02-14-2021, 12:46 AM
I don't see this thread going anywhere positive - at least if it's going to include the areas of politics and race. Rather than shutting it down I am (at least for now) just going hope that it will either stay on the expressed topic or sink beneath the waves on its own.
Also - because I wish to respond to the points below and don't wish to do that and then immediately shut down the thread, which doesn't feel like the right response in this situation.
Regarding that response.
There are quite a number of other possible reasons besides 'cultural' (another dog whistle in many cases btw, if we're counting).
While I can't speak for the ethnic minority population of the UK, the reason for this in the US owes quite a lot to history:
Tuskegee Syphilis Study
The Disturbing History of African-Americans and Medical Research Goes Beyond Henrietta Lacks
In other words, the US has a long history of using non-white people as lab rats without their knowledge or consent. That this should lead to suspicion and/or resistance to mass vaccinations using medications for which there is no real long term history of known effects hardly seems surprising.
Also in the US (not sure if there is any equivalent in the UK/Europe) we have the 'anti-vax' movement, which seems to largely be made up of white people. So the 'culture' argument would not seem to apply there.
While complaining about the government is apparently a popular pastime on both sides of the Atlantic, there is a considerable amount of hypocrisy involved. If the government were to simply do something quickly, without jumping thru all the hoops that people are complaining about - and then something bad happened as a result - the same people who are unhappy with 'government inefficiency' would be leading the charge to scream about how the government moved to fast without enacting the proper checks and double-checks. It's basically a no win situation for the government.
In a similar vein the idea that 'the private sector' is somehow inherently more efficient than 'the government' generally leaves out a number of inconvenient points such as the fact that 'the private sector' is not generally the subject of news reports talking about all the money it wastes (even when it does) or how inefficient it is, even when it actually is. Such things very much go on (I work for a major corporation, and have worked for several others in the past - believe me, I know), but either never leave the company or don't rise to the level that it makes the news or - if it does make the news - often only appears in specialized publications/outlets that the majority of the population doesn't pay attention to.
There's also the 'grass is always greener on the other side of the fence' effect. In other words, if 'the government' were to suddenly start running itself more 'efficiently' (whatever that might mean - I doubt it means the same thing to everyone), it is entirely likely that doing so would produce various side effects that people advocating for that kind of thing either haven't thought of or that are simply unforeseen - and that they really wouldn't like. Be careful what you wish for is usually a good philosophy. And assuming that a major change - any change - will result in nothing but positive benefits, is usually not a good idea IMO.
Anyway,
Todd
Also - because I wish to respond to the points below and don't wish to do that and then immediately shut down the thread, which doesn't feel like the right response in this situation.
Regarding that response.
(02-14-2021, 12:01 AM)iancampbell Wrote: By the way, it's a known fact that resistance to the idea of getting vaccinated in the UK is most evident among the ethnic minorities who are also known to be most in need of it. The reason for that has to be cultural.
There are quite a number of other possible reasons besides 'cultural' (another dog whistle in many cases btw, if we're counting).
While I can't speak for the ethnic minority population of the UK, the reason for this in the US owes quite a lot to history:
Tuskegee Syphilis Study
The Disturbing History of African-Americans and Medical Research Goes Beyond Henrietta Lacks
In other words, the US has a long history of using non-white people as lab rats without their knowledge or consent. That this should lead to suspicion and/or resistance to mass vaccinations using medications for which there is no real long term history of known effects hardly seems surprising.
Also in the US (not sure if there is any equivalent in the UK/Europe) we have the 'anti-vax' movement, which seems to largely be made up of white people. So the 'culture' argument would not seem to apply there.
(02-14-2021, 12:01 AM)iancampbell Wrote: The whole mess is also an illustration of the fact that technology doesn't solve the problem by itself. The institutions also have to work properly; for example, there were severe problems with supply, and shortages, of PPE due entirely to the bureaucratic inertia of Public Health England. It would appear that the thing that government is best at is getting in the way, particularly when box-tickers, i-dotters and t-crossers are in charge. Which they usually are, unless one has politicians who actually care.
While complaining about the government is apparently a popular pastime on both sides of the Atlantic, there is a considerable amount of hypocrisy involved. If the government were to simply do something quickly, without jumping thru all the hoops that people are complaining about - and then something bad happened as a result - the same people who are unhappy with 'government inefficiency' would be leading the charge to scream about how the government moved to fast without enacting the proper checks and double-checks. It's basically a no win situation for the government.
In a similar vein the idea that 'the private sector' is somehow inherently more efficient than 'the government' generally leaves out a number of inconvenient points such as the fact that 'the private sector' is not generally the subject of news reports talking about all the money it wastes (even when it does) or how inefficient it is, even when it actually is. Such things very much go on (I work for a major corporation, and have worked for several others in the past - believe me, I know), but either never leave the company or don't rise to the level that it makes the news or - if it does make the news - often only appears in specialized publications/outlets that the majority of the population doesn't pay attention to.
There's also the 'grass is always greener on the other side of the fence' effect. In other words, if 'the government' were to suddenly start running itself more 'efficiently' (whatever that might mean - I doubt it means the same thing to everyone), it is entirely likely that doing so would produce various side effects that people advocating for that kind of thing either haven't thought of or that are simply unforeseen - and that they really wouldn't like. Be careful what you wish for is usually a good philosophy. And assuming that a major change - any change - will result in nothing but positive benefits, is usually not a good idea IMO.
Anyway,
Todd