It sounds like they think vaccination is a bad thing? It seems completely sensible to vaccinate these people early but the title is worded like 'they did something good, now something bad happens to them'.
It would indeed give the title a sinister tone, but it wouldn't describe the article at all! These workers are in fact getting the vaccine, not some fake pantomime!
That's not a thing. Medical ethics relate to individual patients, so even if you have a coherent public health strategy that makes sense (and a placebo to spread supplies more thinly could be such a strategy), the medics insist on applying ethics to individual patients.
For example the early data for HPV vaccination was enough that as public health policy it made sense to immunise boys. The men would not spread HPV and thus contribute to reduced cancer in any future female partners. But that would be unethical because it's no direct benefit to the boys you're vaccinating. So they waited until they had data showing it would likely also prevent some cancer in men, bingo now it's both ethical and good policy.
Not only are there "enough vaccines to go around", no one is getting placebos and these people have already been working through the pandemic, why would they need a placebo?
Because they are often used to quote something someone said that is probably not true, but you don’t want to take responsibility for it or legitimize it by presenting it as your own word or belief.
Fundamentally, putting a thing in quotes distinguishes between what words you’re standing behind yourself, and what words you’re attributing to someone else.
(there are some other orthogonal uses of quotes, of course, my favourite being when we’re talking about words themselves rather than about the things the words normally signify. For example: My favourite type of animal is dog, but my favourite word is “dog”. The quotes signify that I’m talking about the literal three-letter word “dog”, and not about the type of animal)
In general, people (including people who work for the media) put words or statements in quotes when they’re doubtful of the veracity of those words or statements, and aren’t willing to put their own reputation on the line by making the statement themselves. Instead, they just report that other people say those things.
And so maybe it’s not surprising that a high percentage of stuff which gets communicated to people in that kind of quote structure eventually turns out to be untrue (and often is just laughably untrue on its face).
Since people aren’t stupid and since English is a living language (apologies if you’re a linguistic prescriptivist, but that’s not a fight that can be won), then it probably isn’t surprising that people have learned to associate that syntactic structure with falsehoods.
That’s just how it’s used in the real world. And has been for quite a long time.
I think the idea is to highlight the existence of an group of people whose role in society is important, hazardous (particularly during a pandemic), and often overlooked.
My mother used to direct the pantomime in my local town, and various other shows. She'd always have the cleaners and curtain crew on the stage at the end: "there wouldn't be much of a show with the curtains closed."
These people are possibly the most important staff in the hospital: nobody else would be able to do a thing without them, as everything would be an unsanitary mess.
> These people are possibly the most important staff in the hospital: nobody else would be able to do a thing without them
I find this viewpoint a little confusing, because that’s true of almost everyone working there. No one gets treated if there aren’t doctors and nurses even if all the equipment is sparkling. No one gets treated if the back office isn’t procuring supplies.
The only way to split things along these lines that I’ve heard that makes sense to me is “could the hospital run without these people?”, where you say “not at all even briefly” for the most important group (as opposed to “yes” or “yes for a little bit”).
Another way to look at it is the number of different jobs a certain person could do, if necessary. A surgeon can operate, but if needed, also likely fill in as a nurse, CNA, phlebotomist, and could of course sterilize a room. That's not to diminish the contributions of any particular group but not all individual skill sets are created equal because some (literally) encompass many others.
This paper does not include or support the assertion you are making. It is not a valid or plausible source for the claim for which you have used it as a citation.
The leap you have made is far beyond the already tortured reading that this poor paper has received throughout social media. In order for the same number of people (leaving aside the "more than twice" claim in your comment) in the 25-44 cohort covered by this paper to die of COVID19 as died of opioid overdoses in 2018 (which is the figure this paper uses), essentially all of the other 62% of the increase in all-cause mortality which does not yet have an available documented cause of death, among a group especially vulnerable to the second-order effects of lockdowns, would have to instead have come from a virus that is known to kill them at vanishingly rare rates and diagnosis of which is now routine nationwide.
Put another way: two-thirds of the lethal COVID19 cases in the 25-44 cohort have to have been completely missed by this nation's medical professionals (and even then, opioid deaths have to have remained at 2018 levels, which is also unlikely). This is just in order for COVID19 deaths to be close to the number of opioid overdose deaths. It is completely impossible for COVID19 to kill twice as many.
To be clear: all of the reliable data - every shred of it - shows convincingly that the assertion you are making is strictly false. The number of opioid overdoses has far outpaced the number of COVID19 deaths (having increased since 2018 rather than remaining flat as you implicitly assert); the same is almost certainly true of car crashes. Depending on what you mean by "young adults" (ie, if you are including the 18-25 cohort in addition to the 25-44 cohort studied in this paper), it will be surprising if COVID19 kills even a third as many will have died in car crashes, as this group dies even more rarely of COVID19 and even more frequently of car crashes.
Moreover, even if your claim were within 60% of being true (and there's no reason, given the available data, to believe that it is) the comment to which you are responding said "old or vulnerable" (emphasis mine), whereas the paper you've provided showing over 4,000 deaths (again, just to be crystal clear, this is less than half of those from opioid overdoses) includes people in this age group with other (sometimes grave) comorbidities.
It is true that people who are neither old nor suffering from one of the three most frequently indicated comorbidities have a risk of adverse effects similar to seasonal coronaviruses.
tl;dr: Around 4,000 people under 45 have died COVID19-related deaths, while more than 10,000 died of opioid overdoses in 2018, the latest year for which a reliable figure is available (but every credible expert believes that the number will be much higher this year).
In America it's common for the vulnerable and the old to work in order to fund their continued existence. For example, the article describes a 68-year-old hospital custodian who caught coronavirus and died.
1) Without having access to the relevant data (and doubting that it is exists in the first place), I think it's reasonable to surmise that this particular group is more likely to either be in a vulnerable sub-population or to live in a multi-generational household than any other group of front-line medical workers.
2) Front-line medical workers have experienced adverse outcomes which have outpaced the risk based solely on their age and comorbidities. There has been widespread speculation (and some research) that this is due to a higher likelihood of receiving a higher initial dose of the virus.
31 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 80.8 ms ] threadIt sounds like they think vaccination is a bad thing? It seems completely sensible to vaccinate these people early but the title is worded like 'they did something good, now something bad happens to them'.
http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DqoQq1zME8
For example the early data for HPV vaccination was enough that as public health policy it made sense to immunise boys. The men would not spread HPV and thus contribute to reduced cancer in any future female partners. But that would be unethical because it's no direct benefit to the boys you're vaccinating. So they waited until they had data showing it would likely also prevent some cancer in men, bingo now it's both ethical and good policy.
(there are some other orthogonal uses of quotes, of course, my favourite being when we’re talking about words themselves rather than about the things the words normally signify. For example: My favourite type of animal is dog, but my favourite word is “dog”. The quotes signify that I’m talking about the literal three-letter word “dog”, and not about the type of animal)
In general, people (including people who work for the media) put words or statements in quotes when they’re doubtful of the veracity of those words or statements, and aren’t willing to put their own reputation on the line by making the statement themselves. Instead, they just report that other people say those things.
And so maybe it’s not surprising that a high percentage of stuff which gets communicated to people in that kind of quote structure eventually turns out to be untrue (and often is just laughably untrue on its face).
Since people aren’t stupid and since English is a living language (apologies if you’re a linguistic prescriptivist, but that’s not a fight that can be won), then it probably isn’t surprising that people have learned to associate that syntactic structure with falsehoods.
That’s just how it’s used in the real world. And has been for quite a long time.
Take this headline
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55382212
> Covid: WHO in 'close contact' with UK over new virus variant
The BBC aren't doubting that the WHO are in close contact with the UK - they're just quoting a source and aren't expressing an opinion either way.
"They risk their lives cleaning hospitals. Now, they are (finally) getting vaccinated"
...vaccination as their due for being on the front lines.
I think vaccination is a positive thing, and my reading of the title was positive.
‘I want people to know that we exist’
I think the idea is to highlight the existence of an group of people whose role in society is important, hazardous (particularly during a pandemic), and often overlooked.
These people are possibly the most important staff in the hospital: nobody else would be able to do a thing without them, as everything would be an unsanitary mess.
I find this viewpoint a little confusing, because that’s true of almost everyone working there. No one gets treated if there aren’t doctors and nurses even if all the equipment is sparkling. No one gets treated if the back office isn’t procuring supplies.
The only way to split things along these lines that I’ve heard that makes sense to me is “could the hospital run without these people?”, where you say “not at all even briefly” for the most important group (as opposed to “yes” or “yes for a little bit”).
Its cute but it's basically populism...
"risk their lives"
Unless they're old or vulnerable -- then they're not risking their lives. There's a likelihood that they may catch an incredibly mild virus.
inb4 "it's deadly"
Yes, to the vulnerable and the old it is, to everyone else...not so much.
It's not a literal death ray, unless you consider walking to work/driving in the same realms of risking your life.
This paper does not include or support the assertion you are making. It is not a valid or plausible source for the claim for which you have used it as a citation.
The leap you have made is far beyond the already tortured reading that this poor paper has received throughout social media. In order for the same number of people (leaving aside the "more than twice" claim in your comment) in the 25-44 cohort covered by this paper to die of COVID19 as died of opioid overdoses in 2018 (which is the figure this paper uses), essentially all of the other 62% of the increase in all-cause mortality which does not yet have an available documented cause of death, among a group especially vulnerable to the second-order effects of lockdowns, would have to instead have come from a virus that is known to kill them at vanishingly rare rates and diagnosis of which is now routine nationwide.
Put another way: two-thirds of the lethal COVID19 cases in the 25-44 cohort have to have been completely missed by this nation's medical professionals (and even then, opioid deaths have to have remained at 2018 levels, which is also unlikely). This is just in order for COVID19 deaths to be close to the number of opioid overdose deaths. It is completely impossible for COVID19 to kill twice as many.
To be clear: all of the reliable data - every shred of it - shows convincingly that the assertion you are making is strictly false. The number of opioid overdoses has far outpaced the number of COVID19 deaths (having increased since 2018 rather than remaining flat as you implicitly assert); the same is almost certainly true of car crashes. Depending on what you mean by "young adults" (ie, if you are including the 18-25 cohort in addition to the 25-44 cohort studied in this paper), it will be surprising if COVID19 kills even a third as many will have died in car crashes, as this group dies even more rarely of COVID19 and even more frequently of car crashes.
Moreover, even if your claim were within 60% of being true (and there's no reason, given the available data, to believe that it is) the comment to which you are responding said "old or vulnerable" (emphasis mine), whereas the paper you've provided showing over 4,000 deaths (again, just to be crystal clear, this is less than half of those from opioid overdoses) includes people in this age group with other (sometimes grave) comorbidities.
It is true that people who are neither old nor suffering from one of the three most frequently indicated comorbidities have a risk of adverse effects similar to seasonal coronaviruses.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13423
tl;dr: Around 4,000 people under 45 have died COVID19-related deaths, while more than 10,000 died of opioid overdoses in 2018, the latest year for which a reliable figure is available (but every credible expert believes that the number will be much higher this year).
1) Without having access to the relevant data (and doubting that it is exists in the first place), I think it's reasonable to surmise that this particular group is more likely to either be in a vulnerable sub-population or to live in a multi-generational household than any other group of front-line medical workers.
2) Front-line medical workers have experienced adverse outcomes which have outpaced the risk based solely on their age and comorbidities. There has been widespread speculation (and some research) that this is due to a higher likelihood of receiving a higher initial dose of the virus.