New York Hospital to Pause Delivering Babies After Unvaccinated Workers Resign En Masse

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,198
1,855
118
Country
United Kingdom
Can you define hording vaccines?
This is hoarding vaccines.

As of a month ago, 95m doses were required to fully vaccinate all over-16s in the UK, as well as to provide booster shots to the vulnerable. The UK has ordered... 467m.

Meanwhile, other countries (generally in the global south) have a huge proportion of people yet to receive their first dose. And intellectual property rights mean their own national companies cannot manufacture them, so they need to get them via trade. But they're being outbid by countries that do not need them nearly as much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,861
4,008
118
This is hoarding vaccines.

As of a month ago, 95m doses were required to fully vaccinate all over-16s in the UK, as well as to provide booster shots to the vulnerable. The UK has ordered... 467m.

Meanwhile, other countries (generally in the global south) have a huge proportion of people yet to receive their first dose. And intellectual property rights mean their own national companies cannot manufacture them, so they need to get them via trade. But they're being outbid by countries that do not need them nearly as much.
Some context here is that the vaccines were colossally over-ordered to ensure redundancy. They were ordered at a point where it was possible the vaccines ordered might fail trials, or to cover the risk of production delays and spoilage, and other potential problems.

However, this does not explain why they aren't being sent abroad. Maybe it's the Brexit-caused HGV driver shortage and they've got no-one to drive them to export.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,198
1,855
118
Country
United Kingdom
Some context here is that the vaccines were colossally over-ordered to ensure redundancy. They were ordered at a point where it was possible the vaccines ordered might fail trials, or to cover the risk of production delays and spoilage, and other potential problems.

However, this does not explain why they aren't being sent abroad. Maybe it's the Brexit-caused HGV driver shortage and they've got no-one to drive them to export.
I severely doubt it's the driver shortage. I would say it's more likely because holding an enormous stockpile of surplus is a convenience. They can mitigate against delays or supply-chain issues by having more than enough, and the voters experience a smooth vaccine rollout, blissfully unaware of the wastage. The government is already reaping the political kudos for the success of the vaccination drive.

After all, that domestic political advantage is much more likely to motivate a Conservative cabinet than saving lives overseas. When have the Tories shown the slightest interest in that?
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
5,256
557
118
Country
USA
The fact that Nancy Pelosi doesn't wear a mask is kind of irritating sure (rules for thee but not for me), and I've never liked her, she's human garbage, but you also need to remember that she is

1 - Vaccinated
2 - Surrounded by large men with guns who can enforce social distancing around her. If she doesn't want someone within breathing distance of her they won't be. The rest of us don't have the luxury of being able to enforce social distancing, hence the masks.
Fair enough.
 

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
1,032
1,271
118
Country
United States
We were essentially told this was the coming of a zombie apocalypse. I know one person that has died of it. One. She was 86, morbidly obese and had advanced COPD. Though a number of younger people in my circle got it, few were symptomatic, none went to the hospital.

I too know a daughter who lost her dad. Coming from the US, She had to quarantine in Thailand before being allowed to visit him. He died while she remained in quarantine and never got to see him again.

I've heard it is better to follow the money than the science. Pro Covid hysteria pays off big bucks to the already wealthy and powerful. We see rich, powerful people like 80ish year old Nancy Pelosi walking around unmasked while telling everyone else to lock down. She knows more than us. And she is not afraid.

To be honest, I'm sure there is attention, "clicks" and even money to be had by being against our Covid responses.

I'd like to see an unbiased investigative committee look into our Covid responses. But, even if we have one, I'm not certain I'd believe it. There's just too much money and power to be found in the hysteria.
No. It isn't better to follow the money than the science. Science is a hard construct, that can be tested and replicated by anyone with a decent understanding of the principles. It is pure. It is truth. And it is measurable by all.

Money is an abstract concept that changes with people's whims.

Money can buy a message away. But money can't change the laws of gravity.

Hysteria is a funny word to use in this context. Covid has already proven to be the deadliest pandemic in this country, yet people still deny the threat. That isn't hysterical? Living in one's own version of reality because it soothes them more than the real truth out here?

I mean, you've basically said it with your last paragraph. Even if you got the very thing you asked for, you wouldn't believe it. Then what is the actual purpose of even discussing something when you outright state that your mind has been made up and even the only thing you think can assuage your thoughts, you will never believe because of 'them'?
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
5,256
557
118
Country
USA
No. It isn't better to follow the money than the science. Science is a hard construct, that can be tested and replicated by anyone with a decent understanding of the principles. It is pure. It is truth. And it is measurable by all.

Money is an abstract concept that changes with people's whims.

Money can buy a message away. But money can't change the laws of gravity.

Hysteria is a funny word to use in this context. Covid has already proven to be the deadliest pandemic in this country, yet people still deny the threat. That isn't hysterical? Living in one's own version of reality because it soothes them more than the real truth out here?

I mean, you've basically said it with your last paragraph. Even if you got the very thing you asked for, you wouldn't believe it. Then what is the actual purpose of even discussing something when you outright state that your mind has been made up and even the only thing you think can assuage your thoughts, you will never believe because of 'them'?
I didn't make this up but it's been written, "97% of researchers agree with whoever is funding them." Funny, not necessarily true but it feels true.

Agreed. Even if I got what I think we need (an objective review of our Covid response) if it doesn't agree with me, I wouldn't trust it. So, now what do I do?
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
12,196
1,397
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I didn't make this up but it's been written, "97% of researchers agree with whoever is funding them." Funny, not necessarily true but it feels true.

Agreed. Even if I got what I think we need (an objective review of our Covid response) if it doesn't agree with me, I wouldn't trust it. So, now what do I do?
Even if that is true, which, I don't think it is. That is why peer review is such an important part of science. Without peer review its not really science, its just stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,667
762
118
Country
United States
Agreed. Even if I got what I think we need (an objective review of our Covid response) if it doesn't agree with me, I wouldn't trust it. So, now what do I do?
In all seriousness, you should seek out a trained professional (such as a licensed psychologist) who can help you understand the "why" behind your thought processes. You want to find someone who you can be open and honest with that will also challenge you to make yourself better (and since you're in the US, someone covered by your insurance if possible). You've taken the first step of acknowledging the issue exists which is farther than many ever make it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,861
4,008
118
I didn't make this up but it's been written, "97% of researchers agree with whoever is funding them." Funny, not necessarily true but it feels true.

Agreed. Even if I got what I think we need (an objective review of our Covid response) if it doesn't agree with me, I wouldn't trust it. So, now what do I do?
One might argue that even with 97% of scientists agreeing with whoever is funding them, that beats most of the population who are even worse for believing whatever suits their pre-existing notions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,865
493
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
No. It isn't better to follow the money than the science. Science is a hard construct, that can be tested and replicated by anyone with a decent understanding of the principles. It is pure. It is truth. And it is measurable by all.

Money is an abstract concept that changes with people's whims.

Money can buy a message away. But money can't change the laws of gravity.

It's also worth noting that the "follow the money" doesn't mean "Simply assumes that the people you want to be wrong for ideological reasons are somehow profiting from the situation", nor does it mean "if you don't like it, assume it's bad and that the rich are profiting from it", and certainly not "look at what the rich people are doing".

"Follow the money" was a famous line from Deep Throat in All the President's Men, which while apparently not actually attributable to the historical Deep Throat, most closely tracks to a statement by Woodward to then-Senator Ervin, "The key was the secret campaign cash, and it should all be traced". And the point of it is very specifically that payments and financials leave a paper trail, as anyone who has taken a basic accounting course can corroborate. (Short version for accounting: understanding the components of a balance sheet will tell you a lot about the company's activities and business).

"Follow the money" is not some vague abstraction about imagining ways that people can profit from a given event and using that as the basis of accepting or dismissing information. It's a [dramatized] instruction to investigate the specific payments that funded an event and trace where they came from. Eg, in the case of Watergate one of the smoking guns was the burglars having a $25,000 check earmarked for the Nixon campaign, which led to the discovery that the Nixon campaign had been siphoning off a portion of the contributions they received from donors to create a slush fund which - among other things - they were actually still using to try and buy the silence of the co-conspirators (including a $75,000 payment to Hunt), which made it quite clear that - despite their claims to the contrary - the Nixon campaign had ties to the break-in. "Follow the money" in its original context was quite literally "These 'burglars' were not independent actors acting on their own initiative. Someone was bankrolling the Watergate break-in. Find out who financed them and how, and that will give you the whole picture".
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
5,256
557
118
Country
USA
In all seriousness, you should seek out a trained professional (such as a licensed psychologist) who can help you understand the "why" behind your thought processes. You want to find someone who you can be open and honest with that will also challenge you to make yourself better (and since you're in the US, someone covered by your insurance if possible). You've taken the first step of acknowledging the issue exists which is farther than many ever make it.
One might argue that even with 97% of scientists agreeing with whoever is funding them, that beats most of the population who are even worse for believing whatever suits their pre-existing notions.
We have been lied to, a lot over this thing. And it was powerful, well funded people doing the lying. I have no idea how I can ever trust them again, and don't know why you would.
Do we agree with that much? That we've been lied to a lot on this topic by the very people and offices we rely upon?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,861
4,008
118
We have been lied to, a lot over this thing. And it was powerful, well funded people doing the lying. I have no idea how I can ever trust them again, and don't know why you would.
Do we agree with that much? That we've been lied to a lot on this topic by the very people and offices we rely upon?
I think most scientists lie very little. They sometimes make mistakes, or are mistaken; sometimes they have biases. But by and large, they do their experiments honestly and tell you what their experiments found: after all, their professional reputation depends on it. There are dodgy scientists who will say whatever they are paid to, and they're usually easy to spot. Mostly, however, once you get outside scientific literature itself, scientists do not control information pathways: government agencies, corporations and media do. And that means information gets filtered by politicians, businessmen and journalists who don't have the same professional reputation demands to accurately represent science.

The question is really what is the institutional pressure to be accurate?

Broadly, I think organisations such as the CDC are mostly reliable. They tend to be relatively apolitical and have few financial incentives to lie, plus they are usually "science / medicine heavy", so some of the ethical attitudes on honesty of the scientific and medical professions tend to be strong. It would be hard for the organisational top brass to seriously misrepresent science and medicine without causing major unrest. Nevertheless, such organisations do also need to work with government and government policy, and are going to be open to some "flexibility", or pragmatism to favour better consequences over technical accuracy.

But when you start looking at the institutional pressures behind media, politicians and so on... what institutional pressure do they have to be honest? One has to say, vastly less. And so you should not generally expect them to be so honest or accurate.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
1,380
819
118
Country
4
We have been lied to, a lot over this thing. And it was powerful, well funded people doing the lying. I have no idea how I can ever trust them again, and don't know why you would.
Do we agree with that much? That we've been lied to a lot on this topic by the very people and offices we rely upon?
Well you'd have to provide exact quotes as well as the evidence proving they knew at the time what they said was false, and not just consensus knowledge changing due to new information in a dynamic situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,218
1,921
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
We have been lied to, a lot over this thing. And it was powerful, well funded people doing the lying.
Yes. We have been lied to a lot by people who want us to distrust the institutions that protect us, that hold this country together, so that they can seize power. And they have fooled some very, very, VERY STUPID PEOPLE.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
5,256
557
118
Country
USA
Well you'd have to provide exact quotes as well as the evidence proving they knew at the time what they said was false, and not just consensus knowledge changing due to new information in a dynamic situation.
Do a search. That the virus could not come from a lab. That bats weren't in the lab (they were). That the US didn't fund that lab. OK we helped fund the lab but not to do gain of function research, etc. Masks won't help. Mask are mandatory. Non-vaxxed spread the virus. Oh. Even the manufacturers never claimed vaccination slowed spreading. It has been a #^%$#^ show.
One thing I've always complained about at this site (since 2009) is, I worry too many here are in a bubble. This thread is kind of a beacon on that problem.
I am kind of in a bubble of my own. That's part of why I come here. I do need to know more about how others think, why they think it, and, when appropriate, admit I'm wrong. So far? Not on this topic. EDIT: Not on the issue that we have been lied to a lot.
 
Last edited:

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
12,196
1,397
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Do a search. That the virus could not come from a lab. That bats weren't in the lab (they were). That the US didn't fund that lab. OK we helped fund the lab but not to do gain of function research, etc. Masks won't help. Mask are mandatory. Non-vaxxed spread the virus. Oh. Even the manufacturers never claimed vaccination slowed spreading. It has been a #^%$#^ show.
One thing I've always complained about at this site (since 2009) is, I worry too many here are in a bubble. This thread is kind of a beacon on that problem.
I am kind of in a bubble of my own. That's part of why I come here. I do need to know more about how others think, why they think it, and, when appropriate, admit I'm wrong. So far? Not on this topic. EDIT: Not on the issue that we have been lied to a lot.
You are making a rookie mistake here, but its a mistake that a lot of people make. They assume being wrong is being lied too. What to know what science is, not being able to prove something wrong to the best of our abilities at the moment. People assume science is what is right, but actually science is what isn't wrong.

Ok, lets start at the top. Of course bats were in the lab, bats are in most infections disease labs since they are a really unique vector for viruses and are proven to be able to transmit across species at a better rate then most other mammals. The US has funding in a ton of places, I would assume most disease labs have some US (among others) funding since disease knows no borders and is of concern to us all. Probably the dumbest thing was early on we not only weren't sure about masks but were erring on the side of telling people they didn't need them since we were worried about running out and people are known to panic buy things. (remember toilet paper?) Even then we still ended up with states having to fight with each other to get more masks.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
5,256
557
118
Country
USA
You are making a rookie mistake here, but its a mistake that a lot of people make. They assume being wrong is being lied too. What to know what science is, not being able to prove something wrong to the best of our abilities at the moment. People assume science is what is right, but actually science is what isn't wrong.

Ok, lets start at the top. Of course bats were in the lab, bats are in most infections disease labs since they are a really unique vector for viruses and are proven to be able to transmit across species at a better rate then most other mammals. The US has funding in a ton of places, I would assume most disease labs have some US (among others) funding since disease knows no borders and is of concern to us all. Probably the dumbest thing was early on we not only weren't sure about masks but were erring on the side of telling people they didn't need them since we were worried about running out and people are known to panic buy things. (remember toilet paper?) Even then we still ended up with states having to fight with each other to get more masks.
Yes, bats were in the lab. I recall the news stories that they weren't. Heck, this was from the wet market! And those at the center of this thanking Fauci for keeping investigators off the track in records disclosed after a Freedom of Information disclosure.
People can be wrong without lying. I don't think that the case here.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
12,196
1,397
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Yes, bats were in the lab. I recall the news stories that they weren't. Heck, this was from the wet market! And those at the center of this thanking Fauci for keeping investigators off the track in records disclosed after a Freedom of Information disclosure.
People can be wrong without lying. I don't think that the case here.
Can you link your sources on that?
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
1,380
819
118
Country
4
Do a search. That the virus could not come from a lab. That bats weren't in the lab (they were). That the US didn't fund that lab. OK we helped fund the lab but not to do gain of function research, etc. Masks won't help. Mask are mandatory. Non-vaxxed spread the virus. Oh. Even the manufacturers never claimed vaccination slowed spreading. It has been a #^%$#^ show.
One thing I've always complained about at this site (since 2009) is, I worry too many here are in a bubble. This thread is kind of a beacon on that problem.
I am kind of in a bubble of my own. That's part of why I come here. I do need to know more about how others think, why they think it, and, when appropriate, admit I'm wrong. So far? Not on this topic. EDIT: Not on the issue that we have been lied to a lot.
These are your words. Could not come from a lab, or is unlikely to have come from a lab?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera