Andrew Cuomo’s Vaccine Distribution Rules Are a Threat to Public Health

sipaphotoseleven323438

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has given hospitals a conundrum. Fail to use all of your COVID-19 vaccines within seven days of receipt? That’ll be a $100,000 fine. Vaccinate someone out of the state-designated order? That’ll be a $1 million fine.

Damned if you let your vaccines expire, damned if you don’t let your vaccines expire—by using them on anyone outside of the approved hierarchy.

The state’s distribution plan mandated that a slew of people receive the vaccine before the elderly, including health care workers, patient-facing employees at long-term care facilities, first responders, teachers, public health workers, grocery store workers, pharmacists, transit employees, those who uphold “critical infrastructure,” and individuals with significant co-morbidities. Such a plan is common across the U.S., and it requires a robust logistical framework to execute properly.

That hasn’t been going so well.

“States have held back doses to be given out to their nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities, an effort that is just gearing up and expected to take several months,” reports The New York Times. “Across the country, just 8 percent of the doses distributed for use in these facilities have been administered, with two million yet to be given.”

In New York, most individuals over 65 were not eligible to receive the vaccine until recently—when the state graduated to Phase Three of its plan—which partially explains the sluggish rollout. That prioritization, or lack thereof, inspired backlash from politicians and armchair pundits alike, many of whom argued that the elderly should have been first in line to receive the vaccine.

But the state is still struggling to increase the speed at which it administers the shots. Right now, New York’s hospitals have gone through less than half of the doses shipped to them.

That’s a problem. Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines can last for several months when frozen but must be thawed before use. And at that point, they have a very limited shelf life.

Of the nearly 900,000 vaccinations sent to New York, only about 275,000 people have received the first dose, or 30 percent. Some states lag even farther behind: North Carolina clocks in at around 26 percent, California at 24 percent, Florida at 23 percent. Kansas is at 15 percent.

But New York leads the way in filling the process with fear and red tape. In Washington, D.C., by contrast, the Department of Health is reportedly encouraging health care providers to administer surplus vaccines nearing expiration to any willing recipient. David MacMillan documented such an experience on TikTok after a pharmacist approached him randomly in a D.C. Giant supermarket with an offer to get the Moderna vaccine.

A similar approach is popular in Israel, which has vaccinated 12 percent of its population with the first dose—the U.S. is at 1 percent—and has moved so rapidly that it is running out of vaccines. They, too, allow the younger population to benefit from extra vaccines. More than 100,000 Israelis between the ages of 20 and 40 have been inoculated.

In MacMillan’s case, he lucked out when two people didn’t show up for their scheduled appointments—something that is bound to happen and is out of health care workers’ control. The pharmacist “turned to us and was like, ‘Hey, I’ve got two doses of the vaccine and I’m going to have to throw them away if I don’t give them to somebody,” MacMillan said on TikTok. “‘We close in 10 minutes. Do you want the Moderna vaccine?'” In D.C., that’s one more person who’s been vaccinated against COVID-19 and one tiny step closer to herd immunity.

Had that happened in New York, the pharmacist might be out of a job.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pQeX8g
via IFTTT

While Trump Clings to Power, Justin Amash Has Left the Building

AmashBye

While the Internet was exploding Sunday over the leak of President Donald Trump’s shameful, lawyer-laden phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Ben Raffensberger, a more orderly yet still significant transfer of power was taking place: Iraq vet and supermarket heir Peter Meijer (R–Mich.) was sworn into office, replacing five-term Republican-turned-independent-turned-Libertarian Justin Amash.

Amash, no stranger to Reason‘s pages and pixels, was perhaps the most incisive internal critic of congressional process, the biggest exemplar of vote-explaining transparency, and of course a big fat libertarian (metaphorically speaking), who went out the door introducing all kinds of libertarian-wishlist bills. So concludeth Peter Suderman, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie on today’s Reason Roundtable podcast.

The gang also squabbles over the import of the Trumpian election shenanigans, weighs in on the character vs. ideology debate, and responds to our first-ever non-Webathon listener mail. (Speaking of which, send your questions to roundtable@reason.com, pretty please!)

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: “I Say” by Night Owl.

Relevant links from the show:

Legislator Posts Votes on Facebook. All of Them,” by Katherine Mangu-Ward

Rep. Justin Amash Profiled: Moving Forward with Ron Paul Republicanism,” by Brian Doherty

Justin Amash Declares Independence From Republican Party,” by Matt Welch

Justin Amash Becomes the First Libertarian Member of Congress,” by Matt Welch

Justin Amash: People Want a President ‘Who Is Normal, Honest, Practical, Capable,’” by Nick Gillespie

Justin Amash’s Tenure as the Libertarian Party’s First Member in Congress Will Be Shortlived,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Justin Amash Introduces Bill To End Forever National Emergencies,” by Billy Binion

Trump’s Conversation With Georgia Election Officials Shows His Conviction That He Won Is Impervious to Evidence,” by Jacob Sullum

Trump Fishes for Votes in Georgia as GOP Senators Fight Over Election Certification,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Ted Cruz Plans To Restore Confidence in the Election System by Lending Credence to the Wild Fraud Claims of a ‘Pathological Liar,’” by Jacob Sullum

Trump Wasn’t a Dictator, but He Played One on TV,” by Gene Healy

In Defense of COVID Billionaires,” by Katherine Mangu-Ward

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2KRxMsV
via IFTTT

While Trump Clings to Power, Justin Amash Has Left the Building

AmashBye

While the Internet was exploding Sunday over the leak of President Donald Trump’s shameful, lawyer-laden phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Ben Raffensberger, a more orderly yet still significant transfer of power was taking place: Iraq vet and supermarket heir Peter Meijer (R–Mich.) was sworn into office, replacing five-term Republican-turned-independent-turned-Libertarian Justin Amash.

Amash, no stranger to Reason‘s pages and pixels, was perhaps the most incisive internal critic of congressional process, the biggest exemplar of vote-explaining transparency, and of course a big fat libertarian (metaphorically speaking), who went out the door introducing all kinds of libertarian-wishlist bills. So concludeth Peter Suderman, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie on today’s Reason Roundtable podcast.

The gang also squabbles over the import of the Trumpian election shenanigans, weighs in on the character vs. ideology debate, and responds to our first-ever non-Webathon listener mail. (Speaking of which, send your questions to roundtable@reason.com, pretty please!)

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: “I Say” by Night Owl.

Relevant links from the show:

Legislator Posts Votes on Facebook. All of Them,” by Katherine Mangu-Ward

Rep. Justin Amash Profiled: Moving Forward with Ron Paul Republicanism,” by Brian Doherty

Justin Amash Declares Independence From Republican Party,” by Matt Welch

Justin Amash Becomes the First Libertarian Member of Congress,” by Matt Welch

Justin Amash: People Want a President ‘Who Is Normal, Honest, Practical, Capable,’” by Nick Gillespie

Justin Amash’s Tenure as the Libertarian Party’s First Member in Congress Will Be Shortlived,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Justin Amash Introduces Bill To End Forever National Emergencies,” by Billy Binion

Trump’s Conversation With Georgia Election Officials Shows His Conviction That He Won Is Impervious to Evidence,” by Jacob Sullum

Trump Fishes for Votes in Georgia as GOP Senators Fight Over Election Certification,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Ted Cruz Plans To Restore Confidence in the Election System by Lending Credence to the Wild Fraud Claims of a ‘Pathological Liar,’” by Jacob Sullum

Trump Wasn’t a Dictator, but He Played One on TV,” by Gene Healy

In Defense of COVID Billionaires,” by Katherine Mangu-Ward

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2KRxMsV
via IFTTT

Ohio Gov. Signs Repeal of Duty to Retreat: 36 States Now Stand-Your-Ground, only 14 Duty-to-Retreat

See this post from two weeks ago for more on the breakdown among the states, and for an explanation of exactly what’s involved in this question (and what isn’t).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pSB2CT
via IFTTT

Ohio Gov. Signs Repeal of Duty to Retreat: 36 States Now Stand-Your-Ground, only 14 Duty-to-Retreat

See this post from two weeks ago for more on the breakdown among the states, and for an explanation of exactly what’s involved in this question (and what isn’t).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pSB2CT
via IFTTT

Former Time Warner CEO Calls for “Private Accountability for Hate Speech”

From Jeff Bewkes, “former chairman and CEO of Time Warner,” and Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, “senior associate dean and professor of management practice at the Yale School of Management, where he is president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute,” writing in Fortune:

[M]ore closely regulating social media companies is a good idea…. The regulation of technology is considered by many on the left and on the right to be a taboo, a bureaucratic assault on entrepreneurship, and a neo-Luddite undermining of U.S. competitiveness. However, screening of Internet communications is common around the world. It is completely possible to require private accountability for hate speech and inciting violence without curtailing the First Amendment. No constitutional rights are limitless—and the repeal of Section 230 has nothing to do with freedom of speech….

Repealing Section 230 is not a threat to the First Amendment. As long as anyone is free to launch their own platform, they must also shoulder the obligation to keep it safe and respectful.

The bulk of the article is indeed about repealing or modifying § 230, and there are perfectly plausible arguments to be had around that. Should Internet platforms be potentially liable for defamatory material posted on them, the way newspapers are potentially liable for defamation in letters to the editor or in advertisements? Should they be liable just on a notice-and-takedown basis, much as bookstores and libraries are (i.e., they would be liable if they keep material up once they’re on notice that it’s allegedly defamatory)? Or should they be entirely immune, the way they are now, and the way telephone companies have long been? (See this post for more on these three options.) I think that on balance the current § 230 regime is the least bad of the alternatives, but there are reasonable arguments for at least a notice-and-takedown position (and reasonable counterarguments).

But that debate is about platform liability for speech that fits within a First Amendment exception, such as libel, or one of a few other categories (such as solicitation of crime, true threats of crime, and the like). There is no First Amendment exception for hate speech. The government can’t make people legally “accountab[le] for hate speech”—whether by imposing liability on them for their own speech, or for third parties’ speech—any more than it can make people legally accountable for “[dis]respectful” speech or unpatriotic speech or rude speech or blasphemous speech or the like.

And this is so, of course, regardless of § 230. Section 230 doesn’t keep posters from being sued or prosecuted for their own speech; but the First Amendment protects them from being held “accountab[le]” for their own “hate speech.” Likewise, with or without § 230, platforms can’t be held accountable for their users’ “hate speech” (whatever that means), either. If what’s driving the calls to repeal or modify § 230 is a broader agenda to suppress people’s expression of supposedly “hate[ful]” ideas, that is all the more reason to resist such calls.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38bXxg5
via IFTTT

What Drug Warriors Got Wrong About the Opioid Epidemic

idea 4.1

Why did prescription opioids bring so much misery to the small towns of post-industrial America?

The standard narrative is to put the blame on OxyContin, a powerful painkiller pushed on rural America by the profiteers at Purdue Pharma, which ended up filing for bankruptcy and settling criminal charges with the federal government for $8.3 billion. In this telling, the opioid epidemic is a morality tale of capitalism run amok and regulation made toothless by anti-government zealots.

Sally Satel, a practicing psychiatrist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has a more complicated story to tell. In 2018, she moved to Ironton, Ohio, a small, economically depressed town in Appalachia. With the help of Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance, she found a job working with patients and social service providers to better understand the opioid epidemic. Satel says that the opioid crisis didn’t start with OxyContin. It was a natural outgrowth of a century-old tradition of medicating pain as a way of tending to the broken bodies of the region’s laborers.

She stresses that “when the Purdue sales force came to small towns in Appalachia, it was pushing on open clinic doors.” While there’s no question that OxyContin was a particularly potent painkiller, it was merely the latest in a long line of legal and illegal substances used by people in the region to ease physical and psychological suffering. That’s one of the reasons why even after OxyContin was reformulated to reduce abuse and opioid prescriptions declined, overdoses and dysfunction are still commonplace.

Satel also challenges conventional theories of addiction, which typically characterize addiction as a disease like diabetes or Alzheimer’s. That narrative denies the agency of individuals with substance abuse issues and makes it harder to treat them. Substance abuse, she says, derives from both inborn predilections and environment. Effective treatment has to deal with both factors. In a deeply ironic way, many of the people who blame the opioid epidemic on bad pills see the solution as a different set of pills such as methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. Satel stresses that the best way forward is to give individuals tools to make better use decisions while improving their chances to live lives with open-ended futures.

Photo credits: Credits: ID 118820734© Eshmadeva| Dreamstime.com, ID 67095798© Ljupco Dreamstime.com, ID 8248015© Gemenacom Dreamstime.com, ochre7 | thenounproject.com, Purdue Pharma building; Credit: Kris Tripplaar/Sipa USA/Newscom, Oxycotin pills; Credit: Kris Tripplaar/Sipa USA/Newscom, ID 83510092 © Pureradiancephoto | Dreamstime.com, ID 74433193 © Pureradiancephoto | Dreamstime.com, ID 83505630 © Pureradiancephoto | Dreamstime.com, Oxycodone; Credit: Robin Rayne/ZUMA Press/Newscom, ID 119487794 © David Wood | Dreamstime.com, ID 92374531 © Pureradiancephoto | Dreamstime.com, ID 186618334 © Darwin Brandis | Dreamstime.com, Oxycotin tablet and bottles; Credit: JEFF SINER/KRT/Newscom, ID 177835776 © Jon Anders Wiken | Dreamstime.com, Oxycotin protest; Credit: Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/Newscom, Painkiller protesters; Credit: Erik McGregor/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Ironton, Ohio; Credit: BRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS/Newscom, ID 83220881 © Sherman Cahal | Dreamstime.com, ID 42727529 © Auntkandis | Dreamstime.com, J.D. Vance; Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom, Ironton, Ohio; Credit: ID 109543668 © Sherman Cahal | Dreamstime.com, Oxycotin, close; Credit: Kris Tripplaar/Sipa USA/Newscom, Brain scan: ID 104709884 © Ded Mityay | Dreamstime.com, ID 104708862 © Ded Mityay | Dreamstime.com, Appalachia, Credit: Everett Collection/Newscom, Pills, Credit: Stephan Jansen/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom, ID 12683852 © Reino Jonsson | Dreamstime.com, ID 51873792 © Marsia16 | Dreamstime.com, Alcoholic: ID 42516984 © Ocusfocus | Dreamstime.com, ID 42516940 © Ocusfocus | Dreamstime.com, ID 42516922 © Ocusfocus | Dreamstime.com, Addiction patient; Credit: Norma Jean Gargasz/agefotostock/Newscom, Powder in spoon; Credit: ID 143292811 © Eag1e | Dreamstime.com, Hand with pills; Credit: Gado Images/Smith Collection/Gado/Sipa USA/Newscom, ID 165273655 © Mark Youso | Dreamstime.com, Methadone: ID 140482461 © Newgixxer | Dreamstime.com, Hydrocodone: ID 153684292 © Jessica Fischer | Dreamstime.com, ID 173159293 © Soleg1974 | Dreamstime.com

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2KSbZBq
via IFTTT

Former Time Warner CEO Calls for “Private Accountability for Hate Speech”

From Jeff Bewkes, “former chairman and CEO of Time Warner,” and Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, “senior associate dean and professor of management practice at the Yale School of Management, where he is president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute,” writing in Fortune:

[M]ore closely regulating social media companies is a good idea…. The regulation of technology is considered by many on the left and on the right to be a taboo, a bureaucratic assault on entrepreneurship, and a neo-Luddite undermining of U.S. competitiveness. However, screening of Internet communications is common around the world. It is completely possible to require private accountability for hate speech and inciting violence without curtailing the First Amendment. No constitutional rights are limitless—and the repeal of Section 230 has nothing to do with freedom of speech….

Repealing Section 230 is not a threat to the First Amendment. As long as anyone is free to launch their own platform, they must also shoulder the obligation to keep it safe and respectful.

The bulk of the article is indeed about repealing or modifying § 230, and there are perfectly plausible arguments to be had around that. Should Internet platforms be potentially liable for defamatory material posted on them, the way newspapers are potentially liable for defamation in letters to the editor or in advertisements? Should they be liable just on a notice-and-takedown basis, much as bookstores and libraries are (i.e., they would be liable if they keep material up once they’re on notice that it’s allegedly defamatory)? Or should they be entirely immune, the way they are now, and the way telephone companies have long been? (See this post for more on these three options.) I think that on balance the current § 230 regime is the least bad of the alternatives, but there are reasonable arguments for at least a notice-and-takedown position (and reasonable counterarguments).

But that debate is about platform liability for speech that fits within a First Amendment exception, such as libel, or one of a few other categories (such as solicitation of crime, true threats of crime, and the like). There is no First Amendment exception for hate speech. The government can’t make people legally “accountab[le] for hate speech”—whether by imposing liability on them for their own speech, or for third parties’ speech—any more than it can make people legally accountable for “[dis]respectful” speech or unpatriotic speech or rude speech or blasphemous speech or the like.

And this is so, of course, regardless of § 230. Section 230 doesn’t keep posters from being sued or prosecuted for their own speech; but the First Amendment protects them from being held “accountab[le]” for their own “hate speech.” Likewise, with or without § 230, platforms can’t be held accountable for their users’ “hate speech” (whatever that means), either. If what’s driving the calls to repeal or modify § 230 is a broader agenda to suppress people’s expression of supposedly “hate[ful]” ideas, that is all the more reason to resist such calls.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38bXxg5
via IFTTT

Poetry Monday!: “Ona” (“She”) by Zinaida Gippius

For you Russian readers out there, here’s “Она” (“Ona”, “She”) (1905) by Zinaida Gippius (1869-1945).

“В своей бессовестной и жалкой низости,
Она как пыль сера, как прах земной.
И умираю я от этой близости,
От неразрывности ее со мной….”

For the rest of my playlist, click here. Past poems are:

  1. “Ulysses” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
  2. “The Pulley” by George Herbert
  3. “Harmonie du soir” by Charles Baudelaire
  4. “Dirge Without Music” by Edna St. Vincent Millay
  5. “Clancy of the Overflow” by A.B. “Banjo” Paterson
  6. “Лотова жена” (“Lotova zhena”, “Lot’s wife”) by Anna Akhmatova
  7. “The Jumblies” by Edward Lear
  8. “The Conqueror Worm” by Edgar Allan Poe
  9. “Les Djinns” by Victor Hugo
  10. “I Have a Rendezvous with Death” by Alan Seeger
  11. “When I Was One-and-Twenty” by A.E. Housman
  12. “Узник” (“Uznik”, “The Prisoner” or “The Captive”) by Aleksandr Pushkin
  13. “God’s Grandeur” by Gerard Manley Hopkins
  14. “The Song of Wandering Aengus” by William Butler Yeats
  15. “Je crains pas ça tellment” by Raymond Queneau
  16. “The Naming of Cats” by T.S. Eliot
  17. “The reticent volcano keeps…” by Emily Dickinson

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/357V7gT
via IFTTT

Bean Dad Canceled After Letting 9-Year-Old Daughter Figure Out a Can Opener

dreamstime_xxl_59622631

If you check out this thread that’s been burning up Twitter, you will read a story almost as long as the six-hour ordeal the dad describes, which began when a daughter wanted some baked beans and a father, John Roderick—a.k.a. “Bean Dad”—told her to open a can and heat some up.

The problem?

Said daughter, age nine, had never used a can-opener, and dad decided not not show her.  He was busy with a puzzle. He would wait out the whole time it took for the girl (who must not have access to YouTube) to finally, desperately figure out that the dang thing is held parallel to the cylinder and fastens on the lip.

In 23 subsequently deleted tweets, Bean Dad wrote about every frustrated exchange he and his daughter had:

So I said, “How do you think this works?” She studied it and applied it to the top of the can, sideways. She struggled for a while and with a big, dramatic sigh said, “Will you please just open the can?” Apocalypse Dad was overjoyed: a Teaching Moment just dropped in my lap!

We’ll see just how teachable in a moment. His tweets continued to describe the afternoon:

I said, “The little device is designed to do one thing: Open cans. Study the parts, study the can, figure out what the can-opener inventor was thinking when they tried to solve this problem.”…

When the girl finally did puncture the can with the little wheely thing (really, how much do any of us really know about can openers?), she was triumphant, and  dad was too.

Then came the commenters.

Like beans spilled on the floor, they were all over the place. Some praised dad for believing his kid would figure it out. Through his tough love, his daughter learned to be resourceful and really earn those beans.

But many others chimed in with less appreciative commentary: “If you are still not convinced this guy is a fuckbag, you may want to consider whether you are not also a fuckbag.” And, “Godspeed, shitgoblin.” And:

Pretty soon the haters were coming so loud—some calling his actions child abuse—that Bean Dad took down his whole thread (preserved here). Then came the memes, of course. And then came the digging up of his prior tweets, some of which were shockingly and indisputably racist and anti-Semitic. Or as one tweet put it:

Bean Dad’s daughter is now about 6 hours into watching her dad try to learn how to close a can of worms.

One worm-can included the fact that a podcast—My Brother, My Brother and Me—featured a song by a musical group that included Bean Dad in the 2000s. No more:

This incident leaves me with several questions.

First, when someone says or writes something you disagree with on Twitter, in a newspaper, or anywhere else, is this license to dredge up anything they’ve ever said publicly?

In truth, it does interest me that Bean Dad had posted disgusting tweets. It also made it much easier for me to categorize him. While some part of me had considered that maybe there was something plausibly positive in his parenting decision that day—his belief that his daughter would figure out a truly confusing problem, and savor her perseverance and lightbulb moment—once I read Bean Dad’s past tweets I could very easily damn everything he did and said as cruel and reprehensible. It allowed me to label him, once and for all, as a jerk.

I’m not sure that’s something we should be doing whenever we’re faced with an idea that is new or ambiguous. Digging back, hoping to find evidence of a character flaw so we can easily dismiss or despise someone, seems to allow us to hate instead of think.

On a somewhat parallel plain, I’m not very happy about the pastime of publicly second-guessing parenting decisions. This hobby has had serious real-world repercussions. For instance, sometimes a child is allowed to play outside without supervision, or a child wanders off and it takes a little while for the parent to notice. These are normal situations. But in actual cases like these, onlookers have called Child Protective Services simply because they believe that taking their eyes off their kids for one moment isn’t something they would ever do.

Absent real abuse, I’d rather us not be jumping in. Jumping in on Twitter normalizes the practice of hating and shaming as a virtuous thing to do. Jumping in on real-world parenting situations does the same. But being a virtuous child protector requires actually protecting kids, not sending the authorities after people we disagree with, dislike, or disdain.

Judging people as quickly and harshly as possible may be a normal human impulse. But it’s heating up faster than a bubbly pot of baked beans. (And now I’m hungry.)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38aZiKI
via IFTTT