Friday, October 23, 2009

H1N1 and all of its hoopla? Vaccine shortage? Oh noes!

So the problem with the H1N1 flu strain has been running rampart for quite some time, and most would assume that the proper authorities are taking the most efficient and productive method to control and quarantine this virus...

But are we really to the point where we can truly feel safe? Or is there a reason for concern... Such as, a shortage of flu vaccines? Yeah, we should be.


We Texans already know what actions are already been taken to handle this flu nonsense in order to maintain the integrity of the general public's health. For instance, survey's are used on the official TCCD website to determine where the source of the swine flu outbreak is taking place (well whichever campus)...

Some of us remembered reading The Collegian (uh some of us, not all of us) advising us to look for elsewhere for vaccinations...

Surely a sign to explain that we probably on a verge of a shortage of vaccine for this wintry season. I'd like to think I'm doing pretty well off not having taken the shot yet, but let's say for those who aren't in a satisfactory health condition, this is something they really need...

But it sure does seem difficult for a Los Angeles family of 4.

"I feel that the government and health officials, they knew this was big when it first started, they know the size of our population before it started, and they didn't make leaps and bounds to make sure it was available to everyone when they would need it,"

I would say that's a sound argument. The government / health bureaus could definitely do a more efficient job of catering the public for their needs.

It's easy to remember that the government is suppose to protect the public's well-being. We voted all those officials to represent our nation and to maintain it, so we deserve at least things such as an ample amount of vaccination for a virus... Cater to the base, and help those in need.

"It shouldn't be a supply-and-demand thing."

Exactly! We should know for a fact that situations like this can't be labeled as simple as 'supply-and-demand' - people with power should do whatever they can to help the needy.

That's like saying the Hurricane Katrina aftermath shouldn't be a pause for concern until this X amount of damage caused to the city of New Orleans. It shouldn't be like that, The welfare of our nation's people shouldn't be a business or a system of economics, but based on the morality of man.

Help because we can help, not because it can make us millions of dollars because 'WE HAVE THE CURE!'.

The Centers for Disease Control and Preventionannounced last week that production of the vaccine is slower than expected. While the CDC had hoped for 40 million doses by the end of October, the real numbers will be about 30 million doses because of manufacturing delays, said Dr. Anne Schuchat, CDC's director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

I thought we have the ability and the technology to overcome problems such as this? Maybe I just have this natural distaste for bureaucracy.

Now that isn't to say that we should completely put the entire blame on our health departments and officials, maybe it really is just a natural occurrence that when we have an 'epidemic' such as this, supplies tend to run short in a matter of months as everyone becomes very self-aware of the situation regarding the flu and its dangerous effects on our health if untreated.

Priority groups for the vaccine include pregnant women, caregivers and household contacts of children younger than 6 months, people between the ages of 6 months and 24 years, and anyone ages 25 to 64 with existing health problems. Health care and emergency medical services personnel in contact with high-risk patients, or patients with flu-like illness, are also on the list.
That's actually a pretty well-made decision as to taking steps in providing a cure for those who should be given priority. Yes, I know everyone else would be frustrated with how the system is being handled, but that's probably just a sense of selfishness that we all have inside of us.

Some of other greater concern that seem to have stemmed from this is the occurrence of a dreadful 1-in-a-millionth side effect called 'Dystonia'.

Cheerleader developing Dystonia:

Other reference:

Dystonia is a rare occurrence - but when it happens, it's cause by a severe reaction of the body to the flu vaccine that causes neurological damage (more or less noticeable through uncontrollable muscle spams).

(Watch the videos, it's truly saddening to see this happen to people who wanted to take a simple vaccination for their health).

However, this shouldn't really keep us from taking the actual vaccine (as stated, it's a very very rare chance for the side effects to happen to someone).

Friday, October 16, 2009

Baby on board? Or under?

Article link -- http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/16/australia.baby.train.escape/index.html#cnnSTCText

Okay, first off - I have no hate for Australia or the Aussies, it JUST so happens that the past few articles I find intriguing or surprising to be there.

We love your kangaroos and koalas. No lie.

Quick Summary --
- Normal mom with baby strolling around train/tram station
- Mom becomes inattentive for couple of seconds while mingling with friends.
- Stroller inches towards tracks.
- Stroller falls into tracks.
- Subway comes in to make the stop.
- Baby dragged 30-33 feet... And fortunately, SURVIVES! [Yeah you sickos, no dead baby for you].

They actually have surveillance footage of the whole incident within attached linked at the top. At first, I was pretty shocked as to what had I just witnessed, but it was amazing enough the baby survived the whole incident and came off with just a minor cut to the forehead.

Of course the mom was distraught, I would be to witnessing such a terrible event.
Channel 7 said the incident came just a day after the launch of a public awareness campaign warning of the dangers of strollers on platforms.
I think the problem with community awareness these days is pretty simple - we, as normal people, are drowned with everyday hassles of real life and whatnot - that honestly, some of us don't even have time to be aware of news, current events, movements, programs, etc.

Certain situations just tend to affect our lifestyles and routines. So it wouldn't be surprising that the mother would had catch something such as the awareness campaign warning of dangers of strollers on platforms. Sure, she definitely is part of the target audience, but mothers are really out-of-tune with such things based on the fact that:
  1. Worried about everything else in relation to the baby, toddler, child.
  2. Assume that the situation will never happen to them.
Maybe, even a contributing factor on the mother's lack of knowledge or awareness of a potential situation could stem from the heavily saturation and disorganization of mass media. Bombardment of commercials and unwanted ads that have no relation to us WOULD put anyone off from watching television.

And news nowadays seem to have this weird tendency to focus on things that... Just doesn't seem as important. This article isn't even 1 full page long, and personally such incidents shouldn't be taken lightly and should be a public concern! But then of course, we're all worried about Kanye West barging in into our house while taking a shower interrupting our relaxation by proclaiming Beyonce had the best shower of all time...

Or something to that matter.

In other words, we're worried about everything else irrelevant to our safety, it's kinda affecting our livelyhood and family morals/values.

[Modernistic muckracking via technology?! Oh noes!]

So anyways!

The article and the news footage did report that the mother wasn't at fault here, and I do agree with that.

But seeing as such awareness campaign does exist, it's safe to assume that this is becoming a problematic situations in regards to all public transportation that rely on trains...

Hopefully, in the future, innovative solutions are made in order to provide a safer environment for any family in general, because for all we know, this exact situation can happen to the elderly, or disabled.

So... Please, think about the children.


And kittens. Everyone loves kittens.



Thursday, October 8, 2009

Tralala!

Article link -- http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
---
After reading through the long list of ethics and starndards...

I'm going to only agree to a certain extent -

Official or publicly well-known media outlets should follow these standards [which I hope they already do]... Things such as the blogging, Twitter, Facebook, etc - you certainly hit a wall when it comes to applying idealistic concepts to a very broad and open technology where freedom of speech is CERTAINLY not hindered.

Most would agree though that without the strong presence of government intervention, organizations should have more leeway in applying rules and standards to the online community regarding issues of ethics of writing, journalism, reflections, etc.

[Or even have people having an easy way to express a just and sound article without biased information with absolute truths] -- but then of course, we live in an imperfect society with flaws to everything.

Since a lot of those Twitter-based news seem to have strong biased opinions as it is (from what I've personally read) - it's honestly hard to tell these groups of people to suddenly change their code of ethics or methodology of relaying news to people.

However, one thing I would strongly advocate in the article's long list of guidelines... Would be that privacy is one of those big 'concerns' that should be looked into. I certainly wouldn't want my name thrown out into the public without my consent. It's probably just me trying to convey my ideas that censorship needs to be placed where its actually needed and not where it's not needed.

We, the global community, have pushed for so many ridiculous mandates regarding the censorship of information, we really don't know how much information is blocked in regards of informing the community of news [whether it's locally or globally].

(Remember what happened with prohibition? Outlawed alcohol for the greater good, yes, but it backfired with the increase in organized crime and even violence). Just an analogy.

I'm saying that over-censorship [even general censorship] might be more bad than good.
---
And as we dive deeper into the article...

"Seek Truth and Report It" and "Minimize Harm" - Doesn't both statements have a sense of contradictions towards each other?

Someone is going to get hurt if you seek for the absolute truth. For instance, reporting high-profile crimes and telling the global community will definitely hurt the person's reputation, whether they were considered 'good' or 'bad' - a truth that ruined a man's reputation.

I'm not saying it's bad, I just think that there's no way around it.

I might as well say it now, regardless of the contradictions, I think anyone with an adequate amount of sanity would just yell "THIS IS ALL COMMON SENSE!" - I would like to think so. These rules are very coherent and sound. Do we really have people who don't quite understand these codes of ethics?

I guess so, if it had to be written/typed down. Sad, I think.

---
"Act Independently"

I agree for the most part specifically with this section just on the fact that I try to think individualistic as well when it comes to my thoughts and ideas.

Unbiasedness is promoted through selfless goals -- Seek the truth and nothing but the truth. [Granted that we are the greediest and most arrogant species roaming the surface of the earth].

— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

Probably one of the more harder code of ethics to follow I would think. Especially when we all know advertisements is one of the biggest forms of revenue on the newspaper. And the said could be true for online news websites. Money, unfortunately, makes the world go round.
---
"Be Accountable"

Considering that half of the information we obtain from the internet is as legit as it can get [insert sarcasm here], I honestly think people who relay news online via blogging, tweets, and so forth need to be accountable for any information they have put up for millions of internet users to potentially read.

I doubt it would be hard to apologize to people we've offended [if it were to happen] since we hold no personal/emotional/whatever lovey-dovey ties to the users that could potentially subscribed to a blog, news website, facebook fan page, etc.
---
[Adding more later, muddled-up thought at the moment, ah!]