• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NON_POLITICAL China Coronavirus THREAD

Page 520 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,190
852
126
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: herm0016

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,831
12,571
136
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.
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.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,190
852
126
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.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,190
852
126
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.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,831
12,571
136
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.
The hospital statement went from "inadvertent" on Monday to "intentionally" on Wednesday with the person being fired as that thread points out.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,190
852
126
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,831
12,571
136
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: destrekor

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,190
852
126
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.
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 entire idea that they did is based on a reaction to the word "intent" and the things people wrongly assume it implies. To me, they are using the word because it is key to justify the firing and contacting authorities since intentionally removing it was clearly not allowed. It's not a stretch to imagine that it probably had all sorts of "Do not remove without authorization" warnings and such.

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.
 
Last edited:

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,831
12,571
136
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.

 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
356
126
[edit: strangely I couldn't edit this post, kept getting an error. Made new post, removed this one.]
 
Last edited:

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
356
126
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba and CZroe

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,190
852
126
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.
I still feel that there is no contradiction between intentionally removing it and they didn't say the individual "led" them to believe that... the subject of that statement was the investigation, so the investigation led them to believe that. If they were looking to fire this person for the mistake and they intentionally ignored a procedure for the cryo freezer then they would make sure to say that. If they wanted to imply that he did it nefariously perhaps they should have used the word "admitted" instead of "acknowledged" and said something additional to indicate that they no longer believe their earlier conclusion.

Even if the individual intentionally spoiled the vaccine, we still can't presume that their purpose was a conspiracy against the vaccine. It could just as easily have been someone hysterical about not being in Phase 1 who knew the hospital would be forced to offer vaccinations to non-medical staff to avoid as much waste as possible.

Regardless of which of the three scenarios (or something completely different) happened, there was ground to terminate. Whoever wrote yesterday's statement definitely could have worded it better if they wanted to convey nefarious intent and I just don't want to jump to that conclusion* when it doesn't actually say that.

*or further conclusions about the person's opinion on vaccines
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: destrekor

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
9,239
685
126
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.
If you read between the lines, the last 3 sentences are damning but not proof of a criminal act. FWIW NPR's headline (clickbait?) referred to this as "intentionally destroyed" although the article doesn't quite go that far.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,190
852
126
Seems that the new COVID!19 variant is here now in the states.

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.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,394
126
Saw the latest news online from Florida and Ft. Myers beach is fairly crowed and a lot of people do not have any mask/cover on. Their fire fighters begin to get the vaccine.
 

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
26,008
1,511
126

US Millitary bought $2B worth of the Moderna vaccine for the US Army. This is apparently separate from what the US Government has bought.
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.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,503
4,534
136
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 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.

Also WTF with a 50% rejection rate among health professionals, how is the United States this stupid.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
61,165
9,199
126
www.uovalor.com
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.
Oh I thought it was done maliciously, that's what it sounded like.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
24,014
2,263
136
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.
Perhaps this will clarify things for you:

"Police in Wisconsin said on Thursday evening that they had arrested a hospital employee who was fired after being suspected of intentionally spoiling hundreds of doses of the Covid-19 vaccine."

"...after a health center in the state said an employee admitted to deliberately spoiling 500 doses of the coronavirus vaccine."

On Wednesday Aurora medical center said the doses appeared to have been spoiled deliberately.

"A pharmacist at the suburban medical center deliberately removed hundreds of coronavirus vaccine doses from refrigeration and left them out overnight – twice, not just once as officials had initially believed, the health system’s chief medical officer said later on Thursday."

"“This was a situation involving a bad actor, as opposed to a bad process,”

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY