Nationwide Tamiflu Shortage

A nationwide flu outbreak, worse than anything doctors have seen in the last 4 years, shows no signs of slowing down. A New York ER says more than 6.5 percent of patients coming in reporting flu symptoms. With 53 children dead and an expected rise of cases in the coming weeks the demand for Tamiflu is higher than ever, but supplies are running low.

An ER in Santa Monica, California sees 200 people or more a week coming in with flu like symptoms asking to be prescribed Tamiflu, but with a demand that high, not everyone can be treated. “They’re all on backorder, we can’t get them”, says one Pharmacy clerk about the prescription. This obviously affects the doctors, but more importantly it affects the children and parents of those children from getting the medicine they need to prevent the spread of the virus.

Genetech, the company that produces Tamiflu, claims there is not a widespread shortage of Tamiflu, but a quick google search pulls up dozens of local news sites for states alerting people of the low supply. In addition, the Pharmaceutical Journal published an article warning doctors and patients alike of the national, wide-spread limitation of the drug. Not only that, the Pharmaceutical Journal points out it’s not the capsule form in low supply, it’s the liquid from. The form prescribed to children.

Although an unknown total amount of children have died, the number is estimated rise from last year’s 12,000 because of this strain’s higher than normal death rate. Physicians are pleading members of the public to stay safe; “Sneeze into your sleeve, and if you’re sick, please stay home.” says Shoquist of Children’s Medical Center.

Photo- https://www.healththoroughfare.com/news/flu-virus-making-victims-us/3502

Young Voters: The Epidemic of Inefficacy

In light of the recent election, the attention on millennial (ages 18-35) voters is more palpable than ever. Millennials make up 31% of the voter population, about 69.2 million people and outweigh the Silent Generation (ages 71 and up) and Gen X (ages 36-51) by about 30 and 10% respectively. This means they hold an immense amount of power in their hands. Last year’s election saw an influx of young voter turnout, with nearly half of those 69.2 million millennials making it to the polling stations

But, those numbers have not always been so high. Since 1964, the data for young voter turnout was at a steady decline. They have consistently voted at incredibly lower rates than all other age groups. There have been spikes in the participation of young adults in certain presidential elections, such as those in 1992 and 2004, but they were short lived and never surpassed those of other age groups. So, the question is why?

According to The Economist, it isn’t the often heard rhetoric of “young people are lazy”. In fact, they explain it may have nothing to do with laziness at all. Instead, they provide the claim that young people feel as though they don’t provide enough of an impact to make their vote worthwhile, also known as efficacy, or that there is not a candidate worth voting for. With more and more people searching for futures in their career rather than in their relationships, the interest in having children and owning a home has decreased. As a result, interest in places in their communities where they would see an immediate impact such as schools and hospitals has, too, decreased. Thus, young people see no reason to vote, so, they don’t.

However, in the 2016 election, there was an important difference- for the first time, essentially all millennials were eligible to vote. This prompted the presidential candidates to promote their campaigns on social media. But, despite Bernie Sanders having a clear lead against his rivals, he ultimately dropped out of the running. So, how are you supposed to win?

Dan Schawbel of Quartz lays out the guidelines to winning the millennial vote in BLANK simple steps. One, focus on issues millennials relate to, and provide real solutions to them. Two, be completely transparent and as factual as possible (who likes being lied to…). Three, engage with their hometowns and their communities. The president is many things, but to most people, the way to relate to him is viewing him as Chief Citizen. The best way to accomplish that is to come to them and reach out to their homes. Four, and maybe most importantly, get the parents on board. Millennials are mostly, although, being a millennial, I hate to admit, children still. Children will look up to their parents’ experience with voting and political engagement and take after them.

As a millennial myself, I don’t know what the real solution to depressingly low young voter turnout is. Social media, all of Schawbel’s solutions, and general education about the voting system are all viable ways to reach us, but they’re not working. The only way young voters like myself will be motivated enough to put our vote into a candidate is if we are sure the affects will be swift and palpable. A candidate who makes promises that they know are realistic and do-able will win the hearts of millennials and other age groups alike. Until then, we will just have to, as Hilary Clinton so eloquently put it, “chill”. 

Image source: http://www.freedomworks.org/

From the Age of Muskets to the Age of Mass Shootings

Gun control has long been a topic of heated discussion, focusing around the 2nd Amendment and the powerhouse that is the NRA. In the shadow if the recent Las Vegas shooting, the most deadly to ever occur killing 59 and wounding nearly 600, the push for increased gun control and, in some cases, an all-encompassing gun ban is being brought to the forefront of local and national governments

The loudest voice against these suggestions is the NRA. In their statement regarding the incident, a representative said banning guns “will do nothing to prevent future attacks”. Instead, they and many that support the often criticized 2nd Amendment, say banning devices that can be used to modify rifles to mimic the rapid action firing of machine guns is the only realistic solution. In particular, the NRA names the “bump stock” as the device responsible for the horrifyingly large death count. Bump stocks allow for a semi-automatic rifle to perform as a fully automatic rifle, firing 400 to 800 rounds per minute.

The ban or regulation of modifications such as the bump stock are a much more realistic outcome following the slew of mass shootings, rather than the 2nd Amendment being repealed from the constitution or stricter interpretation becoming mandatory i.e. all gun owners being placed into a “well regulated militia”. However, now more than ever the call for some sort of edit to the frankly outdated constitution is absolutely needs to be answered.

There is a reason the U.S. has more public mass shootings than any other country in the world- we like guns. Not only that, we have a constitutional right to own and operate those guns. As Op-Ed columnist Bret Stephens calls it, “blanket constitutional protection” is unnecessary and has led to only more mass shootings as we are unable agree upon a new way of gun ownership. It protects people like the Las Vegas gunman and so many other so called “madmen”, giving them the constitutional right to own guns that, when writing the constitution, our forefathers never imagined could ever exist.

When they framed the 2nd Amendment, they lived in an age of muskets, which could fire at a rate of one or two rounds per minute. That is proof enough that our country has and is changing, and I am under the opinion that our constitution should follow that pattern. A stricter interpretation or even an amendment added is at this point in time, in the shadow of the deadliest shooting ever on American soil, necessary for the safety of our country. It’s not about politics anymore, it’s about allowing people to leave their house and not worry about being killed at a concert. Banning modifications will help to an extent, but will not prevent horrifying killings like Las Vegas forever. The problem is we need protection from ourselves, which we may not be willing to admit just yet.

image source: pintrest

Help, We’re Trapped

What is it like to live in a bubble? Believe it or not, this is a question for you and for the 1.7 billion users of the infamous search engine Google. Whether they are searching for the address of the nearest grocery store or for information on the latest presidential debate, their search is being filtered through anywhere from 57 to 200 different filters, as Eli Pariser brings to attention in his Ted Talk.

These filters range from where you live to, more importantly, what kinds of things the user normally searches. The filter bubble is created by these blinders of sorts restricting one’s view of the world.

For example, when they were searching for the address of the nearest grocery store, the first thing that pops up may be for a Whole Foods caused by their recent searches for different types of superfoods, despite there being an Albertson’s much closer. This would be an example of the filter bubble hard at work.

However, it doesn’t only affect search engine searches. One could argue that people experience filter bubbles online and offline. With more than just search engines like Google using algorithms to personalize the internet experience, social media is being over run with personalized feeds, essentially wiping out any opposing viewpoints due to uneven amounts interaction with them. Uneasiness around opposing viewpoints arises from this lack of exposure, which in turn creates a kind of real-life filter bubble. Without any experience online with differing opinions and conversations about them, which are anonymous and often times easier to avoid if they become confrontational because the user can just leave the page, real-life conversations about the same topics are even more daunting and quite frankly are avoided at any cost.

We also have no real sense of what the rest of our country is thinking. The best example of this was the previous Presidential election. People felt blindsided by the election of Donald Trump, and Mostafa M. El-Bermawy of Wired says that may be due to the filterbubble’s restrictions on our social media feeds.

There is a kind of fear of confronting or even speaking to someone with completely differing opinions because it is unpredictable how they will react. Will they be blissfully ignorant of the bubble they exist within? Or, will they seize the opportunity to burst it? Given the current politically divided state that America is in, these questions have potentially life ending consequences.

This is why the filter bubble matters. Without it, extremists on both sides of the political spectrum would be confronted with factual information rather than information that promotes their ideology. A kind of echo chamber of like-minded ideas and political opinions forms and is almost inescapable, with it existing off and on line.

As users, it is our responsibility to ensure that we burst the bubble on our feeds and in our daily life. We need to have uncomfortable, tricky, but respectful and educational discussions about the situation we have found ourselves in as a nation and as individuals. So, the question isn’t “What is it like to live in a bubble?”, it’s “How do we escape it?”.