It'd NBD, Pfizer's got millions sitting in a warehouse. Might still be a felony because of the value of the vials (which is like close to $1K)
Where did you get the idea that the person intentionally destroyed them to deprive people or had any beliefs about the vaccine what-so-ever? They said the person removed them to access something else in the cooler and forgot to put them back in. Inexcusable, but not nefarious.Wow that's a ridiculous thing to do. Everyone should have the right to not take the vaccine or not believe in it or have their own opinion about it etc but don't go ruining it for the ones that actually want it.
At the very least, he needs to be billed for the damaged doses.Fucker needs to have the book thrown at him.
Where did you get the idea that the person intentionally destroyed them to deprive people or had any beliefs about the vaccine what-so-ever? They said the person removed them to access something else in the cooler and forgot to put them back in. Inexcusable, but not nefarious.
Sh*t happens. Sometimes it's some tragic/expensive sh*t. If you weren't expecting handling accidents like that to happen SOMEWHERE then you weren't setting realistic expectations.
This is in the link you shared:While I don't know what their motivations are what I've read about this indicates an intent to spoil the vaccine and authorities seem to be treating it as such.
The only mention of intent I see was that it was intentionally removed to access something else and inadvertently left out. The same statement about 57 vials uses both words. If your assumption that this person intentionally destroyed it is based on their use of the word "intentionally" then it's a little like saying I intentionally rammed my car into someone just because I intentionally left home with it when I had my at-fault accident. Based on what I'm reading the ones who intentionally destroyed it were the ones who decided what to do with it after the accident, and they didn't have much choice after using what they could in the 12 hour window.While I don't know what their motivations are what I've read about this indicates an intent to spoil the vaccine and authorities seem to be treating it as such.
This is in the link you shared:
The company says it was inadvertent though they fired the person and reported it to authorities. If something since that statement indicated it was nefarious it wasn't mentioned/visible in the tweet thread you linked.
Again, their Wednesday statement used BOTH words...The hospital statement went from "inadvertent" on Monday to "intentionally" on Wednesday with the person being fired as that thread points out.
Again, their Wednesday statement used BOTH words...
I can intentionally remove something to access something else and then inadvertently spoil it by leaving it out. Intent does not mean nefarious intent and non-nefarious intent is the only thing that makes sense given their Wednesday statement.
What? No. It says they were fired for being careless and violating procedure. Without retracting or contradicting it they literally reassert that it was inadvertent human error with the same past tense they used in the first statement. They do not backtrack or retract that or revise their findings. If this was intended to cast doubt or question their previous findings they would have/should have said so.The "inadvertent" is clearly no longer operative thus the updated, and completely different, statement where the person admitted their conduct, they were canned, and the authorities called. You're really contorting yourself here.
Again, their Wednesday statement used BOTH words...
I can intentionally remove something to access something else and then inadvertently spoil it by leaving it out. Intent does not mean nefarious intent and non-nefarious intent is the only thing that makes sense given their Wednesday statement.
Re-read that statement.
"We immediately launched an internal review and were led to believe this was caused by inadvertent human error. The individual in question today acknowledged that they intentionally removed the vaccine from refrigeration."
Bolded for emphasis.
That statement reads like "we initially thought it was an inadvertent error. They confessed and told us it was intentional. So we fired them."
It doesn't really seem like an offense worthy of terminating an employee over if it were truly an accident, unless of course this were a repeat or regular issue with that employee. And they are involving authorities to further investigate.
Seems the hospital got the whole story they needed to make their case to terminate the employee, even escalate it to the government to investigate, and just haven't necessarily communicated every last detail to the public/press at this time.
As you said in your follow-up post, the hospital admin may very likely know, or have reason to believe, this was entirely a malicious act. But perhaps it is best to not say that outright until investigations run their course.
Press releases tend to have this carefully parsed language approved by the legal department.Re-read that statement.
"We immediately launched an internal review and were led to believe this was caused by inadvertent human error. The individual in question today acknowledged that they intentionally removed the vaccine from refrigeration."
Bolded for emphasis.
That statement reads like "we initially thought it was an inadvertent error. They confessed and told us it was intentional. So we fired them."
It doesn't really seem like an offense worthy of terminating an employee over if it were truly an accident, unless of course this were a repeat or regular issue with that employee. And they are involving authorities to further investigate.
Seems the hospital got the whole story they needed to make their case to terminate the employee, even escalate it to the government to investigate, and just haven't necessarily communicated every last detail to the public/press at this time.
As you said in your follow-up post, the hospital admin may very likely know, or have reason to believe, this was entirely a malicious act. But perhaps it is best to not say that outright until investigations run their course.
The last time you posted ITT you were responding to a report about a case in the US. It was likely in the US before it was discovered in the UK. It may not even be from the UK since they only found it with their superior visibility through random genomic testing. There's even the possibility that it is from the USA.Seems that the new COVID!19 variant is here now in the states.
That's great to have another stream of vaccinations going on if they can get the product quick enough. I feel like there are enough stupid people scared of vaccines that the military will help achieve herd immunity by at least stopping spread within the tight quarters they work.Contracts for December 28, 2020
Today's Defense Department contracts valued at $7.5 million or more are now live on Defense.gov.www.defense.gov
US Millitary bought $2B worth of the Moderna vaccine for the US Army. This is apparently separate from what the US Government has bought.
I agree, obviously the priority roll out was too complicated for the US. Need to at a minimum open up more groups. No one gets more batches until they have consumed the majority of their previously delivered vaccines.Fine eliminate the prioritization and vaccinate everybody willing by age groups. For a lot of reasons it is clear we are not capable of an ideal roll out so lets not try because its wasting time and lives. If vaccine stock starts to pile up then move down to the next age group. Repeat until every who wants it gets it. Anybody sitting on doses not sticking needles in arms gets those doses moved to sites that are.
I'd think there could also be federal destruction of federal property.
Where did you get the idea that the person intentionally destroyed them to deprive people or had any beliefs about the vaccine what-so-ever? They said the person removed them to access something else in the cooler and forgot to put them back in. Inexcusable, but not nefarious.
Sh*t happens. Sometimes it's some tragic/expensive sh*t. If you weren't expecting handling accidents like that to happen SOMEWHERE then you weren't setting realistic expectations.
The person only admitted to intentionally removing them, which is what has to happen when anyone accidentally leaves something out. No need to imagine a nefarious intent. That, right there, is contorting, because they did not say or imply that.
Of course, it's still totally possible that the person did this to intentionally destroy vaccine. It's totally possible that they suspect this but can't say so for liability reasons. It's also totally irresponsible to take what they said as something that wasn't said and run with that assumption unquestioningly.