Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

nyti.ms

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 369 posts

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#271

Post by clairity »

mumblemumble wrote: post #250
sudosysgen wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above posters argument is very simple. These program's impact on inefficiency and rent seeking are négligeable. Their benefits aren't.

If so, then I guess we're arguing over a straw man? Because that argument would be a great response to a suggestion that we just end welfare, but it doesn't really make much sense as a response to a comment about the idea of massively expanding it by replacing it with universal basic income.

ubi would not change the dynamics. the same trivial rent-seeking would happen, but it’s still irrelevant if what you really care about is rent-seeking as economic drag/inefficiency, not ideological concerns.

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#272

Post by mgbennet »

lostcolony wrote: post #237
spion wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI or progressive negative tax should solve this problem, no? (The idea is that a job always gets you more money than the base)

Yeah. It's super easy to fix, if people wanted to fix it. Even with welfare, you just make it so every after tax dollar earned reduces the welfare check by 50 cents. Tada, incentive to work, and only when you're making double what welfare pays out do you stop receiving assistance. People may still 'take advantage' of it, by choosing not to work (if we got rid of all the systems requiring proof they're trying to find…

I don't know if the drop off of assistance can really work that well. Say UBI is 10000 fun-bucks. A person gets a crappy job that pays 5000 fun-bucks. Their total income is now 5000+(10000-5000*.5)=12500. By getting a job and working, they've only improved their situation by 2500. Any dollar they earn above the UBI is taxed at 50%, until they've "made it" to double UBI. This amounts to taxing the poor instead of the rich, and is likely to not incentivize work as much you might like.

Most proposals for UBI I've seen are truly universal, meaning that rich and poor alike are entitled to it.

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#273

Post by nickpp »

upbeat_general wrote: post #259
nickpp wrote: post #198

Over and over again we re-learn that the single proven way to distribute scarce resources is the free market. Anything else we tried led to abuses, aberrations, waste and in the end fewer people gaining access to that resource. I have seen this in the planned economy I grew up in, which was unable to provide even toilet paper to its people - but it was ok, because we didn’t have any food either. Our blindness to the…

So just to be clear you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have? This is ludicrous. The “free market” isn’t for everything. The US is going to get enough shots in part because the companies are US companies.

> you’re suggesting that we should determine access to the vaccine based on how much money you have?

No, I'm suggesting people should get the vaccine based on how much money they are willing to spend on it. Just like everything else. This would in effect reduce demand (most people would decide a mask is enough protection or to simply wait) and make sure that only people needing the vaccine (or their sponsors) would spend the money for it.

The free market works for even more essentials like food, clothes and shelter, but suddenly is not for vaccines?!

Only Moderna is a US company. BioNTech and AstraZeneca are European. The vaccine's very existence is owed to the free market and private enterprise. The failure to distribute and use the vaccine is solely due to governmental intervention.

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#274

Post by nickpp »

acover wrote: post #254
nickpp wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually freezing prices is the best way to create long term shortages. We saw that last springs when countries with free markets kept having N95 masks available, at slightly elevated prices while countries that imposed priced controls did not have any until fall. In a free market the vaccine would’ve cost 10k for a month while producers would’ve been scrambling to increase availability and production to take advanta…

I agree that price controls create shortages in the long term. The issue is that emergencies are about the short term. I would be very surprised if more money would have helped produce more vaccines. Canada is burning a billion a day to keep everything in lockdown - money does not seem relevant to the current situation. Adding it in just makes everyone pay more for the same limited amount of vaccines.

This emergency does not seem short term. Pandemics generally aren't. There are already talks of new strains and corresponding vaccines in winter.

Canada is burning billions because it has decided to prioritize COVID protection above everything else in life. It was clear from the beginning that lockdowns were a bad idea because they weren’t feasible in the long term. Alas, this is the path most of the world's government chose. We'll be paying the price for years to come...

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#275

Post by robin21 »

rjbwork wrote: post #5

This is just Kafkaesque. People in a position of authority with blind adherence to rules intended for optimal scenarios. They're literally saying he should have just thrown them away instead of distributing them as best he was able. This whole thing is a logistical clusterfuck and they're trying to throw this dude under the bus. It's obscene.

It seems like the guy was unlucky. But corruption is a really bad thing and I lean on the side of anti-corruption any day of the week.

It’s very convenient that there was only one dose left for his sick wife. The wife was right to question whether it was right, but more importantly was that they should have considered the perception of the situation.

If something will have the look of corruption, but will result in waste, go for the waste, every time.

It would be easy to imagine a cooked up scheme whereby two vials were opened, instead of using an entire one resulting in a surplus of 10 doses with 6 hours expiry overnight which would mean “I had to give them to my family”.

So imagine if this is left to slide, there is the potential for huge numbers of vaccines to be given to family and friends. The desirability of the vaccine and the deadliness of the virus could also encourage bribes to propagate such schemes.

The whole thing has a very bad look and to trust the people in charge of the program would require a full investigation in order to clear the situation of corruption. Of the officials don’t act, they are at risk of being complicit.

The potential reputations damage from his action is much greater than he realized.

Copy paste this to other scenarios and I think you will find the excuse of “otherwise it would go to waste” a massive vector for all sorts of corruption at every level. How hard does someone try to find someone in need of something will go to waste? How will we ever know? It’s the slippery slope of corruption that poison societies.

Corruption is the deadliest thing in human existence.

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#276

Post by robin21 »

kuu wrote: post #18

In Spain we had many cases of politicians and public people using this excuse to get vaccinated before the rest (even bishops used it, and not only one!). I think it would be an easy to fix thing: Have a list of extra people available if you end up with an extra dose. It shouldn't be that hard, we had a year for preparing for this...

It’s such an easy thing to lie about. “I had only one dose left and had to use it on my wife.” How do we know there was not 10 more people but he did what he could to get exactly 9. There is huge incentive too. It would be less suspicious if his wife wasn’t sick.

I suspect the nytimes is interested in pushing the racism angle more than anything.

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#277

Post by robin21 »

ls612 wrote: post #48

This just goes to show how people are. They don’t want others to benefit if they don’t also benefit. They would rather more people get sick and die than someone get a shot before their turn. So much about politics can he explained by looking at people this way.

That is short-term thinking. What happens if this is left to slide. Someone hears about it and then you have more open vials that needed to be used late at night - “my family was the only ones awake so I gave it to them”. Bribes could be paid too.

It only seems like one dose here but that’s how corruption always begins and then one day you become Russia.

It underlines a large ideological difference in politics that exists...let’s help people in front of us here and now...vs let’s do things that will maximize benefits on the long run and reduce risk of negative consequences.

A wasted vial here and there is nothing compares to thousands wasted via corruption.

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#278

Post by leetcrew »

mgbennet wrote: post #272
lostcolony wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. It's super easy to fix, if people wanted to fix it. Even with welfare, you just make it so every after tax dollar earned reduces the welfare check by 50 cents. Tada, incentive to work, and only when you're making double what welfare pays out do you stop receiving assistance. People may still 'take advantage' of it, by choosing not to work (if we got rid of all the systems requiring proof they're trying to find…

I don't know if the drop off of assistance can really work that well. Say UBI is 10000 fun-bucks. A person gets a crappy job that pays 5000 fun-bucks. Their total income is now 5000+(10000-5000*.5)=12500. By getting a job and working, they've only improved their situation by 2500. Any dollar they earn above the UBI is taxed at 50%, until they've "made it" to double UBI. This amounts to taxing the poor instead of the…

> This amounts to taxing the poor instead of the rich

not really, when you consider who must be paying for the original 10000 fun bucks. the person in your example is still achieving an effectively negative tax rate.

> and is likely to not incentivize work as much you might like.

this much I agree with. the 50% falloff is probably much too steep.

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#279

Post by [deleted] »

wycy wrote: post #239
topspin wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It would be so simple" It may seem simple but your scheme a fraught with equity issues. The ability to respond in a timely manner or arrive within a limited timeframe such as you propose is likely to reflect the luxury of privilege. And yes, equity concerns are more important than concerns over whatever minimal delays or waste they create.

I guess this is just a point upon which we disagree. I'd rather any given dose make it into the arm of a some rich asshat than go down the drain.

[deleted]

Re: The Vaccine Had to Be Used. He Used It. He Was Fired

#280

Post by topspin »

wycy wrote: post #239
topspin wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It would be so simple" It may seem simple but your scheme a fraught with equity issues. The ability to respond in a timely manner or arrive within a limited timeframe such as you propose is likely to reflect the luxury of privilege. And yes, equity concerns are more important than concerns over whatever minimal delays or waste they create.

I guess this is just a point upon which we disagree. I'd rather any given dose make it into the arm of a some rich asshat than go down the drain.

Please consider that such views complicate efforts to deliver justice. Recognizing inequities and the potential for inequities before they emerge is crucial to achieving equity and justice.
Post reply on HN