variant and 34 people died.
The authors then divide the number of deaths by the total number of people who tested positive for the Delta variant and found the rate of death to be 0.000957 for unvaccinated individuals and 0.00636 for those who have been inoculated.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2021 | www.fairobserver.com
In early 2020, the scientific community went into hyperdrive to develop not one but several vaccines against COVID-19. In the US, the government and the medical community worked overtime to set up the infrastructure to get doses into arms around the country. Clinics and volunteers have jumped into action at a community level to make sure, as of this week, that 58% of adults have gotten at least one shot and over 70% of those older than 65 are fully vaccinated.
But all this effort is now hitting up against resistance. Or hesitancy. Or barriers to access. States are cutting back on their vaccine orders from the federal authorities. Daily vaccination rates have dropped nearly 20% from last week. Employers are basically bribing people to get their shots. Millions of people aren't even bothering to show up for their second doses.
|
|
|
May 12, 2021 | angrybearblog.com
Let me follow up briefly on my post from yesterday on vaccine hesitancy.
Demeaning people is the first step towards ignoring their interests or even persecuting them. Jason Brennan urges us to ignore the welfare of the unvaxxed by painting a picture of them as moral terrorists or extortionists. He holds them responsible for their confusion and fears. He pretends that everyone is well-informed and knows how to evaluate scientific evidence, and that everyone has loads of time to keep up on the latest covid news. Then he blames people who fail to get vaccinated for their poor choices.
These are the key facts, as I see the matter:
- Many people are not vaccinated, vaccination rates are slowing, rates of hesitancy are high.
- Most unvaccinated people are not hard-core anti-vaxxers. Many are busy or have difficulty figuring out how or where to get vaccinated. Some are scared of needles. Some just worry about the safety of the vaccines. Young people are likely to prove difficult to vaccinate, because they are at very low risk of dying from covid.
- Unvaccinated people are a threat to themselves, to people who for medical reasons cannot be vaccinated (a small group, apparently), and to people who are vaccinated but have compromised immune systems. They are also (presumably) a very, very small risk to people who are relatively healthy and vaccinated.
I got covid in December during a visit to the hospital. While I was in the hospital – with an active diagnosis of covid, being cared for by doctors and nurses whose job it was to care for people with active covid – I had several nurses who said they would not get vaccinated, at least not right away. My sense is they were worried about possible side-effects. They were not malevolent, they were (relatively) well-informed about the risks of covid and of the vaccines, and they were not as far as I could tell making a political statement. Their worries were understandable, but their planned choices were (arguably) terribly misguided given their high exposure at work.
We owe it to the unvaxxed to at least try to persuade them to get vaccinated. This means spending money: on education, outreach, transportation. It means doing research to figure out what works. Maybe we should go further and pressure people to get vaxxed or use positive incentives (money, beer, pot) to get everyone to vax up. The case for using pressure and/or incentives is strengthened by third party benefits.
The Biden administration needs to orchestrate a vaccination campaign taking into account our polarized political situation. That's hard. Polarization means that the government cannot simply require people to get vaxxed; even pressuring them will be controversial. It means that people need to hear pro-vax messages from people they trust – their doctors, religious leaders, family members, etc., not from politicians. This makes communication much more difficult. President Biden can get lots of free press to spread the word on vaccines, but if vaccination becomes closely associated with him some Republicans may decline to get their shots.
Brennan's characterization of the situation is uncharitable, inaccurate, and politically destructive. May 13, 2021 6:51 am
I can see both sides, but neither in a very good light. It is easy for one to make good decisions when one has all the relevant information, but it is not a realistic expectation for most of life's important decisions. Everyone is afraid of something and most people are ruled by their worst fears. Good judgement seems to be a lost art.
Google matched content |
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|
|
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site |
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: August 01, 2021
