Well thanks. You made me realize that I have no ability to downvote here because I don't have a high enough score. This lets karma whores like yourself bully new users when they say something true that you don't like.
At this point I decided that HackerNews is just another Reddit with slightly different problems. I wanted to delete my account. Wow! You can't do that! Simply amazing. What kind of incompetent makes a website that doesn't allow users to control their digital footprint? Count me out of this little experiment. I'm glad I didn't post more before finding out.
I will not be back to read or comment on this site again. So have fun talking whatever kinds of smack you want to my dead account.
To be fair, doesn't bypassing paywalls kind of the defeat the purpose for these sites to be able to provide content without ads? Thus, ad driven content is the only way for them to keep the lights on.
The WashPo paywall is the worst -- it rewrites your address bar so you can't even bookmark the URL for later or copy/paste it to share. Really frustrating on mobile when you can be in an app that's not logged into WashPo. Why would the product team make that decision?
Paywall content is explicitly ok on Hacker News. From the FAQ [0]:
> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. More here. [1]
Why would coronavirus vaccines be any more problematic than any other vaccine? If powers that be want to slip special gunk in the coronavirus vaccine, they can just as easily do that for flu shots or any other mandatory vaccine out there.
Flu shots are not mandatory, and not all country have mandatory vaccination schemes, relying on the health system's ability to convince people. Also, antivaxxers usually try to avoid the mandatory ones, are often quite immune to Occam's Razor, and apply critical thinking only to their opponent's arguments :)
Isn’t the MSRP for those vaccine doses something north of $10k each? In addition to being a really dumb thing to do, it also sounds like a potentially ruinous amount of financial damage if the hospital tries to recover the funds.
I couldn’t read due to the paywall but really wonder what would be going through someone’s head to do that... it’s one thing to not want a vaccine (personally I’d rather wait a bit), but another to actively sabotage one of the biggest medical initiatives in our lifetime.
I don’t know for sure, but from what I read the cost per dose is under USD 40 since a lot of governments already invested billions into their research. If they asked 10k per vial after all of that money it’d be a huge slap in the face.
Pfizer charges $19.50 per dose ($39 per 2 round vaccination). You might want to be more cautious about the place you heard MSRP is $10,000 per dose, it's clearly not that price at the volume it's being distributed.
> Isn’t the MSRP for those vaccine doses something north of $10k each?
... No. Where on earth did you get that? It depends what your government has negotiated with the drug company, but generally somewhere between 10 and 20 euro a dose, or under 5 euro a dose for Oxford.
That's just one possibility, they could also have destroyed them intentionally because of a conspiracy about the vaccine being bad for people. We won't know without more information.
Many people also believe (without enough evidence) that they are more helpful than harmful.
If you are 85 with a pulmonary condition, you should probably get it. If you are 39 and in good health, you should probably avoid it. I'm not a fervent anti-vaxxer, but I have more chances of getting hit by a truck than dying of that hard flu, which I did get. Getting injected with a substance we know relatively little about doesn't make sense in view of what it seeks to prevent. I'll take the virus ( again ) over the vaccine any day.
> this entire account consists of argument about Covid
More like 11 / 21 total threads I commented in.
Given this is a pretty hot and important topic, and that the flow of information about it is restricted ( censored ) through various mechanisms, especially the stance I have on it, which is best resumed by the Great Barrington Declaration ( signed by 13,000 + medical and public health scientists that I keep linking to ) I believe this is not an unreasonable ratio. In any event, your claim is false. If you check some of the stuff I've linked to, you may find I have some objectively valid points.
"The declaration makes no mention of [...] Long Covid, which has left many fit and young people suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection.
[...]
the WHO say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity. The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.
[...]
It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial"
If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense.
If you're 39 and in good health, but want to prevent community outbreak that'll inevitably lead to more susceptible people catching the virus and dying, you should probably get vaccinated.
> If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense.
It's not that I don't care for the health of others, it's that I care more about the health of 98% of the population ( including mine and that of people I know ) that are more or less invulnerable to the virus than about the health of people that would die ( for the most part ) within the next few years from just about any cause, and that are not currently enjoying any quality of life nor contributing to society. It's a matter of proportionate and rational response. See Focused Protection.
I am for throwing everything we got for minimizing those deaths, up to a certain point and within what is reasonable.
So in the US we at over 350k deaths. If left to run rampant that number will increase by maybe a factor of ~10. So you saying that the vaccine, if given to everyone, will kill more than 3 million people?
Not at all. I wasn't arguing against the vaccines but against blanket lockdowns ( EDIT : I guess that was really not clear, since I was initially arguing about that, my bad ). I have reservations about the vaccines, but on a voluntary basis, it seems to make a lot of sense that the people in the at-risk demographics and those in daily direct contact with them should get it. The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. This damage not being limited solely to loss of life but also including that. This is not even a marginal opinion, as per my previous comments, it is backed by many scientists and the WHO itself.
Feel free to swarm the karma out of me for clarifying that ( not necessarily directed to parent comment ).
By that logic the plan was fine then. 500 doses out of 2.79 million is an insignificant loss.
It’s still interesting to wonder what they were thinking, since it might be informative about how to make the plan better, or about risks that have not yet materialized.
>57 vials of the vaccine, which must be kept at low temperatures to remain viable, had to be tossed Saturday when they were discovered outside the refrigerator.
im a diesel engine mechanic by trade and this sounds entirely within the realm of human error. As someone in a "manager"-ish position though, termination sounds a little on the extreme side considering healthcare is strained to the breaking point currently. people get in a rush sometimes.
I once caught an employee i hired a few years back watering down something called DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) with tap water. DEF is extremely critical in modern trucks as it arrests and reduces gasses and chemicals from diesel exhaust that directly contribute to climate change and global warming. Newer trucks wont even shift into drive without it. When i asked him why he was ruining all our DEF he pointed out that his last employer did this routinely to get customers in and out faster and reduce costs. Instead of firing him I explained how the diesel particulate filter works, and why adding tap water would foul it.
From the USA Today article linked in comments, there's a quote that the individual "acknowledged that they intentionally removed the vaccine from refrigeration."
That's a deliberate act, but the thing that's missing is the purpose they had for removing it.
Did they put it out because they thought it was going to be used for a vaccination drive that day, but it wasn't?
Did they do it to purposefully ruin it? They didn't acknowledge that.
Was it improperly stored in a refrigeration unit that is restricted for only storing other things and the person put it out and posted about it, but nobody claimed it? Maybe it was in a beer fridge or the break room fridge on cleanout day.
Lots of options. In the example the poster said, it was a deliberate act, but in the poster's case, the intent wasn't to ruin things, even if that would have resulted from the deliberare act.
> Two days later, the employee acknowledged having “intentionally removed the vaccine from refrigeration,” the hospital, Aurora Medical Center in Grafton, Wis., said in a statement late Wednesday.
This is crazy. Not even considering the intention behind it, I can't see the penalty being that serious either, on the face of it, is this not just a destruction of private property ?
What kind of punishment could the employee be looking at ?
He was deliberately trying to make people harm themselves. He wanted people getting the vaccine to get sick instead. When you can prove intent with statements like his, it does matter.
Granted, he may escape prison due to incompetence to stand trial.
67 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 72.5 ms ] threadAt this point I decided that HackerNews is just another Reddit with slightly different problems. I wanted to delete my account. Wow! You can't do that! Simply amazing. What kind of incompetent makes a website that doesn't allow users to control their digital footprint? Count me out of this little experiment. I'm glad I didn't post more before finding out.
I will not be back to read or comment on this site again. So have fun talking whatever kinds of smack you want to my dead account.
That’s how I interpreted the post.
And there are ways around most paywalls if one article is particularly interesting.
> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. More here. [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989
I couldn’t read due to the paywall but really wonder what would be going through someone’s head to do that... it’s one thing to not want a vaccine (personally I’d rather wait a bit), but another to actively sabotage one of the biggest medical initiatives in our lifetime.
... No. Where on earth did you get that? It depends what your government has negotiated with the drug company, but generally somewhere between 10 and 20 euro a dose, or under 5 euro a dose for Oxford.
EU prices, for instance: https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-pfizer-astrazeneca-mode...
If they thought that it was worth ruining them, they must have believe that they work.
If you are 85 with a pulmonary condition, you should probably get it. If you are 39 and in good health, you should probably avoid it. I'm not a fervent anti-vaxxer, but I have more chances of getting hit by a truck than dying of that hard flu, which I did get. Getting injected with a substance we know relatively little about doesn't make sense in view of what it seeks to prevent. I'll take the virus ( again ) over the vaccine any day.
Make of that what you will.
Edit: I do not normally go snooping through account history, however, for a new account that is arguing about Covid, I make exceptions.
More like 11 / 21 total threads I commented in.
Given this is a pretty hot and important topic, and that the flow of information about it is restricted ( censored ) through various mechanisms, especially the stance I have on it, which is best resumed by the Great Barrington Declaration ( signed by 13,000 + medical and public health scientists that I keep linking to ) I believe this is not an unreasonable ratio. In any event, your claim is false. If you check some of the stuff I've linked to, you may find I have some objectively valid points.
"The declaration makes no mention of [...] Long Covid, which has left many fit and young people suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection.
[...]
the WHO say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity. The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.
[...]
It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial"
Enough said
If you're 39 and in good health, but want to prevent community outbreak that'll inevitably lead to more susceptible people catching the virus and dying, you should probably get vaccinated.
It's not that I don't care for the health of others, it's that I care more about the health of 98% of the population ( including mine and that of people I know ) that are more or less invulnerable to the virus than about the health of people that would die ( for the most part ) within the next few years from just about any cause, and that are not currently enjoying any quality of life nor contributing to society. It's a matter of proportionate and rational response. See Focused Protection.
I am for throwing everything we got for minimizing those deaths, up to a certain point and within what is reasonable.
Feel free to swarm the karma out of me for clarifying that ( not necessarily directed to parent comment ).
Maybe
Anyway, if we all get the vaccine and the 95% effectiveness we wouldn’t need the lockdowns
The lockdowns have already happened- nothing you can do about them now - we have 3 vaccines ready to go
What is your stance on the vaccines?
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong and the execution of the plan needs to account for that.
It’s still interesting to wonder what they were thinking, since it might be informative about how to make the plan better, or about risks that have not yet materialized.
Making sure the vaccine is monitored and distributed correctly is a problem to be solved.
The motivation as to why a someone wouldn’t want that is a thought experiment.
im a diesel engine mechanic by trade and this sounds entirely within the realm of human error. As someone in a "manager"-ish position though, termination sounds a little on the extreme side considering healthcare is strained to the breaking point currently. people get in a rush sometimes.
I once caught an employee i hired a few years back watering down something called DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) with tap water. DEF is extremely critical in modern trucks as it arrests and reduces gasses and chemicals from diesel exhaust that directly contribute to climate change and global warming. Newer trucks wont even shift into drive without it. When i asked him why he was ruining all our DEF he pointed out that his last employer did this routinely to get customers in and out faster and reduce costs. Instead of firing him I explained how the diesel particulate filter works, and why adding tap water would foul it.
That's a deliberate act, but the thing that's missing is the purpose they had for removing it.
Did they put it out because they thought it was going to be used for a vaccination drive that day, but it wasn't?
Did they do it to purposefully ruin it? They didn't acknowledge that.
Was it improperly stored in a refrigeration unit that is restricted for only storing other things and the person put it out and posted about it, but nobody claimed it? Maybe it was in a beer fridge or the break room fridge on cleanout day.
Lots of options. In the example the poster said, it was a deliberate act, but in the poster's case, the intent wasn't to ruin things, even if that would have resulted from the deliberare act.
from the article
What kind of punishment could the employee be looking at ?
I'm in constant constant stress about getting the virus because I breathe harder than most people.
Young people are in stress because they are jobless.
Old people are scared of both dieing and being alone.
Granted, he may escape prison due to incompetence to stand trial.