“If you drink much from a bottle marked 'poison' it is certain to disagree with you sooner or later.” — Alice, somewhere in Wonderland. One of the more baffling news stories last month was Singapore’s authorization of Merck’s molnupiravir. Yes, the same drug that is purported to work by introducing errors into COVID-19’s genetic code — which is, consequently, the most blatant example of the myopic tendencies of the pharmaceutical industrial complex and our public health officials. It almost goes without saying that the chances of introducing enough “errors” into the genetic code of a virus with a rapid rate of replication outside of a petri dish will do little or nothing for recipients while posing a high mutation risk.
We always have to remember that every bureaucracy is still just a group of individual people making individual choices.
"Singapore" didn't make this decision--bureaucrats did. Maybe even just one bureaucrat.
Could there have been bribery or other naked forms of corruption? Easily.
Could there have been just really good persuasion by Merck? Easily.
Are the bureaucrats necessarily parsing all the fine details about the studies (like inoculated vs non-inoculated test subjects)? No. They might not even be reading the studies, just noting their existence.
This is one of the dangers in melding healthcare to authoritarian modes of governance (while Singapore's government is largely democratic and relatively free from known corruption, it does not have the greatest track record on freedom of speech and freedom of the press). Decisions are made by individuals with considerably less accountability and transparency than one would like.
Was at the hospital today, checking up on an ongoing bother with my shoulder blade. Noticed that some nurses wore masks in the hallways and other more public areas, and asked the nurse taking my blood pressure why she wore a mask, and if it wasn't a bother what with impaired breathing and so.
She was quite embarassed, not irritated or annoyed:
"We do it because some patients feel safer that way, but it is very uncomfortabel, everyone who wears one have headaches."
Summing up my qustioning of this girl, it appears that staff has been nudged by admin to wear masks and to keep hand-sanitizer (ethanol solution) everywhere, despite neither having much of an effect on viruses. Wearing a mask is voluntary, and none of the doctors or the male nurses and other staff, or women over 40-ish of age does it (except when it really is required).
I can't help but think that making lying and misleading patients, staff and public because it "feels better" for what honestly must be called a neurotic and unpleasable very vocal minority will lead to more and more situations where both admin and other staff feels justified in lying to the patients. The "noble lie" for "the greater good" does much more harm than the bald-faced harsh truth in the long run.
Canada has devised a new solution for the poor - euthanasia for the poor. they are not even hidding anymore ... just in plain site.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/first-reading-fears-that-the-canadian-health-system-is-far-too-quick-to-prescribe-death
This couldn’t possibly be a potential case of corruption (e.g., Merck paying influential individuals in Singapore), could it?
Are local Singapore newspapers allowed to opine on such things?
We always have to remember that every bureaucracy is still just a group of individual people making individual choices.
"Singapore" didn't make this decision--bureaucrats did. Maybe even just one bureaucrat.
Could there have been bribery or other naked forms of corruption? Easily.
Could there have been just really good persuasion by Merck? Easily.
Are the bureaucrats necessarily parsing all the fine details about the studies (like inoculated vs non-inoculated test subjects)? No. They might not even be reading the studies, just noting their existence.
This is one of the dangers in melding healthcare to authoritarian modes of governance (while Singapore's government is largely democratic and relatively free from known corruption, it does not have the greatest track record on freedom of speech and freedom of the press). Decisions are made by individuals with considerably less accountability and transparency than one would like.
(Very tangentially related)
Was at the hospital today, checking up on an ongoing bother with my shoulder blade. Noticed that some nurses wore masks in the hallways and other more public areas, and asked the nurse taking my blood pressure why she wore a mask, and if it wasn't a bother what with impaired breathing and so.
She was quite embarassed, not irritated or annoyed:
"We do it because some patients feel safer that way, but it is very uncomfortabel, everyone who wears one have headaches."
Summing up my qustioning of this girl, it appears that staff has been nudged by admin to wear masks and to keep hand-sanitizer (ethanol solution) everywhere, despite neither having much of an effect on viruses. Wearing a mask is voluntary, and none of the doctors or the male nurses and other staff, or women over 40-ish of age does it (except when it really is required).
I can't help but think that making lying and misleading patients, staff and public because it "feels better" for what honestly must be called a neurotic and unpleasable very vocal minority will lead to more and more situations where both admin and other staff feels justified in lying to the patients. The "noble lie" for "the greater good" does much more harm than the bald-faced harsh truth in the long run.