Category: Health
Good Question
From Insty:
…also: “Whom do you vaccinate first?” [takes off Grammar Nazi armband]
That irritant aside, the question is a good one and is especially troubling in a case such as now, when the quantities are likely to be quite limited at first — especially when viewed against the global population of some six billion.
I’m going to be completely on the side of civilization here and say that whichever country developed the vaccine should have first call on the stuff (the dreaded “nationalist” worldview, fuck off, snowflakes). The fact that Brits, Americans or Europeans (i.e. Western civilizations) would end up being likely ahead of the hapless denizens of sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia… c’est la vie. So that’s easy: Western civilization (as the creators) benefits its members first, the rest later.
Let’s look at the situation within two countries who might develop the vaccine (needless to say, at huge cost in terms of research).
Ordinarily, vaccinations start either with children or with the most in need of vaccination — i.e. the populations at greatest risk from whatever pox is being vaccinated against.
Doesn’t work today, though. In the first place, kids are the ones least at risk from Teh Chinkvirus, so there’s no need to start with them.
Of course, the population group most vulnerable to death from the Chinese Pox is that of the elderly; but in today’s culture, where we Olde Pharttes are but a step or two away from being shoved onto ice floes by politicians and State institutions (cue: granny-killer NYGov Cuomo and Britain’s NHS), there would be fainting fits all over the place at the thought of “wasting” the vaccine on people who don’t have long to live anyway. So those two groups are, arguendo, excluded. Which leaves the rest.
Then the “meritocracy” argument begins. In Britishland, it’s easier at least for the first half-dozen or so available doses: the Queen, and those members of the Royal Family closest to the line of succession. [cue the Socialists’ and republicans’ grumbling]
Over Here… well, that’s a little problematic, isn’t it? The thought that a President (any President) should get the first shot is justifiably abhorrent to us egalitarians, ditto any members of government — and of Congress, we will not speak. (“Fuckem” would be the most common sentiment, I suspect, and rightly so.)
Then we come to the closest group we have to British nobility: Teh Rich. Uh huh. In twenty words or less, explain to me why Bill Gates, some Saudi “prince” or that asshole who runs Google are any more deserving than the guy behind the counter at your local 7-11. [hands out popcorn]
And the same is true for anyone else whom society may deem “special” and worthy of being at the head of the line. The thought of Kim Kardashian being more worthy of the vaccine than, say, my Son&Heir… [hands out more popcorn]
The simple truth is that nobody “deserves” to get the vaccination ahead of anyone else: not in the U.S.A., anyway. So what’s the solution?
Actually, the answer is really simple: hand the job over to Social Security.
Social Security numbers are arguably the closest thing we have to a national ID (I know, I know), and it would be the work of a few hours to create a lottery system which would rank the universe of SocSec numbers into some random order which would leave the delivery of vaccinations to pure chance. Unfortunately, this would exclude all those in this country who are here illegally and thus don’t have a Social Security number, but I see that as a feature, not a bug.
When it comes to survival, life in Earth is pretty much a crapshoot anyway, so why should this situation be any different?
New Moania
From The Divine Sarah at Insty (no link):
She’s quite right. I’ve always had what my mother referred to as a “weak chest” (whooping cough as a child, winter bronchitis all my life), and when I caught a mild case of pneumonia in the early 1990s, it took about three months and massive doses of antibiotics to recover fully. It’s the reason I quit driving for Uber when the Chinkvirus hit.
Let’s be careful out there.
Risky Bidness
Apparently, some “experts” (standard warning applies) over in Britishland (same warning) have come up with a list of activities that carry a risk of catching Chinkvirus cooties, ranked according to risk level:
All FYI — as much of what is listed is pretty much commonsense. I do wonder, though, how “protest march”, “rioting” and “looting” (some overlap) did not make the list.
I Don’t Think So, Scooter
Now we hear the following breathless announcement:
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warned on Friday that another lockdown might be necessary if the country suffers a “dramatic” rise in coronavirus infections.
They’ll soon discover that what they think is a “dramatic” rise is not what we think it is.
I’ve got news for you “experts” and government types: if you think that “civil disobedience” is an abstract concept or an impossibility in this country, try pulling that shit on us again.
And the harder you push us, the harder we’ll push back. If you go full aggro on us (and you should never go full aggro), the result will make the current BLM / Pantifa riots look like a Sunday school picnic.
You heard it here first.
Ain’t Gonna Happen
Of all the do-gooder organizations out there, the American Cancer Society ranks up near the top on my personal Pain-In-The-Ass Scale — and I say this as someone who has lost one wife to cancer, and am currently married to a cancer survivor.
The problem is that the ACS is always quick to warn (i.e. scold) people about the risks of getting cancer, when as any fule kno, Joe Jackson had it right: Everything Gives You Cancer. It’s the likelihood thereof that needs to be judged if one needs to modify one’s behavior.
So bullshit like this doesn’t help the cause at all:
New guidelines on cancer prevention recommend cutting out alcohol completely
Wait, what? But the details can be found somewhat further down the page:
In the United States, the ACS estimates that alcohol use accounts for about 6 percent of all cancers and 4 percent of all cancer deaths.
Right; so I have to give up something which gives me untold pleasure, makes good times with friends even better, and dulls the pain of everyday life — because there’s a 4% chance it may cause me to die from cancer: me, with no family history of cancer, who has never smoked nor worked with cancer-bearing substances of any kind?
And it gets worse:
“Alcohol use is one of the most important preventable risk factors for cancer, along with tobacco use and excess body weight,” according to the ACS.
Other significant changes included more physical activity and eating less processed and red meat — although the ACS also now recommends completely cutting processed and red meat from one’s diet, as well as sugar-sweetened beverages and “highly processed foods and refined grain products.”
Cut out biltong too? For a 4% risk?
As Glenn Reynolds says: I’ll take my chances. Or as Oliver Reed once said:
