So, if infant formula is unavailable the course of action you recommend is simply letting the child go and making another one, because it won't be possible to guarantee that any alternative food source is 100% perfect?
That's the weird thing about these interactions. If someone's asking for an alternative to infant formula - because they can't get any - the situation is already unsafe. Starvation has a 100% fatality rate.
Infant formula isn't part of the scenario being discussed. Alternatives are to be compared against starvation, as that is part of the scenario being discussed. Do alternatives have a 100% fatality rate? No. So why all the weird 'there's just no viable alternative' comments?
I'm tempted not to respond because you're clearly not applying a good faith argument here. Nobody in this thread, besides you, is suggesting that it is preferable to let a baby die than to feed them partial nutrients. Of course, if your child is literally starving, you should look to a less than ideal, short term solution.
This thread is in the context of "why isn't the media providing alternatives". I'm refuting the point that "it's simple and easy to replace baby formula" - which supports your argument, highlighting the severe and dire consequences of this situation.
I'm making an argument that highlights the severity of this situation for parents with young infants.
>Of course, if your child is literally starving, you should look to a less than ideal, short term solution.
Yes. That's the issue we're having here. People are encountering that situation of being unable to find formula, meaning that their children are literally at risk of starving, asking for alternatives and being told 'there's just no viable alternative' by the media as though that information will make formula appear out of thin air. They are looking for that less than ideal short term solution from the media, which is responding oddly.
It is quite simple to provide short-term replacements for infant formula. Famine relief, missionary and other charities do have reliable and nutritious recipes for baby formula alternatives that can be made in bush conditions and over open fires in metal pots.
> 'there's just no viable alternative' by the media
This isn't the media's job. Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor. This is realistically the only safe suggestion since all of the alternatives are bad.
> Famine relief, missionary and other charities do have reliable and nutritious recipes for baby formula alternatives that can be made in bush conditions and over open fires in metal pots.
Please, please, please, cite your source on this. I have a really hard time believing this as simple as "this one trick from Africa". I believe what you're referring to is literally infant formula. You're simply describing the process of sanitizing water then mixing in standard, powdered infant formula.
The introduction of formula to impoverished regions was extremely controversial. As mother's used formula, their milk production decreased. This forced them into a dependency on formula manufacturers or milk-donors (wet-nurses, milk-banks, etc). This would not be a problem if there were viable solutions.
------
EDIT: Lastly, I would like to point out that this isn't an argument about "feed the baby" or nothing. If you are that desperate to feed your baby, go to a fucking hospital. They _will_ be able to help you.
> This isn't the media's job. Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor. This is realistically the only safe suggestion since all of the alternatives are bad.
I wish people would lay this blanket advice to rest, unless they are doctors themselves and can give relevant advice immediately. I live in Germany, a country that everyone praises for its healtcare system and it is incredibly hard to get a doctor's appointment here that is not months down the road. Sure there are emergency options, like the hospitals that you mention, but imagine what happens if millions of deperate people try to tap into the strategic formula reserves of hospitals...
During a catastrophic event, I absolutely expect the media to spread ideas for creative solutions. You can always say that talking to an expert is the best option, but what is plan B if plan A is no realistic option?
I think maybe this is the problem both specifically here and more widely, there's a major outbreak of 'not their jobitis' going on. The media are 'not my jobbing' this and ignoring the fact that distributing health information has very much been the job of the media in the past.
Maybe a similar issue with the FDA who 'not my jobbed' the inspections of the facility and 'not my jobbed' the reopening inspections of the facility and 'not my jobbed' other things they could have been doing, such as distributing safe formula-replacement recipes.
Maybe - to take a tangent - a similar issue with the Uvalde police who 'not my jobbed' actually interacting with a scenario. Seems to be a whole rash of people forgetting you have to actually interact with the world and take actions if you want things to happen, not just observe and write reports.
> Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor.
That's purely because of liability.
> This is realistically the only safe suggestion
No, that's point of the contention here.
> Please, please, please, cite your source on this.
“…talk with your doctor. This is realistically the only safe suggestion since all of the alternatives are bad.“
What exactly do you think we did before baby formula even existed? Or doctors, for that matter? This absolute dependence on systems is disheartening. We need a drastic reconnection with nature.
> What exactly do you think we did before baby formula even existed?
Well, we breastfed.
Problem is that isn't actually a reliable solution since not all mothers produce milk at the quantities their child needs. This is particular true as a child grows, many mothers grow tired of breastfeeding and look to formula as an alternative. Problem is this deteriorates their milk production since the child is eating less breastmilk.
-----
The reality is this situation is primarily dangerous for mother's who cannot breastfeed or lack sufficient production - and require formula. There is no go, safe, reliable option because Option A (Breastmilk) is gone and Option B (Formula) is as well.
People keep acting like there _should_ be a backup to formula, without understanding that humans are the only animals on earth that have created an alternative to their naturally produced milk.
To be clear I meant the drives backing up the NAS, not the actual NAS.
I think backing up online ultimately is the safest choice, and it takes getting comfortable doing that and being okay with paying a fee. This is for data that I can't lose, like family photos, etc.
I started looking into using rclone directly from my FreeBSD NAS device. rclone seems to support many providers.
There's a consumer? So many of the companies that go pop in these situations are solutions in need of a problem; companies trying to singlehandedly invent a market out of thin air and convince consumers that something they've managed without their whole lives is now something they simply can't live without and must spend $30 a month on forever.
A lot of the dotcom bubble failures occurred for the same reason, field-of-dreams style companies expiring when 'if you build it, they will come' turns out not to be true for all given values of 'it.'
>Or maybe the better analogue is, how do you fulfill your end of the deal as a short seller and return the shares owed to your counterparty if the company disbands in the meantime?
If you're short a company and the company goes properly bankrupt then the shares are literally worthless paper, you just throw them away.
I've been in this situation with interactive brokers and the position just disappears. (You get the profit as though you closed the position at a price of zero.) Shares of something that doesn't exist similarly don't exist. They just vanish.
No it hasn't. Not even close.