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

171–180 of 369 posts

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

#171

Post by valarauko »

kxyvr wrote: post #153

For reference for non-Houston readers, he took the vaccine from a vaccine event in Humble to his home in Sugar Land. That's over 40 miles through the fourth largest city in America. His route home would have had him drive by the Texas Medical Center, which contains 21 hospitals that employs over 100k people. Further, the city/county run vaccine effort has been very strict about verifying addresses. He took the vaccin…

I agree that the NYT article presents a false dichotomy, and offers a rosy picture of the doctor's actions. That said, I genuinely wonder what's the alternative action available to him? I agree that the article creates a false ticking time bomb narrative and he's Jack Bauer. Still, he made good faith (presumably) attempts to eligible people at the vaccination site, who refused. Would the Texas Medical Center have accepted an opened half used vial from some guy who drove up? If the only people who might accept it were people he personally knew and his patients, I'm not sure what he could do besides try Sugar Land. I agree he could have tried harder, but honestly - when his supervisors didn't care when he called them, why should he?

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

#172

Post by yw3410 »

ivanbakel wrote: post #145
aardvarkr wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your problem is that it’s not fair how he distributed it? You’d rather see life saving medicine trashed rather than go into a human being’s arm? How can you defend that position? It’s so unethical.

>So your problem is that it’s not fair how he distributed it? No, the point I'm making is that his actions were outside of the system we use as a society to ensure fairness. He could still have distributed the vaccine fairly - but he also could have done it unfairly. The concern comes from the lack of due process. >You’d rather see life saving medicine trashed rather than go into a human being’s arm? How can you defe…

That's not entirely true though - the penalties for attempted murder are not the same as murder, for example.

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

#173

Post by pas »

iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: post #137
ascagnel_ wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of this comes from the Reagan-era idea of "welfare queens" -- that because the idea of "government handouts" are so enticing, people will cheat the system to get them. There are two issues with this: - "government handouts" and a reliance on welfare are typically a symptom, not a root cause, of an ailing society -- there are bigger issues at play around wealth and ownership if a large segment of the population…

I think the same idea extends into many other areas of government. The bureaucracy is set up to give the appearance that nobody is taking advantage of the system, and optimizes only for this outcome. So ironically, only those who devote their time to learning how to take advantage of the system are rewarded. The examples I'm thinking of are government hiring and procurement, where there are all kinds of hoops to jump…

The good intention behind mandatory fairness is to fight good old quid pro quo corruption.

Of course it seems hard to separate "the hiring manager wants to work with them [because they are a great vendor]" from "the hiring manager wants to work with them because they pay for the hiring manager's kids' school and family vacation" without adequate documentation.

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

#174

Post by ivanbakel »

h_anna_h wrote: post #163
ivanbakel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So your problem is that it’s not fair how he distributed it? No, the point I'm making is that his actions were outside of the system we use as a society to ensure fairness. He could still have distributed the vaccine fairly - but he also could have done it unfairly. The concern comes from the lack of due process. >You’d rather see life saving medicine trashed rather than go into a human being’s arm? How can you defe…

> in bypassing policy Citation needed please, the article said that he followed the policy of not letting the vaccine go to waste.

The article says that he reports following the policy as he understood it. He also reports that he was later told he should have disposed of the vaccine or returned it, rather than caring about wastage.

The county prosecutor maintains that policy directed him to act differently, since that is the basis of her case against him. So, from the prosecutor's perspective, he bypassed policy. Since I'm making a point about the prosecutor's motivations, it's charitable to see this from the view of the prosecutor.

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

#175

Post by mumblemumble »

clairity wrote: post #167
mumblemumble wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I see why killing the engine that fuels the rent-seeking gravy train, and, in the process of doing so, taking a huge monkey off the backs of people who are receiving assistance, would somehow misplace blame on those same people. It's simply suggesting that perhaps we should address a cause of the problem rather than only focusing on its symptoms. And the way in which the market gets freer, in this case,…

you're mistakenly associating assistance programs with rent-seeking, and moreover focusing on an entirely irrelevant corner of it. rent-seeking will occur anywhere there is wealth to be extracted, which is basically everywhere else in the economy, so that association is unwarranted. you should be looking at where capital is concentrated and deployed if you're truly concerned about rent-seeking over "big government".

It's not that assistance programs are rent seeking. It's that the assistance programs, as they're structured, are a honey pot for rent seeking. A program that micro-manages what people can put on their table at home invites lobbying to influence those rules for one's own financial gain.

It's an example of how pearl-clutching attitudes - in this case, fears, based on deeply entrenched moralistic notions about less-wealthy people's ability to make decisions for themselves, that people might buy the wrong food - are easy to co-opt for mercenary purposes, to basically nobody's benefit.

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

#176

Post by Wowfunhappy »

zamadatix wrote: post #68
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.

I think the logic is reasonable but the response is too strong. A doctor driving around vaccinating whoever he can find at their house is clearly not how you want to distribute the vaccine in early December, it's not going to get to the most at risk people as soon as it can and any issues that arise are a huge liability problem unless he can fix it with what's in his car. At the same time not having any plan or proce…

> A doctor driving around vaccinating whoever he can find at their house is clearly not how you want to distribute the vaccine in early December, it's not going to get to the most at risk people as soon as it can and any issues that arise are a huge liability problem unless he can fix it with what's in his car.

No, but it is absolutely what I would want any doctor to do if the alternative was throwing away COVID vaccine doses.

Like, I literally think this should be the standard policy. Do absolutely everything within your power to never waste a dose, ever. If that means getting in your car and driving around town, you need to go do that, no question.

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

#177

Post by josefx »

underseacables wrote: post #46
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 sounds like the problem you hear with restaurants wanting to give away unused, clean food to shelters, but forbidden by the health department.

In Germany a tax office once got the great idea to collect taxes on food donations based on the cost of ingredients. As far as the law was concerned this was the correct way to handle a food donation, most tax offices just didn't consider it. The issue got resolved, but for some time any business that wanted to be on the safe side had to "sell" its donation for the symbolic price of one Mark. Early on this also resulted in businesses throwing away food instead of donating it.

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

#178

Post by cameldrv »

nathancahill wrote: post #3

Spent a long time reading about how vast bureaucratic inefficiencies are created by people worrying that "the wrong person" will benefit from government programs or that someone "undeserving" might get theirs before I do. This falls squarely in that bucket. Tragic.

This is the flip side of it though:

https://abc7news.com/california-edd-unemployment-fraud-ca-sc...

$30 billion in unemployment fraud in just a year, in just one state.

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

#179

Post by mc32 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #162
mc32 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negative taxes are better. No need to give to the wealthy in the first place to come back and tax them later.

It may seem pointless, but it may be administratively simpler. Similar to how people with government jobs still pay taxes, even though their paychecks come from the government in the first place.

People with fed jobs are not so simple. Are they married, does the partner work outside the fed gov., do they have a second job, etc. But I suppose in principle you could pay them net and make adjustments at tax time. It’s okay by me.

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

#180

Post by mcv »

ivanbakel wrote: post #42
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.

> They're literally saying he should have just thrown them away instead of distributing them as best he was able. I wouldn't necessarily object to that particular policy. It's a shame to waste perfectly good medicine in a pandemic, but would we feel the same if he had not found anybody vulnerable who was available, and instead ended up vaccinating his own children, who are fit and healthy? What if, instead, he taken…

If he could not find any suitable recipients in time, yes, he should have vaccinated his own children. Still better than throwing it away. Selling it for profit would be something totally different and should absolutely be treated as theft. But vaccinating anyone, even his own family, is better than throwing it away. Of course to prove he's not abusing his position to benefit his family, it's probably wise to document his efforts to find other suitable people. But if he can't, just use it on anyone. That's what the guideline says, after all.
Post reply on HN