Patterico's Pontifications

2/17/2021

Constitutional Vanguard: A Rant About How “Equity” Costs Lives, Plus . . . A Podcast???

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:36 pm



Yes, a podcast.

I’m looking for ways to sweeten the pot for paid subscribers to my newsletter. The notion of building up a community has me energized a bit, and I’m putting a little more time into some of these posts — plus I am launching a podcast of sorts. (What?!)

But first, the post. It picks up on stories discussed here by Dana (Dr. Gokal and the “stolen” vaccines) and JVW (the CDC’s decision to kick old people to the curb because they are too white) and connects the dots with the silly concept of “income inequality.” Here is a teaser:

So we have now seen two stories — the story of Dr. Gokal and the story of the CDC’s prioritization of vaccines — where officials came to the conclusion that the pursuit of “equality” may be worth sacrificing lives. (Only certain lives can be sacrificed, of course. When you’re seeking equality, some are more equal than others!) Which leads me to my final topic: that of “income inequality.”

Is there any stupider phrase in the English language?

Let me be clear: income inequality is never a real problem. If it were, there would be an easy solution: pick the person with the lowest income, and then make everyone else “equal” to that person. If everyone is equally poor, they are still “equal” — and there is no longer any income inequality.

There will be crushing poverty, but that’s OK, right?

Now for the real fun stuff. I also launched a podcast, of sorts. Yes, it’s amateurish. Yes, it’s just me for now. But I’m hoping to make it a venue where I can talk — literally talk — to some of you. Plus, the intro is all kinds of fun — so much so that I spend the whole five and a half minutes of the first episode talking about it. (Again, it’s an introductory episode.)

Maybe I can get Dana and JVW to join me on future episodes? No pressure, guys!

These are the benefits of being a paid subscriber. Thanks to those who have joined already. Be one of the cool kids and join them by subscribing here.

34 Responses to “Constitutional Vanguard: A Rant About How “Equity” Costs Lives, Plus . . . A Podcast???”

  1. The post is one of the better posts I have done lately, and the podcast is all kinds of fun. It would be a shame for all this to be seen and heard by only a dozen people or so . . . but I’m committed to putting out good content for the paid folks no matter how few there are.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Maybe I can get Dana and JVW to join me on future episodes? No pressure, guys!

    Pretty sure that’s going to take the bars reopening first, boss. Then we’ll need to get one as a sponsor and do the podcast from there. No sense in doing these things unless we’re half loaded and highly argumentative to begin with.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  3. Let me be clear: income inequality is never a real problem. If it were, there would be an easy solution: pick the person with the lowest income, and then make everyone else “equal” to that person. If everyone is equally poor, they are still “equal” — and there is no longer any income inequality.

    With all due respect, this doesn’t seem like one of your better arguments.

    How is it different in form from:

    Political and civil inequality is never a real problem. If it were, there be an easy solution: pick the person with the fewest civil and political rights, and then make everyone else “equal” to that person. If everyone is equally oppressed, they are still “equal” – and there is no longer any political and civil inequality.

    Perhaps the point you were trying to make went over my head…

    Maybe you are trying to say the problem isn’t inequality, per se, it’s poverty (or in my analog, oppression), which is fine, but in practice “income inequality” is just a proxy term for poverty, isn’t it?

    Of course, “income inequality” suggests that poor people are poor because rich people are rich, which is (at best) an incomplete analysis, and often totally wrong.

    Dave (1bb933)

  4. Maybe I can get Dana and JVW to join me on future episodes? No pressure, guys!

    Pretty sure that’s going to take the bars reopening first, boss. Then we’ll need to get one as a sponsor and do the podcast from there. No sense in doing these things unless we’re half loaded and highly argumentative to begin with.

    Lol. Sounds like a plan!

    Dana (fd537d)

  5. I just listened to the introductory podcast, and it’s fun to hear P. His dry sense of humor comes through, and it’s neat to hear how and what he chose for his intro music. I was glad about the final selection because suffice it to say, we will never agree on Rush (the band)…

    Can’t wait to hear a substantive Episode 2. We already know Patterico to be an insightful thinker, so to hear him discuss any number of subjects is an added benefit for fans. But even if you don’t agree with him, you know you will be challenged to think, so do yourself a favor and subscribe now!

    Dana (fd537d)

  6. I really want to start my own podcast. I need some music for it—too bad I can’t bribe you into playing guitar for it, Patterico!

    Simon Jester (687366)

  7. Not being a paid subscriber, I cannot comment on the rant, but the news reports I have read on the Dr Gokal case lead me to believe he may have been correctly fired.

    Where I live there have been issues with the distribution of the vaccine. New Mexico is one of 4 states that has not yet gotten to the 65-75 category and part of that is that many vaccines have gone to “line-jumpers.” They have, as yet, not even gotten to half the 75+ cohort.

    When the NMDOH first started distributing vaccines for first-responders and medical personnel. The system they set up was easily gamed. They gave all the fist group the same code to use, and there was no limit to the number of times it could be used. You don’t have to look far on social media here to see some clueless kid or parent talking about how “we all got vaccinated.” One person I got really angry with not only said that, but was complaining that they did not give her a choice of vaccine.

    So, as for Dr Gokal … they really want to make gaming the system hard, so the “oh, damn, I opened a vial at end of shift and I have no one to give it to; Ooops!” isn’t followed by “I guess I should give it my wife and neighbors.” So the demand it is tossed away in that circumstance; not to waste lots of vials but to cut down losses to human nature.

    So, when Dr Gokal (who DID give the “accidentally-opened” vaccine to his wife and neighbors) maybe quite disingenuous when he says they are being racists for complaining about who he gave it to.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  8. Again I wish for an editing function.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  9. That Dr Gokal is waving the “Equity” flag does not mean that was the reason he was fired.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  10. Off-topic, mostly: LA County DA Gascón cuts ties with DA group, complains board is White

    Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón has cut ties with the California District Attorneys Association, saying the group’s all-White board indicates the group has failed to keep pace with changing times….

    “The absence of a single person of color on CDAA’s 17-member board is blinding,” Gascón wrote Tuesday, in a letter to the group’s president.

    Vern Pierson, President of CDAA, fired back:

    “Mr. Gascón cannot resign because he has not been a member of CDAA since October 2019 when he quit his job as DA of San Francisco,” Pierson said.

    He added: “On the ethnicity issue, his remarks are disingenuous, as he ran against the first sitting Los Angeles District Attorney who was both a woman and an African American. Incidentally, she was a CDAA board officer and in line to become president.”

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/la-county-da-gascon-resigns-from-state-da-group-complains-its-board-is-all-white

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  11. With all due respect, this doesn’t seem like one of your better arguments.

    The quote is not a fully formed argument, Dave. It’s a teaser.

    Maybe you are trying to say the problem isn’t inequality, per se, it’s poverty (or in my analog, oppression), which is fine, but in practice “income inequality” is just a proxy term for poverty, isn’t it?

    I’m not only “trying to say the problem isn’t inequality, per se, it’s poverty” . . . I say it in the fully fleshed-out post that you have not read, but that I invite you to read. For example, the heading of the portion of the post from which the quoted passage comes reads: ““INCOME INEQUALITY” IS NOT THE PROBLEM. POVERTY IS.” Better than trying to say it; I said it!

    As for “income inequality” being a proxy term for poverty, I have a further argument which addresses this, by saying: “you can’t solve a problem if you can’t first diagnose it correctly. If the problem is poverty, don’t call it ‘income inequality.'”

    Such are the perils of criticizing an argument you have not read in its entirety. (But again, I invite you to!)

    Of course, “income inequality” suggests that poor people are poor because rich people are rich, which is (at best) an incomplete analysis, and often totally wrong.

    Quite so, and I could get into that deeper, but for now my main point is that using that label misstated the argument.

    For example, yes: your example of “rights inequality” would also be a bad diagnosis:

    How is it different in form from:

    Political and civil inequality is never a real problem. If it were, there be an easy solution: pick the person with the fewest civil and political rights, and then make everyone else “equal” to that person. If everyone is equally oppressed, they are still “equal” – and there is no longer any political and civil inequality.

    Perhaps the point you were trying to make went over my head…

    It’s different from that in one sense, and the same in another sense.

    The sense in which it’s the same is: if the problem you identified truly were as simple as unequal rights under the law, you could indeed fix that “problem” by giving all citizens the rights enjoyed by the citizen granted the fewest rights. That simple exercise shows that simply granting “equal” rights to all is not the end goal: those rights must be sufficient and must protect our basic natural rights under the law.

    The sense in which it’s different is: your rights under the law are purely a function of how government treats you, while income inequality is not. The former can and should be cured by government action; equality of rights under the law, while not sufficient, is in fact a desirable goal in and of itself. I don’t think full income equality is, and it certainly cannot be achieved simply through government snapping its fingers and changing some laws.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  12. Not being a paid subscriber, I cannot comment on the rant, but the news reports I have read on the Dr Gokal case lead me to believe he may have been correctly fired.

    I’d sure love to see such a link. Did you read the NYT article that Dana linked? I suspect not, because I don’t see how you could possibly have actually read it (I discuss it at length in my post) and come away with this conclusion:

    So, as for Dr Gokal … they really want to make gaming the system hard, so the “oh, damn, I opened a vial at end of shift and I have no one to give it to; Ooops!” isn’t followed by “I guess I should give it my wife and neighbors.” So the demand it is tossed away in that circumstance; not to waste lots of vials but to cut down losses to human nature.

    So, when Dr Gokal (who DID give the “accidentally-opened” vaccine to his wife and neighbors) maybe quite disingenuous when he says they are being racists for complaining about who he gave it to.

    Again, if you have a basis for this cynical take, lay it on us. But if this is another typical Internet commenter coming to his own uninformed opinion based on his prejudices, then obviously it’s not convincing.

    Which category you fall into depends on what evidence you now produce. If you produce compelling evidence, I’ll ask why you didn’t produce it in your first comment. The fact that you didn’t leads me to suspect that you don’t have it. But hey. Prove me wrong.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  13. That’s the way it usually works with equity. The only way it works is if you aim for the lowest common denominator.

    You’ll never make everyone rich.

    The only way it works is to make everyone poor.

    Except for the ones instituting the equity – of course.

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6)

  14. Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 2/17/2021 @ 7:41 pm

    Well, “works” like so many other words and phrases can easily be removed from any traditional context and redefined as needed. In fact it must be redefined to free it from its roots as a tool of systemic oppression. The expectation that something should “work” is a construct of the traditional white heteronormative male system and is an essential element of the ongoing oppression inherent in that system. Only by rejecting the very concept of something “working” as expected can we achieve a truly just and equitable society.

    If you aren’t persuaded by that try; “works” is a word used by Trump and his cult as a dog whistle for white nationalism. Your use of it has been duly noted. Duly! Noted! Good day sir!

    frosty (f27e97)

  15. The former minority population may have a different view of equality and values. Dr .king used to say before he was assassinated to the white rulers you deal with me or you deal with Malcolm X and later after he was assassinated the black panthers. You like the lone ranger and tonto are surrounded by angry indigenous peoples. The lone ranger tells tonto “looks like we are in trouble now. Tonto answers what do you mean we white man! You and me don’t make we. Joe biden and the democratic establishment can only protect conservative white men from AOC for only so long. Remember it was FDR and the democratic party that saved america from a communist revolution in 1932. When conservatives in kansas and iowa were storing food from the communist revolution. Communists had started setting up proletarian brigade road blocks after the bonus army was dispersed by hoover.

    asset (4d9437)

  16. A system that consistently produces and reliably perpetuates large differences in outcomes that can be predicted by racial, regional, or gender lines won’t be perceived as just or fair. I’ll leave off if it actually is unjust or unfair, but if many people from rural areas accurately believe that they and their kids have the deck stacked against them we have a problem as a country.

    Feel free to replace rural area with whatever demo you like.

    Making a special effort to address these real concerns is a valid action while this impacts are reduces. That’s not saying that addressing these impacts is the only concern, or even if it should be a factor in the final trade off decision. But it’s worth asking and knowing.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  17. I’ll leave off if it actually is unjust or unfair, but if many people from rural areas accurately believe that they and their kids have the deck stacked against them we have a problem as a country.

    should have been

    I’ll leave off if it actually is unjust or unfair, but, for example, if many people from rural areas accurately believe that they and their kids have the deck stacked against them we have a problem as a country.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  18. If the problem is poverty, don’t call it ‘income inequality.’”

    If the problem is ‘income inequality’ it’s a compelling moral and civil rights issue. (at least according to their lights)

    If it’s poverty, not so much.

    Also, if the problem is ‘income inequality’ it can never end, so all the appropriations to deal with it, can also never end, and they don;t want to end the problem – they want to milk it.

    What’s really insidious about this is that almost anything that reduces the number of people in poverty, increases income inequality, and vice versa (incomes get more equal in recessions. The incomes of higher income people very more. Former California Governror Jerry Brown noted something like this, in speaking of California depending on a highly progressive income tax. Receipts can vary widely,)

    Sammy Finkelman (7e803d)

  19. Sammy, what if the problem is a system that consistently produces and grows income inequality?

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  20. Time123 (ae9d89) — 2/18/2021 @ 7:03 am

    Sammy, what if the problem is a system that consistently produces and grows income inequality?

    Income inequality is not the problem. It’s the solution. It leads to innovation, philanthropy, and can lead to better political leadership.

    Income inequality inevitably happens when average income goes up.

    You can have a problem when virtual necessities are only available to some of the local people but are assumed to be universal.

    For instance, if only better situated people can do this or that. Better situated by knowledge, connections, friends, as well as cash income/

    They can afford, or get, better medical care or education.

    Internships, say become necessary, and only some people can do them. Computers and broadband Internet become necessary and only some people have good connections. Air conditioning is assumed, but some don’t have it.

    It’s probably worst when only 65% to 85% of the people can afford it. If it’s 96% who have no trouble, heaven help the remaining 4%.

    Sammy Finkelman (7e803d)

  21. Does targeting income inequality through the tax system work efficiently….or does it have unintended consequences? The super rich pay the amount of taxes that they want to….they have the ability to move their investments, acquire and sell assets, restructure income, and move residences in ways that small businesses owners and most tax payers simply can’t do. Ross Perot paid an extremely low tax rate…because he could. My second point is, do we want Ross Perot (or his equivalent) deciding how best to invest his money and create new services and other innovations….or do we want the government picking winners and losers through inefficient and expensive government programs? Not all investment works…..but that process….governed by self interest….is better than discouraging investment and wealth creation through the tax code. We see what happens when states impose millionaire taxes….millionaires leave. Most of what happens is that millionaires are protected from wanna-be-millionaires through carve outs in the tax code…that both sides of the aisle facilitate in exchange for campaign contributions. So, this whole premise of trying to get the rich…just seems like a waste of time. Policies should target economic growth….help people retrain, relocate when they are economically displaced….but government should mostly stay out of the way….every arena it tends to invade becomes more expensive and less efficient…..see college tuition and health care….

    AJ_Liberty (a4ff25)

  22. Somewhat related:

    Millions of jobs probably aren’t coming back, even after the pandemic ends
    …….
    The coronavirus pandemic has triggered permanent shifts in how and where people work. Businesses are planning for a future where more people are working from home, traveling less for business, or replacing workers with robots. All of these modifications mean many workers will not be able to do the same job they did before the pandemic, even after much of the U.S. population gets vaccinated against the deadly virus.

    Microsoft founder-turned-philanthropist Bill Gates raised eyebrows in November when he predicted that half of business travel and 30 percent of “days in the office” would go away forever. That forecast no longer seems far-fetched. In a report coming out later this week that was previewed to The Washington Post, the McKinsey Global Institute says that 20 percent of business travel won’t come back and about 20 percent of workers could end up working from home indefinitely. These shifts mean fewer jobs at hotels, restaurants and downtown shops, in addition to ongoing automation of office support roles and some factory jobs.
    ……
    The nation’s unemployed are starting to react to these big shifts. Two-thirds of the jobless say they have seriously considered changing their occupation or field of work, according to the Pew Research Center. That is a significant increase from the Great Recession era, when 52 percent said they were considering such a change.

    “We think that there is a very real scenario in which a lot of the large employment, low-wage jobs in retail and in food service just go away in the coming years,” said Susan Lund, head of the McKinsey Global Institute. “It means that we’re going to need a lot more short-term training and credentialing programs.”
    ……
    One problem for many unemployed people is they lack the money to retrain. This crisis has put many out of work for nearly a year, and the financial support from unemployment and food stamps is often not sufficient to pay their bills. The stimulus legislation being debated in Congress does not include any money for retraining.
    ……
    Indeed, the number of workers in need of retraining could be in the millions, according to McKinsey and David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who co-wrote a report warning that automation is accelerating in the pandemic. He predicts far fewer jobs in retail, rest, car dealerships and meatpacking facilities.

    “Once robots are in place, we won’t go back. Once you’ve made that type of capital investment, you don’t tend to go backward,” Autor said. In the report he wrote, “These developments were sure to happen over the longer run. But the crisis has pulled them forward in time.”

    Automation of jobs often speeds up during recessions, as companies look to cut costs and use periods of layoffs to experiment with new technologies. Some economists predict that there could be more automation now, because the pandemic forced companies to look for ways to minimize the number of employees in a workspace and the vast scale of the layoffs in the economy gives executives a unique opportunity to bring in robots.
    ……
    Job postings in recent months help illustrate what positions are emerging and which are rapidly going away, said Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor. Chamberlain has seen a rapid decline in posts seeking administration assistants, human resources personnel, food service workers, beauty consultants, pet groomers, valets, professors, brand ambassadors and even physical therapists and audiologists. Only some of these jobs will come back. He’s hesitant to give an exact number, but he agrees that millions may need to find a new career.
    ……..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  23. It’s not “prejudice” but knowledge that this happens in many lines of work.

    Example: Fast-food companies have rules requiring throwing away unsold food, rather than feeding the homeless, because when they don’t do that lots of excess food is produced just for that purpose by employees being generous with other people’s resources.

    You really have to live in a vacuum to think that gaming the system in the vaccine-acquisition game isn’t happening. THe fact that, unlike some, Dr Gokal appears not to have been selling vaccine does not make him the saint he claims to be. There were rules, instituted for a reason, and he boke them then played the race card when they caught him.

    And yes, I read the one-sided advocacy article that Dana linked (and quoted from extensively in his post). Not convinced that the saint’s recollections of the saint’s actions are actually truthful. No discussion of the critical question: “How did the bottle come to be opened with no one to give the shots to?”

    Now, I don’t know what the evidence is to charge him with a crime, but firing him for violating policy is not wrong.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  24. Time123 (ae9d89) — 2/18/2021 @ 7:03 am

    Sammy, what if the problem is a system that consistently produces and grows income inequality?

    There’s a bit to unpack there. First, what exactly is income inequality? Taken at face value it only references the relative differences in income and in that sense it sounds like a proxy for envy. There’s nothing baked into “income inequality” that requires people on the lower end of the spectrum to actually be poor. That’s why it’s important to determine whether we’re actually talking about poverty. If we’re just talking about marginal differences then it’s a never ending issue. Second, if this is just about relative differences why exactly is consistently producing and growing it an issue. If that same system is also increasing the absolute wealth and standard of living for the bottom end why is the relative difference an issue?

    I’m not arguing that we have a system that is doing any of that. And I can make an argument against large relative differences. But it’s a waste of time to try to discuss something with undefined terms.

    frosty (f27e97)

  25. The early rollout of vaccine was rife with cronyism, nepotism and other self-dealing. Certainly in my state, as seen in links like this one.

    There are people today who will happily pay $1000 for a vaccine, particularly in a system where the rules are being flouted by people in far less need. Once the paperwork gets in for the first dose, the second dose is automatic. To prevent sales of vaccine, it is carefully controlled and the actions of anyone to distribute doses outside of normal channels are viewed harshly and with great suspicion.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  26. People talk about “income inequality” when they should be talking about “wealth inequality” if they mean “haves” vs “have-nots.”

    People who receive $1 million this year, in compensation for 10 years of work, are not better off than those that get $200,000 each year, and the latter are not better off than someone who has $10 million in the bank and no current income.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  27. Kevin @26, Frosty@24 & Sammy@20,

    Income inequality is how evenly income is distributed in a specified population. It’s different from concentration of wealth.

    Income inequality can be a large part of what defines social class. At the micro level it’s not much of a problem, the clerk makes less then the manager. At the macro level it can be more of a problem especially when other factors are present.

    -When the difference between the upper earners and lower earners is growing.
    -When the standard of living for lower earners is stagnant or declining.
    -When the income of lower earners is fixed, or very hard to chance based on individual decisions.
    -When income is inheritable, meaning that parents income is a strong predictor of child’s income.
    -When income is strongly predicted by demographic (e.g. race, gender, region)

    When those factors are strongly present there’s a situation where social class may be rigid and difficult to improve for sub-populations. This is bad for the perceived legitimacy of the system as well as overall economic growth.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  28. Obviously income is different from wealth as that is exactly what I was saying. WEALTH is what defines social class, not income.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  29. Income is a rate, wealth is a quantity. If you just this year make $500,000, you are having a good year, but should you be taxed more than someone who makes $400K every year and has a few million piled up?

    There are a number of professions where income is lumpy. Writing is an obvious one. Inventing is another (and yes, that is a profession). Professional sports or acting can have a few fat years surrounded by nothing. Entrepreneurs might work for a decade, just getting by, then have a big cash in at the end.

    Annual income is often coupled to wealth and class, but wealth is always coupled to class. And those with real wealth often have little income. Especially when interest rates are zero.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  30. Annual income is often coupled to wealth and class, but wealth is always coupled to class. And those with real wealth often have little income. Especially when interest rates are zero.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/18/2021 @ 9:35 pm

    I disagree that they’re coupled. Income and wealth are an part of class, not an add on.

    Should probably put in a disclaimer that class is a general rule and that there will be exceptions on the individual level.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  31. Obviously income is different from wealth as that is exactly what I was saying. WEALTH is what defines social class, not income.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/18/2021 @ 9:28 pm

    Both wealth and income are part of social class.

    Upper middle class where the house and cars are nice, the kids are in travel teams, vacations involve airplane tickets and the college question is very much where not if may not have much wealth, or savings fwiw.

    Lower middle class where the housing is ok, kids don’t do travel teams, vacations are local or non-existent, and college isn’t a given also doesn’t have wealth, but has less income.

    Money isn’t the only difference between the two example but in many cases it’s a key difference.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  32. The Vanguard is superb. I am enjoying reading and commenting there.

    DRJ (aede82)

  33. @12: Obviously the link I put in #25 should have been quoted.

    Yes, I read the article that Dana linked originally and I came away with “they said, he said, then he played the race card.” Nothing in that article proved a thing to mew EXCEPT that the good doctor violated policy and ended up giving vaccine to folks in his neighborhood, including his wife. Yes, he asserted that they all were deserving, but so are others that might not get the vaccine had he not chosen to make exceptions.

    As for the REASON they have these rules, which the good doctor says are evil, or arbitrary or something else bad, there are lots and lots of corrupt things gojng on with vaccines. Such as this “mistake” in my own state:

    Posted: Jan 6, 2021 / 04:46 PM MST / Updated: Jan 21, 2021 / 09:40 PM MST

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – Health care workers have been getting their COVID-19 vaccines for the past few weeks. However, we’ve learned people outside of that group have been able to cut in line and also get the vaccine.

    KRQE News 13 learned health care workers shared their so-called “special event codes” with family and friends, who shared them with more people, allowing them to get the vaccine, no matter their age, occupation, or health. Wednesday afternoon, News 13 asked the NMDOH why they’re getting to jump the line.

    “Yes, we are aware of surrounding reports of people jumping the line by sharing codes,” said Dr. Tracie Collins, Secretary-Designate of the NMDOH. “What we’ve done immediately is implement a technical fix to try and prevent this from happening.”

    A viewer tipped News 13 off to the confirmation code “BYE2020” being used to make appointments for the COVID vaccine at EXPO New Mexico; News 13 confirmed it worked. We were shown the appointment confirmation by someone who used the code and was able to get an appointment for the vaccine this week.

    The code was originally given out by hospital employees who started circulating the limited-supply code which allowed hundreds to get the vaccine who were not in the high-risk categories like the elderly and chronically ill — which were next in line to get the shot. Some locals we’ve spoken to say they’re not happy others are taking the vaccine before those who need it most.

    https://www.krqe.com/health/coronavirus-new-mexico/reported-special-event-codes-allowed-people-to-access-covid-vaccine-early-in-new-mexico/

    These were all doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers who had no problem giving ??? others vaccines outside of policy.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  34. But if this is another typical Internet commenter coming to his own uninformed opinion based on his prejudices, then obviously it’s not convincing.

    Which category you fall into depends on what evidence you now produce. If you produce compelling evidence, I’ll ask why you didn’t produce it in your first comment. The fact that you didn’t leads me to suspect that you don’t have it. But hey. Prove me wrong.

    Had I written this about someone else, I think they’d be demanding an apology. Not only doies it suggest that an article could only be read one way, but that not having taken the time to write a massive response indicates the lack of such information.

    In #33 (and actually in #25 by reference) I do provide objective evidence for my belief that vaccine distribution is not always on the up and up, and that medical providers are part of the problem. That this kind of thing leads to the rules of employment that Dr Gokal willingly violated, resulting in his termination, is not hard to understand.

    But whatever.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2505 secs.