Wall Street Gets Swine Flu Vaccine Before Many High Risk Groups

[Jahpson]

Originally Posted by Kiss Me Deadly

I work at a very busy hospital in NYC, and we received about 500 doses this week. Most people are so angry about the allocation of the H1N1 vaccine, because there are strict laws that the vaccines go to high risk people (pregnant, asthma, children)- not even the elderly.. mind you.. None for the staff, which is fine as patient care is first. The Wall Streeters are not typical high risk, as its just kids from infants to age 24 years. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2009/pr064-09.shtml SMH...

thats what I'm saying

[Litigatrix]

Originally Posted by Jahpson

some businesses like nursing homes aren't poorly managed, they simply don't have the funds to do what big businesses do. just saying (even though this has nothing to do with the topic)

I still don't think it's Goldman's responsibility to make sure underfunded nursing homes get enough vaccine.

[Litigatrix]

Originally Posted by ami kio

I guess that my problem is equally with Big Business & the CDC. If the CDC gets the vaccines and realizes there's a shortage, they need to redo the allotment to everyone -- Big Business & clinics. Conversely, if there's a shortage, I think it'd be generous of Big Business to return "extra" vaccine to the CDC. Certainly it's not required, but IMO that leads to the tragedy of the commons. And I am dubious of Big Business -- for the record, not just Wall Street -- of standing firm on who should & should not get the vaccine. I've worked for big companies all my life, and I've got a jaundiced eye. There are perks to working for big companies, but they definitely have their faults. Yeah, a couple of @sshole execs who get the vaccine when they shouldn't isn't a big deal in the long run -- but it still pisses me off.

I am not sure that there is anything on which to base an assumption that there was any "extra" to donate.

[ami kio]

Originally Posted by BigPurseSue

And Morgan Stanley donated their 1000 doses of the H1N1 vaccine to an area children's hospital.

Props to Morgan Stanley!

[ami kio]

Originally Posted by Litigatrix

I am not sure that there is anything on which to base an assumption that there was any "extra" to donate.

IMO, if there's a shortage of vaccine where there is not enough to cover high risk groups, a business's "extra" would be what is left over after treating the business's high risk population.

Personally, I think that this is what the CDC should legally require in situations of shortage when doling out the vaccine to businesses.

[Litigatrix]

Originally Posted by ami kio

IMO, if there's a shortage of vaccine where there is not enough to cover high risk groups, a business's "extra" would be what is left over after treating the business's high risk population. Personally, I think that this is what the CDC should legally require in situations of shortage when doling out the vaccine to businesses.

Again, you are working on an assumption that the 200 people at Goldman were NOT high risk. That is completely unfounded.

[Litigatrix]

The NYT has a follow-up article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/ny...tml?ref=health

Apparently there were 858,000 doses of vaccine distributed in NYC. Allocating 200 to at-risk Goldman employees does not seem like a travesty to me. It's much more convenient to go to a conference room to get vaccinated than to take time out of your busy work day to go wait in line at a hospital for vaccine.

[jayjay77]

Litigatrix -- thanks for posting the NYT article. It gives a much more accurate reporting and clarifies thar GS requested 5,400 vaccines, received 200 and administered those to pregnant women and high-risk workers.

Also I was at Lenox Hill Hospital yesterday and today. Saw the signs for the H1N1 vaccines sites. Did not see lines or anyone being turned away. NYC is distributing vaccine in schools and by zip code to high risk people, so if people were turned away they may just have been referred to a center in their zip code.

I just get upset by articles like the first article that are irresponsible journalism and try to fan flames. It seems like way to deflect criticism from the CDC for the vaccine shortage.

[eckertle]

Originally Posted by jayjay77

Litigatrix -- I just get upset by articles like the first article that are irresponsible journalism and try to fan flames. It seems like way to deflect criticism from the CDC for the vaccine shortage.

I totally agree!

The government needs to get the vaccine out in some way, so it's easier to give it to hospitals and large corporations that have access to LOTS of people. It's not really possible to bring it to schools as some parents don't want their kids vaccinated, and not all working people have time to go to the doctor for the vaccine, so I applaud the idea to make it available in the workplace.

As for the nursing homes... At this time, the elderly are NOT considered an at-risk group for H1N1. This is because it is felt that most elderly people have been exposed to H1N1 or similar flu variants in the past, so they have immunity to the current H1N1. Young people, children, and pregnant women NEED to be vaccinated.

The author of the first article was definitely trying to spark some hatred against Wall Street that was pretty unnecessary, as I'm sure the at-risk individuals working for those companies are very grateful for the vaccine!

[LeeMiller]

Originally Posted by jayjay77

I just get upset by articles like the first article that are irresponsible journalism and try to fan flames. It seems like way to deflect criticism from the CDC for the vaccine shortage.

Absolutely, why isn't the focus on the vaccine shortage?

[Grace123]

Originally Posted by eckertle

I totally agree! The government needs to get the vaccine out in some way, so it's easier to give it to hospitals and large corporations that have access to LOTS of people. It's not really possible to bring it to schools as some parents don't want their kids vaccinated, and not all working people have time to go to the doctor for the vaccine, so I applaud the idea to make it available in the workplace. As for the nursing homes... At this time, the elderly are NOT considered an at-risk group for H1N1. This is because it is felt that most elderly people have been exposed to H1N1 or similar flu variants in the past, so they have immunity to the current H1N1. Young people, children, and pregnant women NEED to be vaccinated. The author of the first article was definitely trying to spark some hatred against Wall Street that was pretty unnecessary, as I'm sure the at-risk individuals working for those companies are very grateful for the vaccine!

Well from what my friends and family have to say about Wall Street in general and from viewing the devastation my own portfolio suffered, I don't think it takes very much to 'spark' negative feelings towards the Wall. I have no feeling one way or another about them getting flu shots, just commenting on the current attitude in general.

[ShopGirl647]

hmmmm ... is this for real? wow ...

[Jahpson]

Originally Posted by Litigatrix

I still don't think it's Goldman's responsibility to make sure underfunded nursing homes get enough vaccine.

of course not. I was just throwing that out there.

[bagaholic85]

Originally Posted by Grace123

Well from what my friends and family have to say about Wall Street in general and from viewing the devastation my own portfolio suffered, I don't think it takes very much to 'spark' negative feelings towards the Wall. I have no feeling one way or another about them getting flu shots, just commenting on the current attitude in general.

yet america was in love with them when things were good. the shape of your portfolio goes waaaay beyond the actions of wall street.

i understood going in that the original article was most likely skewed, but in the end it was truly just irresponsible journalism

[Grace123]

Originally Posted by bagaholic85

yet america was in love with them when things were good. the shape of your portfolio goes waaaay beyond the actions of wall street. i understood going in that the original article was most likely skewed, but in the end it was truly just irresponsible journalism

Not ALL of America was love with them during the good times, and clearly the shape of my portfolio was definitely, shall we say, 'influenced' by the irresponsible and greedy actions of some of the usual suspects.