Flu Vaccine

Ah, it's that time of year again. Fall, when the leaves turn vibrant hues, the air is so crisp you can practically taste it...and the masses are screaming for a vaccine that, for most of the population, isn't really necessary.

The flu vaccine shortage.

I heard recently that someone was attempting to connect bioterroism and the flu vaccine--what, did they think Osama's flunkies sneaked into the CDC and stole the US stockpile of the flu vaccine? Not for nothing, but if I were an international terrorist, and I were going to take the risk of sneaking into a US govenrment facility, I'd steal something a bit more terror inspiring--like botulism toxin, the smallpox virus or, say, nuclear missle codes. That's just me, though.

No, terrorism is not why there aren't enough flu vaccine. The reason is that as soon as the flu shot becomes available, hoardes of paranoid people rush out to get it, most of whom do not need it, and therefor deplete the stockpile. They also make the vaccine less available for people who actually do need it. Nice, guys.

Here's the thing--the flu, for most of the population, is NOT fatal. It's an inconvenience, sure, but it's not going to kill you. And I refuse to believe that the world will end if you miss one day of work. If your job is that damn important, trust me, they have a backup plan.

Here's what I propose--we have an order to give out the flu vaccine. Maybe it's not the most democratic solution, but in the interest of public safety, I think it would work.

Here's what I propose:

1. First tier vaccines go to anyone who is immunocompromised. That's anyone with a chronic illness, such as HIV, AIDs, diabetes, and any number of other diseases that screw up your immunity. It also would include people undergoing medical treatments that lower their immunity, such as chemotherapy, organ transplant patients, anyone of that sort. These people are already ill, the flu could be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back--remember, no one dies from AIDs. They die from complications of AIDs.

2. Health care providers. What's this, you ask? I thought you just said healthy people didn't need the flu vaccine. Well, this is the exception. Vaccinating health care providers (who are, by and large, healthy) would help prevent the spread of the flu. These people are around germs all day. The last thing anyone wants is for them to bring the virus INTO work, around all those sick people, or OUT of work to the general population. Not to mention, if they get sick, who is going to take care of the sick people? This category should also include non-patient care providers in hospitals, doctors offices, and nursing homes.

3. The elderly. Older people find it more difficult to fight off infection; they are also more likely to have conditions that stress their bodies already. If you're suffering from congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, and just plain old age, the last thing you need is the flu.

4. Young children. Yes, I put kids near the end. Why? Most kids--excluding those who are immunocompromised, who would already have been vaccinated--have a much better ability to fight of illness than adults. Maybe it's because they have a better will to live, who knows? Young children have less of an ability to fight off disease than older children, hence their inclusion on this list.

5. General public. Any vaccine left would be made available to the general public. This would include the 'oh my god if I miss my final my life is over I can't take an incomplete I'll never get into med school' variety as well as the 'if I got sick I might miss the holiday party that simply everyone is going to be at dahling,' as well as anyone else who is so horrified of missing a few days of work that they would rather get a vaccine that tends to make people sick.


Would this solution work? Who knows. But it's got to be better than this pseudo-panic going on. And since I know you're probably wondering--no, I did not get the flu shot this year. It's just the flu--and I admit, I'm a bit worried. I'm scheduled for surgery this December, and I don't know if they'll do it if I'm sick. But that's a chance I'll take. Last year I did get the flu shot--my school recommended it for those living in dorms. Also, I was a volunteer EMT, while I am not currently volunteering this year, due to health reasons. The shot made me feel sick for several days, and I still ended up sick--not with the flu, but with bronchitis. So, I think this year, I'll stay out of the flu shot panic and leave the vaccine for people who really need it.

Debate and Science

Sorry about the massive lack of anything to say (if anyone is reading this and I'm not just shouting into the void). I've had some personal things going on, and haven't felt up to doing very much.

I did see the debates. The first one has, of course, been dissected and rehashed until we're all sick to death of it, so I'm going to spare you. Except to say, is it just me, or did anyone else expect Bush to just pitch a fit on the stage? "But, I WANNA bomb Iraq! I WANNA. Daddy got too!"

Last night...I actually kind of feel lukewarm about it. I haven't seen any post-debate coverage yet, but so far I don't think either one did exceedingly well. Not necessarily from a political analysis point of view, but from an average voter point of view.

I thought Kerry could have done better on the question of if he flip-flopped. Maybe I am being naive, but I think he could do better than pretending he's not ever changed his mind. He made a decision, new information was made available, he revised his opinion on the basis of what he knew. THAT IS WHAT LEADERS DO.

Good leaders do not stick to a position that is wrong, even as more and more information crops up to PROVE them wrong. They adapt. They change. It's about being able to integrate new information into your strategies and plans. It's not just changing your mind for no reason. I think Kerry could have played that up more, but maybe there are reasons I'm not seeing for his answer.

I did like Kerry's line about "a campaign of weapons of mass deception". I also thought he came off well talking about stem cell research, by putting the focus on patients not the embryo debate. Granted, I'm biased on that issue. My grandmother died of Parkinson's disease (or complications from, rather, the actual disease doesn't really kill you) and there is a lot no one knows about that--including whether or not it is hereditary.

But then I've never understood how anybody could place the destruction of an embryo--it is NOT yet alive, it merely a collection of cells--above a living, breathing person. These embryos are not going to become babies. They've been frozen, leftovers from people who were having IVF or who froze them because they were having medical treatment that could make them sterile (more commonly that's just sperm or eggs frozen, but people have frozen embryos; I believe I've read that frozen embryos implant more easily than fertilizing a frozen egg. I could be mistaken, however). They are just taking up space, and they could be used to help people.

The patients that need embryos--that's the most important science. It's not Viagra or a cure for baldness or botox or breast inhancements. It's people with Parkinson's disease, cancer, diabetes, many neurological conditions, who knows what else? It's about helping people with families, with children and grandchildren they want to see grow up. It's about kids with a future ahead of them, kids who have to sit back and watch their friends grow up and dream and play while they are stuck wondering if they will even survive. These people are already alive. They are already here. Let's try our best to keep them that way.

Get Out the Vote

Today on Oprah--yes, Oprah, by the time I get out of organic chemistry I'm too braindead to do anything that requires extensive thought--they had a show about getting out the vote, and voter registration.

One of the things they did (aside from the predictable celebrity speeches about how important it is to vote) was to send some actors out to sign students up to vote.

Now, I have to ask--what, exactly, do they expect to accomplish.

So people are registered--what are they odds they are going to actually vote? If they couldn't even be bothered to register, I doubt they'll vote. Unless Oprah sends more celebrities to herd them to the polls. I also question their numbers....sure, people signed up. But if Jake Gyllenhaall came to my school and asked everyone who wasn't registered to vote to go with him, you can be damn sure I'd forget about my voter registration card real quick.

According to the Federal Election Commission website, only 67% of registered voters actually voted in 2000, 51% of the total eligible population (I've rounded the numbers to exclude decimal places, rounding down).

Looking at those numbers--which, given some of the classes I've taken, seem to be a generous estimate--perhaps we shouldn't be focusing on voter registration as the issue.

It's actually rather simple--you need to register to vote. Other than, it's pretty much useless. Someone is on campus with table, you get a shirt or a button or a coupon or to talk to Jake Gyllenhaall if you sign up. So, you sign up. Ten minutes later you're cramming for your orgo exam and you've forgotten about the entire thing (well, maybe not the Jake Gyllenhaall part).

The trick here is not to get people to register. The trick is to make them want to vote. If they want to vote, then they'll register. In order to have B, you must have A. Simply signing up voters IS NOT ENOUGH.

What is, you ask?

That's a good question. I don't know. If I did, I'd be a whole lot more important than I currently am. I do have a few ideas of where to start. Which I will expand on in later entries.

1. Education. Education is key. Getting adults to change their minds is hard. Kids, given the right incentive, will believe that the sky is green and the grass blue. Get 'em while they're young.

2. Lose the jargon. Politicians, political scientists, media, good newspapers...all of them fling jargon about like it's going to be extinct tomorrow. Most people don't understand it. Use plain english. Nobody liked the geeky kid in school, they haven't changed since they graduated.

3. Emphasize reality over ideology. This means talking about how things affect people's lives, not about grand moral or intellectual theories. It also means being willing to compromise because it's what's best for the country, not holding firm to an ideological ideal that is so unrealistic you'll never reach it.

The thing is though--these things aren't going to happen by themselves. A lot of people in power are part of the 'elite'. They like where they are and have no reason to change. It's up to us--normal, everyday Americans--to push them. By voting, by writing your representatives, by showing that we're going to do something more than sit on our asses and bitch about getting screwed over by the goverment. Talk to your friends, family, the guy on the metro (and if he's hot, get his number too).

Hey, it's worth a shot.

Creation and the Information Revolution

Recently, I've been noticing two things. The first is the amount of time my classes are spending on the idea of the information revolution, and the internet in relation to government and public opinion. The second is an abundance of news stories about knitting and other crafts gaining in popularity.

Now at first glance, these two things don't seem to have a lot in common. But if you add a knitting political communications major with insomnia, you end up with..well, this blog entry.

The idea of the information revolution has been a common theme in my classes. The idea is that information is power, that we are moving towards a more global society. Some have compared it to the agricultural and industrial revolutions--a shift in culture, or a paradigm shift.

The thing about the information age, though, is the absence of concrete things. Not a total absence, of course, as we all have plenty of mateiral goods. But for many people, they deal primarily in intangible objects.

Think about it--you go to work, where you deal with computers and information, teleconferences and emails. You come home, surf the web and email or IM your friends. You watch the news online, read the newspaper there. At the end of the day, you have nothing to show for it--at least, nothing you can hold in your hands.

Which is where the knitting comes in. There has been a virtual explosion of knitters recently. Some are just trendy, and may disappear in time. But many won't. Sure, they aren't traditional knitters--my grandmother would never have imagined knitting a bikini. As for the edible thong knitted from licorice (no, I'm not kidding, www.knitty.com in the sumer issue), well, I don't think she would even have believed someone who said that. These are young knitters, professionals, students. People who you'd never dream you'd see holding a pair of needles.

So, why? Why are we, a technolically savvy, sophisticated generation, turning to a hobby that conjures up images of little old ladies stitching away on baby booties?

Because, in all of the abstract, intangible things we do, this is REAL.

Knitting is something you can hold in your hand, you can touch. The hours and hours I spent reformatting and editing articles at my job this summer aren't visible--sure, you can see the articles, but the origional, the proof of how much they changed, is long gone into the digital void. The sweater I made my Dad last Christmas, on the other hand, is there. You can look at it and know, really know, that in the beginning was just a giant hank of yarn.

There is great satisfaction in that, in seeing what you have created. Knitting also appeals for other reasons--it's ideal for multitasking (particularly for those of us who cannot stop fidgeting), it allows for creative expression, and you can actually do something with the finished project.

Technology is a wondeful thing. Knowledge is a wondeful thing. I would probably keel over without the internet. Yet, I still feel...hollow somehow. As if I have nothing to show for myself. Human nature includes the desire to leave something of yourself behind. Something more than a fading digital signature.

The impact of the information revolution on culture has yet to be determined. Perhaps we will all become disaffected. People who spend more and more time working, who spend less time with real people, who lead minimalist, stark lives. Able to live our lives with an immeasurably small amount of human contact.

Or perhaps we will see a renaissance of more traditional activities. Things that encourage creation, connection, things with tangible results. Of course, we will change these traditions--like living things, traditions must evolve if they are to survive. Maybe, though, those knitting needles won't seem so much like a symbol of archaic drudgery, but more like a vehicle for creative expression and accomplishment.

Who can say which way the pendulum will swing? Maybe it will head a different direction entirely. Personally, though--I'm kind of hoping for the second option.

Introduction

Hello and welcome to my humble patch of the web.

I'm a college student in DC, and this is my spot to ramble on about politics, news, and my thoughts on them. The topics, like myself, will probably be all over the map.

This is an introductory post (in case the title of "Introduction" didn't give it away) just meant to have something here other than blank space. Last night I had actually written a longish article about CBS news and Dan Rather, which was intended to be the first post. However, my kitten decided he wanted to be fed and stepped on the surge protector switch, so I lost the entire thing.

At which point I watched CSI while attempting to calm myself enough that I did not throw said kitten across the room. Which I would never do, no matter how much I felt like it.

So...here it is. Actual posts are forthcoming.