.@GavinNewsom has made lots of showy announcements, vowing California would lead a smooth, equitable vaccine distribution plan across the state's 58 counties. He has propped up his administration as a leader & sought to reassure the public that he can handle it. Some comments:

Oct. 19: "We have long been in the vaccination business. Our experience with mass vaccinations makes us a unique partner with the CDC and DOD, based on the scale and scope of the vaccinations that occur on an annual basis here in the state of California."
Nov. 16: “Rather than criticizing the [Trump] administration, rather than lamenting about what could or should be done, we engaged proactively and continue to engage proactively to make sure we have a plan for safe and equitable distribution of the vaccine.”
Dec. 3: “There is light at the end of the tunnel. We are a few months away from truly seeing real progress with the vaccine, real distribution, real accessibility, real availability... You’ll be hearing good news on top of other good news."
Dec. 7: "Hope is on the horizon with a vaccination. We continue to accelerate our planning and preparedness for a safe, and equitable vaccine distribution," Newsom said. "I really believe this-you’re going to start hearing good news, and numbers that continue to significantly..."
Dec. 15: “We started this Vaccinate All 58 campaign, recognizing that all Californians need to be included in this vaccination process and we can’t leave folks behind...There is light at the end of the tunnel."
Jan. 4: “We are working aggressively to accelerate our pace. You’re going to start seeing more rapid distribution of this vaccine, I can assure you of that.”
Jan. 11: “We continue to do more to support the needs of getting these vaccines delivered, not only to our partners all up and down the state of California - thousands of them, but administered into people’s arms.”
Jan. 15: On expanding vaccination eligibility to people age 65 and older: “The vast majority of our counties will be moving very, very shortly in that direction.” State health official later said it would take until June to vaccinate Californians age 65 and older.
From the beginning, Newsom said his detailed vaccine advisory process, with input from multiple committees and dozens of stakeholders, would provide a clear and fair process that Newsom said "I hope gives people a little more confidence that we’re going to do things right."
Major changes are underway, but meanwhile people remain in chaos and it's unclear how the state's new changes will work, lots of remaining questions. We are waiting on major details, including details of the contract with insurance giant Blue Shield of California.
What stood out to me the most is how closely people are paying attention to @GavinNewsom's rhetoric on vaccinations, and how misled they feel - including Democrats who voted for him. “I know he’s trying, but honestly, at this point, I’m so soured." https://t.co/ffaGlTXP1I

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
Hi @officestudents @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equality and Diversity section of your job application has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

However...

1/15


However, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.

2/15


You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female.

3/15


Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

4/15


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

5/15

You May Also Like