Has anyone figured out what's happening to leftover doses of Pfizer and Moderna at the end of the day? I fear a lot are getting thrown away instead of plunged into the nearest willing arm.
In SoCal most vaccination sites have neither a standby line nor a public protocol for what they do with these doses. I assume volunteers and friends of the staff are getting some, but how long can that have lasted? So... What's happening?
I ask because
There was a cite in Encino that did have a standby line for doses that would otherwise get thrown away and they had none left occasionally but would regularly have 15 or 20 doses left that would otherwise go to waste. And it was a small site.
If every site is throwing five or 10 doses away every day that adds up quickly. Maybe something better is happening but the lack of transparency makes me fear the worst.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For those who are baffled by why this concerns anyone, or advancing wrongheaded, uncharitable theories that purport to explain concern, let me help you out. There is a higher order question here than the fate of 6 relatively obscure books:
How should we treat books with words or images that we have come to see as immoral or wrongheaded or bound up with ideas or ideologies that caused harm?
(And who decides which books are in that category?)
Short thread on an interesting job post for Deputy Opinions Editor at the New York Times:
On one hand: "We're looking for an editor with a sense of humor and a spine of steel, a confident point of view and an open mind, an appetite for risk and exacting standards for excellence in writing and visual presentation."
What's more: "The Times Opinion team aims to promote the most important and provocative debate across a range of subjects – including politics, global affairs, technology, culture, and business – and is passionate about including a vast array of diverse voices and perspectives."
Thomas Jefferson and King George both had phenotypically "white" skin. I was born in 1980 with phenotypically "white" skin. That doesn't imbue me with credit for the words of the Declaration or blame for tyrannical monarchy. 2/
The ideals of the Declaration are great. They are out common inheritance. They belong as much to the most recently naturalized immigrant, regardless of his or her skin color or national origin, as they do to me. And people of all skin colors can and do betray those ideals too.
One aspect of the Reply All controversy illustrates an emerging norm in some quarters of journalism and public discourse that goes something like this (I'm trying to understand it so this is tentative, do correct me if you think I've got it wrong):
It is seen as virtuous to produce journalistic work against racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, and for social justice... so it is unethical/hypocritical to produce such work if you have a less than perfect record with respect to the ill you are inveighing against
Because you're accumulating an unearned perception of virtue and/or triggering those you've harmed. It is bad quite separate from and in addition to whatever your initial shortcoming, and should be policed to prevent bad actors from getting unearned virtue points.
Even rank and file conservatives in full Anton hysteria mode who look at American culture and feel they've lost it all and know they've lost the rising generation cannot accept an obvious corrolary: the Newt Gingrich/Rush Limbaugh/Roger Ailes style served them ill, not well
This is due partly to vastly overestimating the value and quality of low brow content that reinforces their priors, feeds their sense of grievance, and attacks their culture war enemies, yielding fleeting dopamine hits. That isn't mysterious but this is:
Buckley said some awful things as surely as Limbaugh, but he's remembered for more because he had a positive project and built an enduring institution and said some remarkable things. And this contrast on the good end is striking:
How did it arise, this new premise that whenever people converse with one another there needs to be a "path to accountability"? And why wouldn't fact checkers have to decide what facts to check? The implicit expectations here are just so bizarre.