October 19, 2023 • 35 mins
We discuss work-from-home myths, the latest vaccine rollout, and science celebrity culture. We also dig into why women are a neglected asset in the inflation fight. Columnists Claudia Sahm, Sarah Green Carmichael, Lisa Jarvis, and FD Flam join.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one in seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
bust a myth about working from home, that your employee
may actually be working a second full time job. And
we'll look at the vaccine rollout for the fall and
how the US deserves better, plus how becoming a celebrity
scientist can backfire on you. But let's begin with how
(00:38):
women can be an asset in the fight against inflation.
About seventy five percent of women in their prime working
years are employed, and that is a record high. Women
are playing a crucial role in helping ease labor shortages
and alleviating upward pressure on inflation, especially mothers of young children.
(00:59):
Now you might recall a couple of years ago when
the White House announced thirty nine billion dollars in funds
to help childcare efforts and keep childcare centers open during
the pandemic. Then Press Secretary Jansaki pointed to the millions
of women who left the workforce at the time because
of the pandemic.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
These funds will help early childhood educators and family childcare
providers keep their doors open and make sure every state
has a strong child's care system that provides families with
what they need. Since the start of the pandemic, as
we've talked about a bit in here, roughly two million
women have left the workforce. That is disproportionately due to
caregiving needs. And we're hopeful that this will help.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
And while women have made a comeback in the workforce,
those childcare funds are ending. Let's learn more about this.
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Claudia sam is founder of Some Consulting
and a former Federal Reserve economist. She joins me now, Claudia,
it's worth noting that at the start of the pandemic
it was women mostly who stayed home to take care
(02:02):
of the family. So this record employment rate that you
cite in your column is impressive.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Rights it is impressive. Women really came from behind in
the pandemic, both because they lost jobs at a much
higher pace than men because primarily women are more represented
in the service sector, and that's what got shut down
and then also millions of women left the labor market,
and a large portion of that was for caregiving responsibilities
(02:30):
that became didn't have the childcare that was reliable, the
schools were closed, and we are at a point now
where the employment rate of prime age women, so aged
twenty five to fifty four, is at the highest it
has ever been, so seventy percent of women in that
group are working now. That has been a huge help
(02:51):
to reducing the labor shortages that we've seen because again
they're coming back in the service sector work and some
of the supports that have been put in place to
help women get back on their feet and have their
family caregiving taken care of, like these childcare subsidies, they're
over and that there's a real question as to whether
the advances that they've made with jobs and with other
(03:15):
being part of the labor market, if that's going to
slip away or if we're going to just slide back
to some extent. Another important piece, and we've seen this
across a number of groups that have historically had some
difficulties getting jobs, is that we have had a great
labor market, so employers part of getting women back with
employers being more open minded about how flexible they could
(03:38):
make the jobs, how good the pay could be. I mean,
there are childcare options out there, but you've got to
be able to afford them. So there are some aspects
of how women got ahead that didn't slip away last
month entirely with the childcare now these subsidies, and I
think people might remember that there was a talk of
big childcare programs getting money to families with the build
(04:02):
back better and that didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
And so this.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
Program is its aim was to keep the childcare centers
that we had open.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Now the point of your column, the meat of it
is about how women are a neglected asset in the
fight against inflation. What is it that women bring to
the table that helps in that fight?
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Right as you said, the piece is really taking the
twenty thousand foot view of what are we missing, not
so much the struggle of the families, which are real
in terms of the caregiving. What's the benefit to the
entire country if we get more women involved, given in
the example a very topical one of the labor shortages
(04:47):
and dealing with the inflation, that's just scratching the surface.
I mean, that's the one inflation. Inflation is everything we're
thinking about now, and yet we there's long term growth
and productivity. These are the these are the big ones
right in terms of where where we're going to be
ten years, twenty years from now. One aspect of this
(05:09):
cost equation of not bringing women in is the fact
that over time we're at a place where women are
more likely than men to be receiving higher and higher education.
And so these women have invested Our schools and universities
have invested a lot in them in terms of getting
what you know, quote unquote marketable skills, like certain things
(05:33):
that they could apply at work, and then we're not
helping them get work to a place where they can
be a part of it. So you've left this kind
of money on the table in terms of people that
really have something to add in the workforce. We're not
allowing many women and to make a choice not to
Like I don't you know, we shouldn't be forcing everyone
(05:54):
to work, but there are many women who were not
giving them a chance to realize their full potential. That
costs them in terms of career opportunities and wages, and
it costs all of us in terms of not having
being as productive as we could be.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
So let's flip it on its head. Then what is
the risk as women are removed from that equation.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
Again, and it's this loss of potential and we know
what we can do better. We can compare ourselves to
other countries that have made a concerted effort, like they
understand getting women into the workforce benefits everyone in the
United States, whereas we were on the leaderboard a couple
(06:36):
decades ago, that is no longer the case. And there
were very different kinds of social programs, very different kinds
of goals set for bringing women in. So we can't
make the excuse that it's just like, oh, women don't
want to work, Oh this is the best we can do.
That's absolutely not the case. The policies, it's tricky, right,
and some of these very much sit with the private
(06:58):
sector in terms of and businesses are losing out right.
They're not bringing in the workers, they're not allowing again,
they're not allowing the workers to reach their full potential.
This I think it was very timely. I didn't foresee
this that Professor Claudia Golden Yesay received the Nobel Prize
and Economics. Claudia's lifetime career has been focused on women
(07:23):
and work and among other areas that she studied. And
one thing, and there's a piece of the column that
is very much inspired by knowing her research, is that
it's not just that women can't get the child care.
It's often the jobs are set up the women just
can't do them right. They have inflexible hours, and you
(07:47):
think of a lot of professional degrees where you need
to be able to drop everything when the phone rings
and the client needs something, and you have to stay
late for the dinners and do things that are just
not conducive to someone who has caregiving responsibilities or woman right.
And so she talked about just we have these barriers,
sometimes ones we don't even think about that keep women
(08:08):
from being there. And then they are also ones that
it's like do you really need that or your operation,
your business to be productive. And so this is on
you know, there are a lot of social programs that
could help, not holding my breath when a lot of
those happening. There are a lot of private sector solutions.
(08:28):
Part of the column is to try and emphasize why
we all benefit, why employers would benefit from making accommodations
so that people with childcare responsibilities or other limitations kind
of with a standard day to day of work schedule.
In some of these jobs, employers have a lot of
control over how they set up their work. And we
(08:52):
know with things like the work from home, which have
benefited women among other groups, like these accommodations can work.
This was proof of concept here, So then there are
others out there.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
The numbers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
found during its assessment. Let's just go over those numbers
very briefly, if we could, and kind of hammer that
point home that you're trying to make in your column
about what this could mean.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
That's an excellent piece that came out of San Francisco.
They looked at women, they also looked at racial minorities
and thinking about this integration, and they did it on
lots of dimensions. Essentially, it was if we could get
women working on a lot of different dimensions, you know,
their wages, their participation, their hours, if we could have
(09:38):
them engaged in the labor market in the same way
that men are, what would that look like. And again,
this wasn't about the individuals and how would that affect
their day to day life. And their careers. It was
about how would it affect the economy, how would it
affect GDP for women alone. They estimated that closing all
(10:00):
of these gaps would have increased GDP in twenty nineteen
by about eight percent one point seven trillion dollars. And
this is something that would grow over time, so it's
not just to pay off at one point in time.
It would push up GDP. It's over time. And what
is GDP It is our ability to produce goods or services.
(10:21):
So it goes back to this idea that we as
a country are not fulfilling our potential or full potential
if we don't integrate women into the workforce.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Claudia, thank you so much for taking the time with
us today. We appreciate it. Thank you, Bloomberg Opinion columnists.
Claudia sam is founder of Some Consulting, a former Federal
Reserve economist, and the creator of the sm rule that's
a recession indicator. Now coming up, we're going to take
a look at work from home and one big myth,
how many of your employees are actually moonlighting when they
(10:56):
work from home. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
You're listening to The Bloomberg Opinion podcast Contest Saturdays at
one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Working from
home is likely here to stay. University of Texas Management
Professor Andrew Brodsky.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
You're the one company that's not offering remote work. You're
going to be losing talent.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Professor Brodsky says bigger employers are offering work from home
as a perk.
Speaker 5 (11:44):
One of the things that I've been seeing in job listing.
You can work from anywhere you want. You don't have
to live in, you know, one of the five most
expensive cities in the United States.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
But there is a myth that speaks to employers' fears
about out of sight workers. They might be moonlighting, secretly
work working a second job, but not working eighty hour weeks,
instead toggling between job one and job two. They're called
the over employed. But is this just an urban legend?
Bloomberg Opingion columnist Sarah Green Carmichael joins us now. Sarah
(12:14):
always a pleasure. Just set us straight. Do these people
exist or are there really people who are over employed
and using work from home to hide that second job.
Speaker 6 (12:25):
At least a few of.
Speaker 7 (12:25):
These people exists because people, you know, reporters at the
Wall Street Journal have talked to some of them, Bloomberg
reporters have talked to some of them. There have been
stories about this in the BBC, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair.
I believe these reporters actually did talk to some people
doing this, but these seem to be more anecdotes of
people in extraordinary situations rather than the widespread trend it's
(12:49):
reported to be. There have been several surveys suggestiness as
a widespread phenomenon, but when you look at like Feerau
of labor statistics data, it really doesn't show up at all.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
This is something that employers are watching engaging, because that
kind of gives them more impetus to remove those work
from home flexibilities.
Speaker 6 (13:10):
Yes.
Speaker 7 (13:10):
In fact, you know, over the last few months, as
you have heard more CEOs trying to push people back
to the office more often, some of those all hands
zooms that have gone viral have included CEOs saying things like, look,
we don't know what people are doing at home, they
could be working for a competitor. So I do think
it's something where the plethora of stories on this topic
(13:34):
has triggered a really real anxiety in the minds of
senior leaders. Even if these anecdotes are really just anecdotes.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
And what is another indication that they're just anecdotes. You
mentioned if somebody's slacking off or otherwise not contributing, chances
are the boss is going to notice.
Speaker 7 (13:54):
Chances are the boss is going to notice. And there
have been some people who have been fired after their
companies found out that they were double dipping. It is
pretty easy to tell people think they're being sneaky. But
you can tell if someone's on two zooms at once
and they unmute themselves at the wrong time if you
can hear another zoom happening in the background. These kinds
(14:15):
of snawfoos are very very difficult. Moreover, you know, most jobs,
I think do require people to actually turn in work
every now and then. And if someone's work is constantly
late or they're constantly canceling meetings, you know you're got it.
You really are going to notice. I also have to say,
you know, there were a couple of non academic studies
(14:35):
that came out that at surveys based on you know,
a thousand people that seem to show really high rates
of remote workers doing multiple jobs.
Speaker 6 (14:45):
But a couple of things.
Speaker 7 (14:45):
One, these are just surveys put out by organizations like
resume builder, Monster dot com. They're not, you know, sort
of peer reviewed like big studies. And second, you know,
when you look closer at some of the details, some
of it turns out some of those side hustles are
things like driving for Uber, selling jewelry on Etsy.
Speaker 6 (15:05):
Some people even listed.
Speaker 7 (15:06):
Sex work as their second job, a surprisingly high number
of people. So data points like that made me wonder, really,
you know, how how reliable is this survey our remote
workers really sitting at home with a full time side job,
you know, doing all these sorts of things. I don't
find that particularly credible.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
And we talked about it a bit, But how much
of an over employed worker is a factor when a
company is deciding whether to scale back or eliminate work
from home options or is it just sort of buried
in there.
Speaker 6 (15:36):
It's more of a corporate bogey man.
Speaker 7 (15:38):
These stories have you gotten a ton of attention when
they've been you know, published, and it's easy to see why.
You know, the details are irresistible. People pulling down six
hundred thousand dollars a year by working two or three,
you know, coding jobs all simultaneously. So I think there's
this this idea that this figure sort of lurks in
(15:59):
c's minds as a kind of bogeyman, but there's really
no sense of a widespread trend. In fact, you know,
less than a percent of the US workforce works to
full time jobs.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
And we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Sarah Green
Carmichael here to bust some myths about working from home.
How much do side hustles factor into this? You mentioned
selling stuff on Etsy or maybe driving an uber. Is
that really the predominance or is there more to it?
Speaker 7 (16:30):
I do think that, you know, there is solid data
from the Bureau Labertatistics that show that more Americans now
do have some kind of secondary job. But it's clearly
a primary job that's their full time job, and then
a secondary job where they're picking up part time shifts
or doing that kind of side hustling. And actually, I
think if you asked a lot of CEOs, you know,
(16:52):
do you mind if your entry level worker picks up
a few weekend shifts at Starbucks?
Speaker 6 (16:56):
They would probably say no. Depending on the circumstance. It
is like they probably wouldn't mind at all.
Speaker 7 (17:02):
But I think it's really this idea that somehow people
are simultaneously working two full time jobs, like one for
Google and one for Meta that keeps people awake at night.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
So what is the reason behind this attention on the
mythical highly paid two timing remote workers. Where is all
of this coming from.
Speaker 7 (17:22):
There's a few different reasons that it so has captured
the imagination. One is, I think a real managerial fear
that they don't know what people are doing at home.
The other is I think an anxiety among workers that
we're somehow missing out on easy money, that really there's
enough slack time in your day that maybe you could
take two full time jobs and double your salary. And
(17:44):
I think it speaks to a lot of people who
are frustrated and feel like they haven't gotten a raise
that they deserve. The cost of living has gone up,
and there must be some easy way to kind of
significantly really increase their earnings.
Speaker 6 (17:58):
And then there's that sense that like gosh, is everyone
doing this? Am I falling behind? That's a very powerful
motivator for journalists to do more of these stories.
Speaker 8 (18:07):
You know.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
That also speaks to, like you said, hourly wages not
going up as much as people might want or need, inflation,
and then the continuing fallout from the pandemic and the shutdown.
I mean that still is resonating because that's where work
from home really got some traction.
Speaker 7 (18:27):
And I think that there is also in some jobs
there are quiet times, and there are dead times, and
I think that there are some very smart, skilled people
who actually could leverage that dead time in their main
job to possibly work a second job. I don't want
to say it's not possible, it's just not very widespread.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
And one of the numbers that you quote in your
column this really tickled me, is it indicated that about
a third of all full time workers have a second
full time gig, not just a side gig, but a
second full time job. And I look around my newsroom
and with my colleagues, and I think, there's no way
any of these people have a second full time job.
(19:09):
You'd be exhausted. It just doesn't seem feasible.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
Yeah, And That's one of the things that I think
was challenging when I started really looking at the data,
was this disappointment that these sort of surveys, they really
commandeer the headline figure, And I thought, who stopped and
thought about does this make any sense? Do a third
of full time workers, all workers, not just remote workers,
really have a second forty hour week job, Like I
(19:35):
really don't think so.
Speaker 6 (19:36):
And that's why I had to go back and check sort.
Speaker 7 (19:38):
Of the Saint Louis FED and the Bureau Labor Statist
six and some of these really more sort of reliable
sources to see are we even close to those numbers?
Speaker 2 (19:50):
And we're not, and we're not, and we're not.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Bloomberg opinion columnist Sarah Green Carmichael busting the myths when
it comes to working from home and how many of
us are actually get in a second job. Not as
many as we think. Thank you Sarah for talking to us.
Thank you Amy, and don't forget we are available as
a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform.
(20:13):
Now coming up. Getting your vaccines and your shots, getting
them up to date maybe even more challenging, especially when
those shots aren't available. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
This is Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Are you up
to date on your annual flu shots and vaccines? Maybe
you're not, and you might be just as frustrated as
some people who have found that the shots simply aren't
always available. The CDC authorized the COVID shots for everyone
six months and older back in mid September, so you'd
think they'd be available within days, but that hasn't been
(21:10):
the case. Let's talk about this. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa
Jarvis covers biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry, and she
joins me. Now, Lisa, thank you for taking the time
with us. Let's talk about this. We've been told over
and over we should avoid a triple demic this fall.
We've heard all about the triple demic and it's likely
(21:31):
to hit this fall in this winter. But as long
as we're vaccinated week and help stave it off. But
if the shots aren't there, is that a mixed message?
What are we hearing? What kind of message is that sending.
Speaker 6 (21:44):
It's frustrating.
Speaker 9 (21:45):
You know, we know that last year very few people,
Only seventeen percent of adults rolled up their sleeves to
get their COVID shot, and with the flu it was better,
but not ideal. We were at less than half. I
think forty seven percent of adults got their flu shot
last year. And so the idea is get vaccinated, help,
you know, rein in the potential for a triple demic.
(22:08):
But it's the first season that we have a commercial
market for the COVID vaccines, and so that rollout I
think everyone expected to be rocky, but maybe not as
frustrating as it's been. I think it's a combination of
issues supply getting the shots to the pharmacies and also
(22:28):
the pharmacies having actual people to give the shots. And
then you know there's just this lag and availability of
pediatric shots that's really frustrating parents. I mean, they're still
not available for the kids under twelve in a lot
of places, and you know, any parent that's trying to
get their kid to get a vaccine knows. You just
want to get the flu in the COVID shots at
(22:50):
the same time. You don't want to make more than
one trip. Sure, and so parents are frustrated. They're super frustrated.
They're being told to call, you know, every few days,
refresh the pediatric you know, provider's website to see when
they're going to be available, and it's just frustrating.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Okay, so you touched on a couple of issues there.
Let's get into it. What is the problem supply chain issue?
The first time that insurers are handling it, not the
government to talk us through that. Let's start with the
supply chain.
Speaker 6 (23:22):
Yeah, I think it's all of the above.
Speaker 9 (23:23):
I mean, it seems like it seems like the supply.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Chain is one of the issues.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
I know.
Speaker 9 (23:28):
On the pediatric side, my impression is that they had
been prioritizing the adult shots and so to get those
out to pharmacies first. To be fair, adults are the
most vulnerable to the worst outcomes for COVID, so fine,
but that doesn't mean that kit shouldn't get vaccinated, especially
the ones who have never been vaccinated. I think every
(23:49):
pediatrician will tell you, you know, if your child has not
ever been vaccinated, they should get vaccinated for COVID. And
then I think insurance is another layer. This is the
first year we have this commercial market, and so not ensure.
There's these technical things they have to input the right
codes and if they haven't done that at the pharmacy
(24:09):
that you go to, the pharmacy is not going to
give you the shot. They're going to ask you for
the money up front, and it's over one hundred dollars
for your COVID shot and most people don't want to
pay that out of pocket, right And so even if
they arrive and their appointment hasn't been canceled, it's a
possibility that they're ensure may not have you been prepared,
that might not be in sync yet. So that's another
(24:31):
layer of what's happening.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
So are there surprise bills that people are also getting
those medical bills? I had no idea it was one
hundred dollars plus.
Speaker 9 (24:39):
Yeah, there are or that they're arriving at a CVS.
I think a pharmacy your doctor's office probably will swallow
the cost and then bill you later, whereas is CBS
and Walgreens, which you know, the pharmacies are the ones
that really have gotten the supply first, they won't. They're
going to ask you for the money upfront, and so
I think people are deciding to just leave and not
(25:01):
get their shot, which is a real shame because again
we know that we've struggled to get folks interested in
getting vaccinated, whether that's for COVID or the flu.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
So it does seem like a mixed message. Then if
you're trying to push to have the constituency you get
those shots, and then you don't make the shots readily available,
it seems like you're defeating yourself.
Speaker 9 (25:22):
Yeah, I mean, you know, to be fair, we all
got used to this situation where our shots were free.
We could go anywhere and get a free shot, no
matter what kind of insurance or no insurance we had.
I mean, it does give us a little insight into
a system where you know, public health is made a
priority and works out for everyone. And so it's frustrating
to watch this rollout. You know, one thing that I
(25:46):
think some of that will get ironed out, and hopefully
part pieces of that will be better next year. But
the piece that I'm worried about not being better is
that the arrival of the COVID shots came well into
what we know is what feels like now annual summer
wave of COVID and so people were eager to get
their shots because they knew so many people getting sick,
and yet they were not yet available.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
And we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis
about the season's vaccine rollout. How could this be handled better?
Speaker 6 (26:16):
That's a good question.
Speaker 9 (26:17):
I mean, I think next year, like I said, I
think the insurance piece should be ironed out because that
will be routine by then that I hope the distribution
is better.
Speaker 6 (26:27):
One thing that.
Speaker 9 (26:27):
Changed as well this year is that they switched you know,
you may recall that when these COVID shots originally were available,
there were a lot of doses in each vial, and
they've lowered the number of doses so that you're not
wasting them because it ensures, you know, the pharmacies are
on the hook for that now. And I think that
that transition might be part of it, so that will
(26:47):
be more routine. But one thing, I'm just concerned that
we seem to be struggling to sink the arrival of
the shots with the arrival of the COVID wave and
when people wanting to get them with the arrival also
of flu shots, because a lot of people would like
to get both at once, and so that piece of it,
I'm little concerned we won't have perfected by next year.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Now, Lisa, you touched on this earlier, but I wanted
to ask. They really seem to be able to roll
out these vaccines fairly easily during the height of the pandemic.
I remember going to one of those those mass vaccination
sites and it was like clockwork. They had it down
to a science, so to speak. Why is it so
much harder now?
Speaker 9 (27:31):
Well, I think this, you know, combination of it being
on the commercial in the commercial market, people having different insurances,
and now instead of going straight from the government to
the distribution site, it's going to a middle person, you know,
a distributor, and there's a system for getting your shots
that's different than in the past, for the for the pharmacies,
(27:52):
and so it just a confluence of things happening. But
you know, to be fair, we have now seen what
it could be like right when everything is well oiled
and we prioritize public health, So it'd be nice to
inject a little of that into our system next year.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
And it does seem like we're getting a little bit
more used to it, just the assumption that it'll be
one of the vaccines that we get seasonally, I hope.
Speaker 9 (28:15):
So it feels like more people are interested this year.
You know, I don't think it's going to be flu level,
and I hope flu levels we see go up because
because that's really important, especially for younger kids and for
older people.
Speaker 6 (28:28):
But you know, we need to boost.
Speaker 9 (28:31):
That interest a bit because if you haven't been vaccinated
and you haven't been infected, you're still at risk.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Are we seeing more people buying in?
Speaker 9 (28:38):
It seems like there's a little bit more demand, you know,
Will it be as you know, optimistic as the demand
that Maderna and Pfizer hope there will be hard to say,
but you know, they now can market their shots in
a different way than they were allowed to in the
past when the government was the one that was distributing them.
And so you know, I think trying to increase interest
(29:00):
in the shots and is helping. So it doesn't but
you know, again it running counter to that is people's
appointments being canceled or the surprise bills you know, so,
you know, I hope that we get that right, because
for some people, they may very few people got the booster,
which means that there's some people who might not have
(29:20):
a ton of protection at this point if they haven't
also gotten COVID in the last year.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
So who is more likely to have a hard time
finding these shots at this point?
Speaker 4 (29:29):
Really?
Speaker 9 (29:30):
Children are the parents looking for shots? For children? A
lot of daycare is still don't let you bring your
kid back for ten days if they get COVID, And
so you know, some parents are eager to, you know,
get some layer of protection to help minimize this bread.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Just because you cover the biopharmaceutical industry, Are we close
to getting a vaccine that would combine both COVID and
the flu kind of clear that up, just one big
shot and be done with it.
Speaker 9 (29:56):
Yes, I hope, So I think that by t twenty
twenty five that could be a possibility. Maderna certainly hope.
So they've got a shot in the works that combines
both sodisfeizer. The question will be how FDA the kind
of information that FDA wants out of them, and whether
what they're providing will be enough for FDA to approve
it by then, but I certainly would be eager, and
(30:18):
it seems like it would simplify everything to have both
things at once.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist who covers biotech, healthcare,
and the pharmaceutical industry. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm
Amy Morris. Time was when you wanted to be famous,
you might go into acting or performing. You want to
be a movie star or rock star or supermodel. But
there is a celebrity status of sort for scientists, and
(30:44):
that might not end well for anyone. Let's talk with
Bloomberg Opinion columnists Fey Flamou covers science and hosts the
follow the Science podcast. Faye, what is the risk? What
is wrong with fame being a measure of success for
researchers and scientists.
Speaker 8 (30:59):
Well, one of the problems is that sometimes it can
tempt people to cheat, and as a recent cases illustrated this,
this sort of cheating happens occasionally, and often when people cheat,
they end up getting published in very high profile journals
and they get a lot of positive press coverage. And
(31:19):
that's what happened with the case that I was looking
into with the physicist at Rochester University.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Well, when you say cheat, you mean like data manipulation.
Speaker 8 (31:28):
Yes, there are lots of different ways that scientists can cheat.
One of the most egregious, and you know ones that
the one that is really considered outright fraud is to
have a paper that with a graph that says this
data came from you know, a certain type of experiment,
but either get the data from somewhere else, or make
(31:50):
up the data or change the data to make it
look like you've observed something that you haven't, or that
your result is more dramatic than it actually is.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
And when you talked with one blogger as you did
research for this column, that blogger explained how humility is
punished if you're trying to get published. To talk to
us about that.
Speaker 8 (32:10):
So i'van uransky is actually he started something called Retraction
Watch he in another science journalist, which is really kind
of an essential resource for science journalists because they look
at all of the problems and the bugs and the
things that go wrong in science, and they look at
papers that get accepted into journals and then are retracted.
(32:32):
And usually they're not retracted unless there's evidence of some
form of cheating. Or there's something an error that actually
invalidates the entire result, and seed usually we get one
big scandal a year every couple of years. In this case,
there was sort of an escalation of issues because he
was claiming to have found a phenomenon room temperature super conductivity,
(32:57):
which is something that is sort of a holy grail.
It's been people have been looking for it for a
long time. Lots of different people have tried to find
a material that will it conducts electricity without any resistance,
and they normally have to chill these substances to very
low temperatures that are actually used in the MRI imaging
(33:17):
and some other applications. But it's expensive because you have
to chill them. And so if you could get one
to work at room temperature, that would be amazing. And
it may be that he's founded, but there's been so
many people have looked at his results and seen evidence
that he's manipulated data, plagiarized sections of his papers that
it's casting doubt on it. And at the same time,
(33:39):
when there are certain journals Nature and Science that send
out very dramatic press releases to journalists, and then the
journalists want to get attention, so they'll dress it up
even more so. Then you suddenly have the New York
Times saying that this discover is going to transform civilization.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
Well, aren't these things peer review anyway? I mean, how
are you getting published if you've manipulated data?
Speaker 8 (34:05):
That is a good question. There's only so much peer
review can do, and often there are problems in the
peer review. In fact, the people I talked to who
had looked into this paper couldn't figure out who had
reviewed it, and they say that the reviews actually should
be public so that other people can look them over
and see what the reviewers might have missed or what
they might have flagged, and the journal may have gone
(34:26):
ahead anyway. There are times when people have said that
they were reviewers and they suggested the paper not be published,
and the journal goes ahead and publishes it. So the
process is better than not having peer review, but it's
still far from full proof.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist bayflam host of followed the Science Podcast,
and that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We
are produced by Eric Molow, and you can find all
of these columns on the Bloomberg terminal. We're available as
a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast platform.
Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines
(35:04):
are just ahead. I Mami Morris, this is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one in seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
bust a myth about working from home, that your employee
may actually be working a second full time job. And
we'll look at the vaccine rollout for the fall and
how the US deserves better, plus how becoming a celebrity
scientist can backfire on you. But let's begin with how
(00:38):
women can be an asset in the fight against inflation.
About seventy five percent of women in their prime working
years are employed, and that is a record high. Women
are playing a crucial role in helping ease labor shortages
and alleviating upward pressure on inflation, especially mothers of young children.
(00:59):
Now you might recall a couple of years ago when
the White House announced thirty nine billion dollars in funds
to help childcare efforts and keep childcare centers open during
the pandemic. Then Press Secretary Jansaki pointed to the millions
of women who left the workforce at the time because
of the pandemic.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
These funds will help early childhood educators and family childcare
providers keep their doors open and make sure every state
has a strong child's care system that provides families with
what they need. Since the start of the pandemic, as
we've talked about a bit in here, roughly two million
women have left the workforce. That is disproportionately due to
caregiving needs. And we're hopeful that this will help.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
And while women have made a comeback in the workforce,
those childcare funds are ending. Let's learn more about this.
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Claudia sam is founder of Some Consulting
and a former Federal Reserve economist. She joins me now, Claudia,
it's worth noting that at the start of the pandemic
it was women mostly who stayed home to take care
(02:02):
of the family. So this record employment rate that you
cite in your column is impressive.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Rights it is impressive. Women really came from behind in
the pandemic, both because they lost jobs at a much
higher pace than men because primarily women are more represented
in the service sector, and that's what got shut down
and then also millions of women left the labor market,
and a large portion of that was for caregiving responsibilities
(02:30):
that became didn't have the childcare that was reliable, the
schools were closed, and we are at a point now
where the employment rate of prime age women, so aged
twenty five to fifty four, is at the highest it
has ever been, so seventy percent of women in that
group are working now. That has been a huge help
(02:51):
to reducing the labor shortages that we've seen because again
they're coming back in the service sector work and some
of the supports that have been put in place to
help women get back on their feet and have their
family caregiving taken care of, like these childcare subsidies, they're
over and that there's a real question as to whether
the advances that they've made with jobs and with other
(03:15):
being part of the labor market, if that's going to
slip away or if we're going to just slide back
to some extent. Another important piece, and we've seen this
across a number of groups that have historically had some
difficulties getting jobs, is that we have had a great
labor market, so employers part of getting women back with
employers being more open minded about how flexible they could
(03:38):
make the jobs, how good the pay could be. I mean,
there are childcare options out there, but you've got to
be able to afford them. So there are some aspects
of how women got ahead that didn't slip away last
month entirely with the childcare now these subsidies, and I
think people might remember that there was a talk of
big childcare programs getting money to families with the build
(04:02):
back better and that didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
And so this.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
Program is its aim was to keep the childcare centers
that we had open.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Now the point of your column, the meat of it
is about how women are a neglected asset in the
fight against inflation. What is it that women bring to
the table that helps in that fight?
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Right as you said, the piece is really taking the
twenty thousand foot view of what are we missing, not
so much the struggle of the families, which are real
in terms of the caregiving. What's the benefit to the
entire country if we get more women involved, given in
the example a very topical one of the labor shortages
(04:47):
and dealing with the inflation, that's just scratching the surface.
I mean, that's the one inflation. Inflation is everything we're
thinking about now, and yet we there's long term growth
and productivity. These are the these are the big ones
right in terms of where where we're going to be
ten years, twenty years from now. One aspect of this
(05:09):
cost equation of not bringing women in is the fact
that over time we're at a place where women are
more likely than men to be receiving higher and higher education.
And so these women have invested Our schools and universities
have invested a lot in them in terms of getting
what you know, quote unquote marketable skills, like certain things
(05:33):
that they could apply at work, and then we're not
helping them get work to a place where they can
be a part of it. So you've left this kind
of money on the table in terms of people that
really have something to add in the workforce. We're not
allowing many women and to make a choice not to
Like I don't you know, we shouldn't be forcing everyone
(05:54):
to work, but there are many women who were not
giving them a chance to realize their full potential. That
costs them in terms of career opportunities and wages, and
it costs all of us in terms of not having
being as productive as we could be.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
So let's flip it on its head. Then what is
the risk as women are removed from that equation.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
Again, and it's this loss of potential and we know
what we can do better. We can compare ourselves to
other countries that have made a concerted effort, like they
understand getting women into the workforce benefits everyone in the
United States, whereas we were on the leaderboard a couple
(06:36):
decades ago, that is no longer the case. And there
were very different kinds of social programs, very different kinds
of goals set for bringing women in. So we can't
make the excuse that it's just like, oh, women don't
want to work, Oh this is the best we can do.
That's absolutely not the case. The policies, it's tricky, right,
and some of these very much sit with the private
(06:58):
sector in terms of and businesses are losing out right.
They're not bringing in the workers, they're not allowing again,
they're not allowing the workers to reach their full potential.
This I think it was very timely. I didn't foresee
this that Professor Claudia Golden Yesay received the Nobel Prize
and Economics. Claudia's lifetime career has been focused on women
(07:23):
and work and among other areas that she studied. And
one thing, and there's a piece of the column that
is very much inspired by knowing her research, is that
it's not just that women can't get the child care.
It's often the jobs are set up the women just
can't do them right. They have inflexible hours, and you
(07:47):
think of a lot of professional degrees where you need
to be able to drop everything when the phone rings
and the client needs something, and you have to stay
late for the dinners and do things that are just
not conducive to someone who has caregiving responsibilities or woman right.
And so she talked about just we have these barriers,
sometimes ones we don't even think about that keep women
(08:08):
from being there. And then they are also ones that
it's like do you really need that or your operation,
your business to be productive. And so this is on
you know, there are a lot of social programs that
could help, not holding my breath when a lot of
those happening. There are a lot of private sector solutions.
(08:28):
Part of the column is to try and emphasize why
we all benefit, why employers would benefit from making accommodations
so that people with childcare responsibilities or other limitations kind
of with a standard day to day of work schedule.
In some of these jobs, employers have a lot of
control over how they set up their work. And we
(08:52):
know with things like the work from home, which have
benefited women among other groups, like these accommodations can work.
This was proof of concept here, So then there are
others out there.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
The numbers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
found during its assessment. Let's just go over those numbers
very briefly, if we could, and kind of hammer that
point home that you're trying to make in your column
about what this could mean.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
That's an excellent piece that came out of San Francisco.
They looked at women, they also looked at racial minorities
and thinking about this integration, and they did it on
lots of dimensions. Essentially, it was if we could get
women working on a lot of different dimensions, you know,
their wages, their participation, their hours, if we could have
(09:38):
them engaged in the labor market in the same way
that men are, what would that look like. And again,
this wasn't about the individuals and how would that affect
their day to day life. And their careers. It was
about how would it affect the economy, how would it
affect GDP for women alone. They estimated that closing all
(10:00):
of these gaps would have increased GDP in twenty nineteen
by about eight percent one point seven trillion dollars. And
this is something that would grow over time, so it's
not just to pay off at one point in time.
It would push up GDP. It's over time. And what
is GDP It is our ability to produce goods or services.
(10:21):
So it goes back to this idea that we as
a country are not fulfilling our potential or full potential
if we don't integrate women into the workforce.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Claudia, thank you so much for taking the time with
us today. We appreciate it. Thank you, Bloomberg Opinion columnists.
Claudia sam is founder of Some Consulting, a former Federal
Reserve economist, and the creator of the sm rule that's
a recession indicator. Now coming up, we're going to take
a look at work from home and one big myth,
how many of your employees are actually moonlighting when they
(10:56):
work from home. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
You're listening to The Bloomberg Opinion podcast Contest Saturdays at
one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Working from
home is likely here to stay. University of Texas Management
Professor Andrew Brodsky.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
You're the one company that's not offering remote work. You're
going to be losing talent.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Professor Brodsky says bigger employers are offering work from home
as a perk.
Speaker 5 (11:44):
One of the things that I've been seeing in job listing.
You can work from anywhere you want. You don't have
to live in, you know, one of the five most
expensive cities in the United States.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
But there is a myth that speaks to employers' fears
about out of sight workers. They might be moonlighting, secretly
work working a second job, but not working eighty hour weeks,
instead toggling between job one and job two. They're called
the over employed. But is this just an urban legend?
Bloomberg Opingion columnist Sarah Green Carmichael joins us now. Sarah
(12:14):
always a pleasure. Just set us straight. Do these people
exist or are there really people who are over employed
and using work from home to hide that second job.
Speaker 6 (12:25):
At least a few of.
Speaker 7 (12:25):
These people exists because people, you know, reporters at the
Wall Street Journal have talked to some of them, Bloomberg
reporters have talked to some of them. There have been
stories about this in the BBC, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair.
I believe these reporters actually did talk to some people
doing this, but these seem to be more anecdotes of
people in extraordinary situations rather than the widespread trend it's
(12:49):
reported to be. There have been several surveys suggestiness as
a widespread phenomenon, but when you look at like Feerau
of labor statistics data, it really doesn't show up at all.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
This is something that employers are watching engaging, because that
kind of gives them more impetus to remove those work
from home flexibilities.
Speaker 6 (13:10):
Yes.
Speaker 7 (13:10):
In fact, you know, over the last few months, as
you have heard more CEOs trying to push people back
to the office more often, some of those all hands
zooms that have gone viral have included CEOs saying things like, look,
we don't know what people are doing at home, they
could be working for a competitor. So I do think
it's something where the plethora of stories on this topic
(13:34):
has triggered a really real anxiety in the minds of
senior leaders. Even if these anecdotes are really just anecdotes.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
And what is another indication that they're just anecdotes. You
mentioned if somebody's slacking off or otherwise not contributing, chances
are the boss is going to notice.
Speaker 7 (13:54):
Chances are the boss is going to notice. And there
have been some people who have been fired after their
companies found out that they were double dipping. It is
pretty easy to tell people think they're being sneaky. But
you can tell if someone's on two zooms at once
and they unmute themselves at the wrong time if you
can hear another zoom happening in the background. These kinds
(14:15):
of snawfoos are very very difficult. Moreover, you know, most jobs,
I think do require people to actually turn in work
every now and then. And if someone's work is constantly
late or they're constantly canceling meetings, you know you're got it.
You really are going to notice. I also have to say,
you know, there were a couple of non academic studies
(14:35):
that came out that at surveys based on you know,
a thousand people that seem to show really high rates
of remote workers doing multiple jobs.
Speaker 6 (14:45):
But a couple of things.
Speaker 7 (14:45):
One, these are just surveys put out by organizations like
resume builder, Monster dot com. They're not, you know, sort
of peer reviewed like big studies. And second, you know,
when you look closer at some of the details, some
of it turns out some of those side hustles are
things like driving for Uber, selling jewelry on Etsy.
Speaker 6 (15:05):
Some people even listed.
Speaker 7 (15:06):
Sex work as their second job, a surprisingly high number
of people. So data points like that made me wonder, really,
you know, how how reliable is this survey our remote
workers really sitting at home with a full time side job,
you know, doing all these sorts of things. I don't
find that particularly credible.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
And we talked about it a bit, But how much
of an over employed worker is a factor when a
company is deciding whether to scale back or eliminate work
from home options or is it just sort of buried
in there.
Speaker 6 (15:36):
It's more of a corporate bogey man.
Speaker 7 (15:38):
These stories have you gotten a ton of attention when
they've been you know, published, and it's easy to see why.
You know, the details are irresistible. People pulling down six
hundred thousand dollars a year by working two or three,
you know, coding jobs all simultaneously. So I think there's
this this idea that this figure sort of lurks in
(15:59):
c's minds as a kind of bogeyman, but there's really
no sense of a widespread trend. In fact, you know,
less than a percent of the US workforce works to
full time jobs.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
And we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Sarah Green
Carmichael here to bust some myths about working from home.
How much do side hustles factor into this? You mentioned
selling stuff on Etsy or maybe driving an uber. Is
that really the predominance or is there more to it?
Speaker 7 (16:30):
I do think that, you know, there is solid data
from the Bureau Labertatistics that show that more Americans now
do have some kind of secondary job. But it's clearly
a primary job that's their full time job, and then
a secondary job where they're picking up part time shifts
or doing that kind of side hustling. And actually, I
think if you asked a lot of CEOs, you know,
(16:52):
do you mind if your entry level worker picks up
a few weekend shifts at Starbucks?
Speaker 6 (16:56):
They would probably say no. Depending on the circumstance. It
is like they probably wouldn't mind at all.
Speaker 7 (17:02):
But I think it's really this idea that somehow people
are simultaneously working two full time jobs, like one for
Google and one for Meta that keeps people awake at night.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
So what is the reason behind this attention on the
mythical highly paid two timing remote workers. Where is all
of this coming from.
Speaker 7 (17:22):
There's a few different reasons that it so has captured
the imagination. One is, I think a real managerial fear
that they don't know what people are doing at home.
The other is I think an anxiety among workers that
we're somehow missing out on easy money, that really there's
enough slack time in your day that maybe you could
take two full time jobs and double your salary. And
(17:44):
I think it speaks to a lot of people who
are frustrated and feel like they haven't gotten a raise
that they deserve. The cost of living has gone up,
and there must be some easy way to kind of
significantly really increase their earnings.
Speaker 6 (17:58):
And then there's that sense that like gosh, is everyone
doing this? Am I falling behind? That's a very powerful
motivator for journalists to do more of these stories.
Speaker 8 (18:07):
You know.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
That also speaks to, like you said, hourly wages not
going up as much as people might want or need, inflation,
and then the continuing fallout from the pandemic and the shutdown.
I mean that still is resonating because that's where work
from home really got some traction.
Speaker 7 (18:27):
And I think that there is also in some jobs
there are quiet times, and there are dead times, and
I think that there are some very smart, skilled people
who actually could leverage that dead time in their main
job to possibly work a second job. I don't want
to say it's not possible, it's just not very widespread.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
And one of the numbers that you quote in your
column this really tickled me, is it indicated that about
a third of all full time workers have a second
full time gig, not just a side gig, but a
second full time job. And I look around my newsroom
and with my colleagues, and I think, there's no way
any of these people have a second full time job.
(19:09):
You'd be exhausted. It just doesn't seem feasible.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
Yeah, And That's one of the things that I think
was challenging when I started really looking at the data,
was this disappointment that these sort of surveys, they really
commandeer the headline figure, And I thought, who stopped and
thought about does this make any sense? Do a third
of full time workers, all workers, not just remote workers,
really have a second forty hour week job, Like I
(19:35):
really don't think so.
Speaker 6 (19:36):
And that's why I had to go back and check sort.
Speaker 7 (19:38):
Of the Saint Louis FED and the Bureau Labor Statist
six and some of these really more sort of reliable
sources to see are we even close to those numbers?
Speaker 2 (19:50):
And we're not, and we're not, and we're not.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Bloomberg opinion columnist Sarah Green Carmichael busting the myths when
it comes to working from home and how many of
us are actually get in a second job. Not as
many as we think. Thank you Sarah for talking to us.
Thank you Amy, and don't forget we are available as
a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform.
(20:13):
Now coming up. Getting your vaccines and your shots, getting
them up to date maybe even more challenging, especially when
those shots aren't available. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
This is Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Are you up
to date on your annual flu shots and vaccines? Maybe
you're not, and you might be just as frustrated as
some people who have found that the shots simply aren't
always available. The CDC authorized the COVID shots for everyone
six months and older back in mid September, so you'd
think they'd be available within days, but that hasn't been
(21:10):
the case. Let's talk about this. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa
Jarvis covers biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry, and she
joins me. Now, Lisa, thank you for taking the time
with us. Let's talk about this. We've been told over
and over we should avoid a triple demic this fall.
We've heard all about the triple demic and it's likely
(21:31):
to hit this fall in this winter. But as long
as we're vaccinated week and help stave it off. But
if the shots aren't there, is that a mixed message?
What are we hearing? What kind of message is that sending.
Speaker 6 (21:44):
It's frustrating.
Speaker 9 (21:45):
You know, we know that last year very few people,
Only seventeen percent of adults rolled up their sleeves to
get their COVID shot, and with the flu it was better,
but not ideal. We were at less than half. I
think forty seven percent of adults got their flu shot
last year. And so the idea is get vaccinated, help,
you know, rein in the potential for a triple demic.
(22:08):
But it's the first season that we have a commercial
market for the COVID vaccines, and so that rollout I
think everyone expected to be rocky, but maybe not as
frustrating as it's been. I think it's a combination of
issues supply getting the shots to the pharmacies and also
(22:28):
the pharmacies having actual people to give the shots. And
then you know there's just this lag and availability of
pediatric shots that's really frustrating parents. I mean, they're still
not available for the kids under twelve in a lot
of places, and you know, any parent that's trying to
get their kid to get a vaccine knows. You just
want to get the flu in the COVID shots at
(22:50):
the same time. You don't want to make more than
one trip. Sure, and so parents are frustrated. They're super frustrated.
They're being told to call, you know, every few days,
refresh the pediatric you know, provider's website to see when
they're going to be available, and it's just frustrating.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Okay, so you touched on a couple of issues there.
Let's get into it. What is the problem supply chain issue?
The first time that insurers are handling it, not the
government to talk us through that. Let's start with the
supply chain.
Speaker 6 (23:22):
Yeah, I think it's all of the above.
Speaker 9 (23:23):
I mean, it seems like it seems like the supply.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Chain is one of the issues.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
I know.
Speaker 9 (23:28):
On the pediatric side, my impression is that they had
been prioritizing the adult shots and so to get those
out to pharmacies first. To be fair, adults are the
most vulnerable to the worst outcomes for COVID, so fine,
but that doesn't mean that kit shouldn't get vaccinated, especially
the ones who have never been vaccinated. I think every
(23:49):
pediatrician will tell you, you know, if your child has not
ever been vaccinated, they should get vaccinated for COVID. And
then I think insurance is another layer. This is the
first year we have this commercial market, and so not ensure.
There's these technical things they have to input the right
codes and if they haven't done that at the pharmacy
(24:09):
that you go to, the pharmacy is not going to
give you the shot. They're going to ask you for
the money up front, and it's over one hundred dollars
for your COVID shot and most people don't want to
pay that out of pocket, right And so even if
they arrive and their appointment hasn't been canceled, it's a
possibility that they're ensure may not have you been prepared,
that might not be in sync yet. So that's another
(24:31):
layer of what's happening.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
So are there surprise bills that people are also getting
those medical bills? I had no idea it was one
hundred dollars plus.
Speaker 9 (24:39):
Yeah, there are or that they're arriving at a CVS.
I think a pharmacy your doctor's office probably will swallow
the cost and then bill you later, whereas is CBS
and Walgreens, which you know, the pharmacies are the ones
that really have gotten the supply first, they won't. They're
going to ask you for the money upfront, and so
I think people are deciding to just leave and not
(25:01):
get their shot, which is a real shame because again
we know that we've struggled to get folks interested in
getting vaccinated, whether that's for COVID or the flu.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
So it does seem like a mixed message. Then if
you're trying to push to have the constituency you get
those shots, and then you don't make the shots readily available,
it seems like you're defeating yourself.
Speaker 9 (25:22):
Yeah, I mean, you know, to be fair, we all
got used to this situation where our shots were free.
We could go anywhere and get a free shot, no
matter what kind of insurance or no insurance we had.
I mean, it does give us a little insight into
a system where you know, public health is made a
priority and works out for everyone. And so it's frustrating
to watch this rollout. You know, one thing that I
(25:46):
think some of that will get ironed out, and hopefully
part pieces of that will be better next year. But
the piece that I'm worried about not being better is
that the arrival of the COVID shots came well into
what we know is what feels like now annual summer
wave of COVID and so people were eager to get
their shots because they knew so many people getting sick,
and yet they were not yet available.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
And we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis
about the season's vaccine rollout. How could this be handled better?
Speaker 6 (26:16):
That's a good question.
Speaker 9 (26:17):
I mean, I think next year, like I said, I
think the insurance piece should be ironed out because that
will be routine by then that I hope the distribution
is better.
Speaker 6 (26:27):
One thing that.
Speaker 9 (26:27):
Changed as well this year is that they switched you know,
you may recall that when these COVID shots originally were available,
there were a lot of doses in each vial, and
they've lowered the number of doses so that you're not
wasting them because it ensures, you know, the pharmacies are
on the hook for that now. And I think that
that transition might be part of it, so that will
(26:47):
be more routine. But one thing, I'm just concerned that
we seem to be struggling to sink the arrival of
the shots with the arrival of the COVID wave and
when people wanting to get them with the arrival also
of flu shots, because a lot of people would like
to get both at once, and so that piece of it,
I'm little concerned we won't have perfected by next year.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Now, Lisa, you touched on this earlier, but I wanted
to ask. They really seem to be able to roll
out these vaccines fairly easily during the height of the pandemic.
I remember going to one of those those mass vaccination
sites and it was like clockwork. They had it down
to a science, so to speak. Why is it so
much harder now?
Speaker 9 (27:31):
Well, I think this, you know, combination of it being
on the commercial in the commercial market, people having different insurances,
and now instead of going straight from the government to
the distribution site, it's going to a middle person, you know,
a distributor, and there's a system for getting your shots
that's different than in the past, for the for the pharmacies,
(27:52):
and so it just a confluence of things happening. But
you know, to be fair, we have now seen what
it could be like right when everything is well oiled
and we prioritize public health, So it'd be nice to
inject a little of that into our system next year.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
And it does seem like we're getting a little bit
more used to it, just the assumption that it'll be
one of the vaccines that we get seasonally, I hope.
Speaker 9 (28:15):
So it feels like more people are interested this year.
You know, I don't think it's going to be flu level,
and I hope flu levels we see go up because
because that's really important, especially for younger kids and for
older people.
Speaker 6 (28:28):
But you know, we need to boost.
Speaker 9 (28:31):
That interest a bit because if you haven't been vaccinated
and you haven't been infected, you're still at risk.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Are we seeing more people buying in?
Speaker 9 (28:38):
It seems like there's a little bit more demand, you know,
Will it be as you know, optimistic as the demand
that Maderna and Pfizer hope there will be hard to say,
but you know, they now can market their shots in
a different way than they were allowed to in the
past when the government was the one that was distributing them.
And so you know, I think trying to increase interest
(29:00):
in the shots and is helping. So it doesn't but
you know, again it running counter to that is people's
appointments being canceled or the surprise bills you know, so,
you know, I hope that we get that right, because
for some people, they may very few people got the booster,
which means that there's some people who might not have
(29:20):
a ton of protection at this point if they haven't
also gotten COVID in the last year.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
So who is more likely to have a hard time
finding these shots at this point?
Speaker 4 (29:29):
Really?
Speaker 9 (29:30):
Children are the parents looking for shots? For children? A
lot of daycare is still don't let you bring your
kid back for ten days if they get COVID, And
so you know, some parents are eager to, you know,
get some layer of protection to help minimize this bread.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Just because you cover the biopharmaceutical industry, Are we close
to getting a vaccine that would combine both COVID and
the flu kind of clear that up, just one big
shot and be done with it.
Speaker 9 (29:56):
Yes, I hope, So I think that by t twenty
twenty five that could be a possibility. Maderna certainly hope.
So they've got a shot in the works that combines
both sodisfeizer. The question will be how FDA the kind
of information that FDA wants out of them, and whether
what they're providing will be enough for FDA to approve
it by then, but I certainly would be eager, and
(30:18):
it seems like it would simplify everything to have both
things at once.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist who covers biotech, healthcare,
and the pharmaceutical industry. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm
Amy Morris. Time was when you wanted to be famous,
you might go into acting or performing. You want to
be a movie star or rock star or supermodel. But
there is a celebrity status of sort for scientists, and
(30:44):
that might not end well for anyone. Let's talk with
Bloomberg Opinion columnists Fey Flamou covers science and hosts the
follow the Science podcast. Faye, what is the risk? What
is wrong with fame being a measure of success for
researchers and scientists.
Speaker 8 (30:59):
Well, one of the problems is that sometimes it can
tempt people to cheat, and as a recent cases illustrated this,
this sort of cheating happens occasionally, and often when people cheat,
they end up getting published in very high profile journals
and they get a lot of positive press coverage. And
(31:19):
that's what happened with the case that I was looking
into with the physicist at Rochester University.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Well, when you say cheat, you mean like data manipulation.
Speaker 8 (31:28):
Yes, there are lots of different ways that scientists can cheat.
One of the most egregious, and you know ones that
the one that is really considered outright fraud is to
have a paper that with a graph that says this
data came from you know, a certain type of experiment,
but either get the data from somewhere else, or make
(31:50):
up the data or change the data to make it
look like you've observed something that you haven't, or that
your result is more dramatic than it actually is.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
And when you talked with one blogger as you did
research for this column, that blogger explained how humility is
punished if you're trying to get published. To talk to
us about that.
Speaker 8 (32:10):
So i'van uransky is actually he started something called Retraction
Watch he in another science journalist, which is really kind
of an essential resource for science journalists because they look
at all of the problems and the bugs and the
things that go wrong in science, and they look at
papers that get accepted into journals and then are retracted.
(32:32):
And usually they're not retracted unless there's evidence of some
form of cheating. Or there's something an error that actually
invalidates the entire result, and seed usually we get one
big scandal a year every couple of years. In this case,
there was sort of an escalation of issues because he
was claiming to have found a phenomenon room temperature super conductivity,
(32:57):
which is something that is sort of a holy grail.
It's been people have been looking for it for a
long time. Lots of different people have tried to find
a material that will it conducts electricity without any resistance,
and they normally have to chill these substances to very
low temperatures that are actually used in the MRI imaging
(33:17):
and some other applications. But it's expensive because you have
to chill them. And so if you could get one
to work at room temperature, that would be amazing. And
it may be that he's founded, but there's been so
many people have looked at his results and seen evidence
that he's manipulated data, plagiarized sections of his papers that
it's casting doubt on it. And at the same time,
(33:39):
when there are certain journals Nature and Science that send
out very dramatic press releases to journalists, and then the
journalists want to get attention, so they'll dress it up
even more so. Then you suddenly have the New York
Times saying that this discover is going to transform civilization.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
Well, aren't these things peer review anyway? I mean, how
are you getting published if you've manipulated data?
Speaker 8 (34:05):
That is a good question. There's only so much peer
review can do, and often there are problems in the
peer review. In fact, the people I talked to who
had looked into this paper couldn't figure out who had
reviewed it, and they say that the reviews actually should
be public so that other people can look them over
and see what the reviewers might have missed or what
they might have flagged, and the journal may have gone
(34:26):
ahead anyway. There are times when people have said that
they were reviewers and they suggested the paper not be published,
and the journal goes ahead and publishes it. So the
process is better than not having peer review, but it's
still far from full proof.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist bayflam host of followed the Science Podcast,
and that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We
are produced by Eric Molow, and you can find all
of these columns on the Bloomberg terminal. We're available as
a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast platform.
Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines
(35:04):
are just ahead. I Mami Morris, this is Bloomberg.
Host
Vonnie Quinn
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com