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

McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 324 posts

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#201

Post by grues-dinner »

fakedang wrote: post #108
pkkkzip wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> lot of ppl on the left mad at billionaires too Seems the left were always in favor of Luigi. I'm more surprised by the right in the US. The days just after the shooting, they were all in favor too, but after their media pundits took an opposing stance, they joined the bandwagon and are now ranting about "muh poor CEO". Bunch of sheep I suppose.

The period when people have their own reactions, followed by a sudden reset and synchronisation once the taking points get assembled and is really quite fascinating. I would really love to know how centralised the process of defining talking points is, or if it is, itself, emergent behaviour of a distributed system resulting in coherent outcomes.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#202

Post by dartos »

ternnoburn wrote: post #72
dartos wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or… ever?

The rich and powerful are pretty famous for not saving the consequences of their actions, I'm not sure what you are implying....

Yeah, that fact is evident if you look at the news… ever…

Hunter Biden pardoned, Trump’s convictions not resulting in punishment, high ranking executives getting bonuses for layoffs, etc…

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#203

Post by zmgsabst »

nkrisc wrote: post #199
zmgsabst wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were coerced by the state: they issued mandates which required vaccination to engage in normal rights. That’s the literal definition of coercion. I think it’s interesting how many people deny that — almost as if you know what was done is morally repugnant.

Viruses are not concerned with ethics and morals.

Okay — but we have more concerns than a single virus.

It’s entirely possible to engage in net-negative behaviors because you fixate on a singular goal — a human version of the “paperclip optimizer”: we became “COVID optimizers” and produced suboptimal results.

Ethics and morals are time-honed heuristics to avoid those failures. “Freedom” is the heuristic that distributed risk assessment and planning out perform centralized versions — and we forgot that in our panic.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#204

Post by dmd »

dcreater wrote: post #153
remarkEon wrote: post #152

A little unrelated to this whole thing, which does hit me a bit personally since my cousin back in Iowa died of opioid-related dependency issues, but I have interviewed a lot of consultants over the years for various roles and they are without question the most consistently bad interviews. It's funny, when I was in business school years ago (please forgive me) getting a job at McKinsey or BCG was more or less the crè…

I'm so proud of my decision making when I was younger to avoid this path though it was considered an elite path

I am grateful for McKinsey and BCG because when I dropped out of my postdoc in 2009 and was looking for a job, I went to probably 20 or 30 of their lunch events at Wharton where I absolutely stuffed myself and my pockets, despite having no intention whatsoever of joining them.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#205

Post by mdorazio »

remarkEon wrote: post #152

A little unrelated to this whole thing, which does hit me a bit personally since my cousin back in Iowa died of opioid-related dependency issues, but I have interviewed a lot of consultants over the years for various roles and they are without question the most consistently bad interviews. It's funny, when I was in business school years ago (please forgive me) getting a job at McKinsey or BCG was more or less the crè…

I've also interviewed many consultants over the years. It strongly depends on what you are interviewing them for. If you want people with deep industry expertise and a strong fit for a fairly narrow role, then yes of course the consulting kids are going to suck. If you want people who can learn quickly and look more broadly than a specific department to do things like strategic or financial planning then consultants can be a good fit.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#206

Post by nkrisc »

zmgsabst wrote: post #203
nkrisc wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Viruses are not concerned with ethics and morals.

Okay — but we have more concerns than a single virus. It’s entirely possible to engage in net-negative behaviors because you fixate on a singular goal — a human version of the “paperclip optimizer”: we became “COVID optimizers” and produced suboptimal results. Ethics and morals are time-honed heuristics to avoid those failures. “Freedom” is the heuristic that distributed risk assessment and planning out perform centr…

And some day there may be another epidemic for which we optimize for freedom, and after which there will be no human left to enjoy the freedom (or those left will be too busy surviving to worry about things such as “freedom”).

It is fortunate that the COVID-19 pandemic did not rise to that level. Maybe it couldn’t have, but that’s easier to say with the benefit of hindsight.

Or some other catastrophe that threatens us. My point is that natural things do not care for artificial concepts such as “freedoms” and “rights” and “morality”.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#207

Post by beepboopboop »

dmd wrote: post #204
dcreater wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so proud of my decision making when I was younger to avoid this path though it was considered an elite path

I am grateful for McKinsey and BCG because when I dropped out of my postdoc in 2009 and was looking for a job, I went to probably 20 or 30 of their lunch events at Wharton where I absolutely stuffed myself and my pockets, despite having no intention whatsoever of joining them.

> and my pockets

Do they give money out at these lunches??

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#208

Post by dmd »

beepboopboop wrote: post #207
dmd wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am grateful for McKinsey and BCG because when I dropped out of my postdoc in 2009 and was looking for a job, I went to probably 20 or 30 of their lunch events at Wharton where I absolutely stuffed myself and my pockets, despite having no intention whatsoever of joining them.

> and my pockets Do they give money out at these lunches??

No I mean I literally stuffed my coat pockets with food! Sandwiches, fruit, cheese especially.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#209

Post by zmgsabst »

nkrisc wrote: post #206
zmgsabst wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay — but we have more concerns than a single virus. It’s entirely possible to engage in net-negative behaviors because you fixate on a singular goal — a human version of the “paperclip optimizer”: we became “COVID optimizers” and produced suboptimal results. Ethics and morals are time-honed heuristics to avoid those failures. “Freedom” is the heuristic that distributed risk assessment and planning out perform centr…

And some day there may be another epidemic for which we optimize for freedom, and after which there will be no human left to enjoy the freedom (or those left will be too busy surviving to worry about things such as “freedom”). It is fortunate that the COVID-19 pandemic did not rise to that level. Maybe it couldn’t have, but that’s easier to say with the benefit of hindsight. Or some other catastrophe that threatens u…

You say that as if the recommendations for freedom weren’t based on the initial medical data.

But they were and you’re inventing a false dichotomy whereby we had to engage in totalitarianism contrary to evidence of COVID’s deadliness or some hypothetical infinite bad might have happened.

That’s nothing but bullshit, from somebody who was wrong.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#210

Post by Retric »

zmgsabst wrote: post #167
Retric wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative of continuing isolation was available though impractical for many. The ethics around vaccination is it saved well over 1 million US lives without direct force, that’s a clear win by any reasonable ethical system. Being unable to be an unvaccinated healthcare worker is little different than requiring people wash hands, or preventing them from walking around shooting patients. PS: Actual estimates for l…

COVID vaccines weren’t believed to be QALY positive for a substantial period of the mandates, according to actuarial estimates. The vaccines hospitalized at a rate higher than they prevented hospitalizations and the mandates applied to groups who were at virtually no risk. > The ethics around vaccination is it saved well over 1 million US lives without direct force, that’s a clear win by any reasonable ethical system…

> weren’t beloved to be QALY positive for a substantial period of the mandates,

False.

> Except that force was used.

Nobody was forcefully vaccinated, and in fact 10’s of millions of Americans never got vaccinated and a vastly larger percentage of them died. The numbers aren’t even vaguely comparable.

Post reply on HN