Fucking idiots:
"New Hampshire could soon beat Florida—known for its anti-vaccine Surgeon General—when it comes to loosening vaccine requirements. A first-in-the-nation bill that’s already passed New Hampshire’s state House, sponsored only by Republican legislators, would end the requirement for parents enrolling kids in child care to provide documentation of polio and measles vaccination. New Hampshire would be the only state in the US to have such a law, although many states allow religious exemptions to vaccine requirements."
(Comment thread now closed)
Disinformation campaigns have led to an alarming drop in immunization rates that will lead to a rise in illnesses that were almost eradicated.
ReplyDeleteSuch language, mine host !
ReplyDeleteI wake my devil's advocate to state .... (ducks for cover) .... surely if one is concerned about contracting a disease or virus one can protect oneself by getting the appropriate vaccine or drug ?
Compulsory injection of vaccines by jack boot wearing forces, or others, will, presuming the efficiency of said vaccines, only serve to protect those that chose not to be vaccinated !
I have heard that the herd needs to be done to the very last cow, goat, or human, but pure logic dictates that that is not so, for if a vaccine is effective, it is effective, and if it cannot protect someone from someone else, it is utterly useless.
Then again, I am but a simple man, and greater minds than mine may have an answer to the straight, basic, irrefutable logic of what I wrote above.
People of my age wear a scar on their left shoulder from compulsory travel vaccinations of the 1960s.
---
The words 'ducks for cover' causes some amusement in my mind.
I came across a duck last year, it was standing in the middle of the narrow windy road that leads up the hills to my place.
It was HUGE, and if I had used it for cover I would have only needed the one.
I think it was a Muscovy duck.
I understand your point of view if the person declining vaccination were putting only THEMSELF at risk. This is a case of making a decision for a child who is way too young to weigh such priorities for themselves.
DeleteIf you would look a wheelchair-bound child in the face and tell them you denied their vaccination for some "herd immunity" argument, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Compulsory injection ... only serve to protect those that chose not to be vaccinated !
DeleteNot true.
There is always a part of the population that can not be vaccinated due to other (valid) health concerns. Too young, immunocompromised like people undergoing chemotherapy, other diseases. These people do not have a choice to get vaccinated.
Furthermore, vaccination does not prevent disease from spreading. It just lowers the symptoms (sometimes entirely) for those infected. But again, this is not helpful to those who are not already prone to disease.
But that doesn't matter much to egocentric anti-vaxxers who don't care about anybody but themselves. The point of herd-behavior is not to protect the strong or asocial, but to protect the weak.
Protecting the weak is a tenant in every religion, so I am not practicality interested in religious exceptions.
The US has a much lower vaccination rate than European counterparts, and significantly more deaths. Anti-vaxxers caused that.
Polio was gone. Anti-vaxxers are bringing it back. Same for the measles and a whole bunch of other children's diseases. Children will die. Not just the unvaccinated.
I am but a simple man, and greater minds than mine may have an answer to the straight, basic, irrefutable logic of what I wrote above.
In the end, we're having a zombie debate here. All anti-vaxx arguments have been shown to be invalid on scientific, ethic, cultural and religious terms. The only thing that these rational argument can't overcome is willful ignorance and the sheer egocentrism of anti-vaxxers.
In the end it's simple. Anti-vaxxers kill people.
They have no defense and deserve sympathy.
The logic that concludes a vaccine protects the individual if it works is faulty. The pool of unvaxxed population leaves a large basis for the unblocked virus to mutate into new forms that can circumvent the vaccine. This creates new threats for the vaxxed population, new viruses and variants that can cripple and kill. Vaccines remain a herd protection and not just an individual protection. (This is in addition to the reduction in threat to those populations who cannot tolerate the vaccines.)
Deletehttps://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/the-basics-of-polio-and-why-its-making-a-comeback/ The Basics of Polio and Why It’s Making a Comeback
ReplyDeleteI'm with Stan, except I would exempt the horse who is no more guilty than the dead and crippled children these assholes cause.
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce
I think there's some confusion about the fundamental issue.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental issue: To what extent can government legitimately involve itself in the lives of people? In this case medical matters. Many anti-vaxxers are ideologically anti-government, with attacks on the efficacy of vaccines secondary. This leads to confusion as the debate tends to skew scientific (mainstream vs. fringe) instead of remaining philosophical, which is more at the heart.
This might work as a comparison: There are people ideologically/philosophically opposed to taxation--aka, "confiscation"--for the purpose of funding social welfare programs. But a secondary issue often displaces the primary as those in opposition use various attacks on said programs as ammunition in an ideologically founded debate. "Food stamps make people lazy."
America's political culture is (to state the obvious) drifting toward anti-government, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual sentiment. To the extent government action intrudes into the lives of people, the perception of the legitimacy of that intrusion is, and always was, debatable. In a healthy political climate, that debate would involve reason and sound values. In the US, the quality of that debate is deteriorating.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I do see why people take this up as a cause, grasping at faux empowerment, with autonomy as a central concern, in response to a perceived loss of real empowerment. Hating anti-vaxxers may be akin to hating MAGA people, insisting they're motivated by racism (etc.), which gives the left a sort of imagined moral high-ground, but at the expense of a deeper look at why we're in trouble.
Unless "pro-government people" can improve the perceived credibility of government, in the realm of "providing for the general welfare," the masses are going to continue to put more and more trust in individualism oriented ideological constructs. Here I have to insist that this improvement can only be had through uniting the working class, the working poor and the poor in one constituency. Bernie Sanders represented that direction in 2016.
As things stand, many people believe they have a choice between strength with irrationality (Trump) and liberalism riddled with identity absurdities and corporate class duplicity (Biden). That's not a problem; it's a predicament.
To what extent can government legitimately involve itself in the lives of people?
DeleteThe government legitimately involves itself constantly in the lives of people. To pretend it does not is a fallacy. The government has in fact pretty much mandates vaccines for decades through the public school systems. Few people disagreed.
No new information has arisen that would change that. Other than massive amounts of disinformation on social media.
So respectfully, this is a zombie argument.
Also, it's a distraction, because it makes it a political debate which is not necessary.
So you claim not to be an anti-vaxxer but you defend them because you see them as your allies in an issue you think is more important than the value of vaccines in protecting and saving lives.
DeleteBefore you attempted to derail the discussion did you consider whether the horse has suffered enough?
Napkarel: There's nothing in what I've said to indicate I'm "pretending" government has no role in the lives of people. Nor have I argued there is anyone else who believes this. What I did say was that the degree (please notice this is not binary, but on a spectrum) to which government is involved in people's lives is of great importance and it's continually debated. Further, I've said I believe that disempowerment (much of it with roots in the failures of the left) leads some people toward seeking empowerment through individualism and hyper-individualism. (IMHO, you gotta earn that word "zombie" a bit more; that is, given there appears to be little to no grip on the perspective I'm offering.)
DeleteAnonymous: I never said anything about anti-vaxxers being my "allies." Also, I didn't "defend" them, unless simply trying to understand people is a defense. As to "derailing": I take that to mean not being a loyal NPR automaton. Horses?
Crowboy, as soon as you said "I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I do see why people take this up as a cause" you took a position of defending anti-vaxxers. It's one thing to try and understand where people are coming from. It's another thing entirely to say you sympathize with your position. You then dragged in your personal belief that "identity politics" is harming Americans, something you've never been able to provide evidence for, and you put the anti-vaxxers in that group, since, according to you, they see refusing vaccine mandates as a form of strength when they feel deprived of power.
DeleteI never said or even implied that you might be "a loyal NPR automaton". I'll ask again: please don't put words in my mouth. Your dragging in "identity politics", however, was off-topic, which certainly seems like derailing.
If you didn't understand the reference to horses I suggest going back and reading the full discussion. You seem to have missed some things.
I think the word you're looking for is "justify." That is, you're saying my interest in understanding anti-vaxxers is implicitly saddled with a justification for their position(s). This might be compared with the difference between a fervent believer and a theologian. The fervent believer might see any understanding of atheism as a capitulation to non-belief--disloyalty to the truth (for example if a believer were to read a book by Dawkins or Hitchens). On the other hand, the theologian is fascinated by atheism and finds exploration leading to a richer conversation.
DeleteA theme running through a lot of my comments: The left does not sincerely seek to understand why anyone would challenge current leftist/centrist group think; instead making understanding "the enemy" the enemy. The psychology behind this is powerful and not at all helpful. We still don't get why a working class household in the Rust Belt would vote for Trump.
A theme running through your comments is that you treat "the left" as a monolith that you dismiss without providing evidence, and you sometimes attribute things to others that they haven't said rather than responding to what's been said directly. Also there are people who would describe themselves as being "on the left" who do try to understand where others are coming from.
DeleteAs for anti-vaxxers, which are the subject here, they have a lot of different reasons for their position, from misinformation to racism (yes, conservatives also engage in "identity politics", despite your claims they don't). Opposition to vaccines is already understood well enough, though, and instead of fretting over feelings it needs to be countered, vigorously, because of how much is at stake.
Here we go again. Did I "claim" conservatives do not engage in some version(s) of identity politics? Nope. Never did. Didn't. Though I would suggest that "their" version of identity politics is less toxic than the left's. (BTW: Are you saying "racism" is at the root of anti-vaxxer sentiment? If so, I'll cite that as another example of leftist identity mania.) Certainly less limiting in terms of attaining solidarity in conservative ranks--an impossibility among the working class in the shadow of the left's identity dogma and hyperbolic grievance culture. Yes, I do generalize, but contrary to the notion that I'm supposed to provide "evidence" (as you continually request/demand) this is not a PhD thesis. Just some opinions. Hopefully stated succinctly.
DeleteHere are your own words from a previous post: “I fully agree with those on the right who observe that the "woke" (those relying on tired and failed identity ideologies) are fragile to such an extent they cannot allow criticism.“
ReplyDeleteWhen asked about conservatives engaging in “identity politics” you didn’t reply. As far as I know you’ve always referred to “identity politics” as something “the left” engages in. If you’ve previously criticized conservatives for sexism, racism, xenophobia, or homophobia I’m sorry I missed it. Of course you’re free to argue that conservative identity politics is “less toxic” from your perspective.
Also I never said racism is “at the root of anti-vaxxer sentiment”. Read what I wrote and please stop attributing things I haven’t said to me.
Anonymous and Crowboy - can you exchange emails or contact info and take your discussion off the thread? The comments are becoming progressively less relevant to other readers. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting a fork in it. I'm relieved I don't have to provide a definition of identity politics.
DeleteI'm sorry for being part of going off-topic. This will be my final thought: there's no point discussing with someone who won't stick to facts. Even in his last comment Crowboy isn't replying directly to what's been said.
DeleteThe reason I joined others in calling for moderation is Crowboy regularly goes off-topic, pushing his beliefs as facts, and makes false claims. It's frustrating and disruptive to the otherwise thoughtful and interesting discussions here.
I don't mind when readers go a bit off-topic if the comments are informed and polite. But sometimes the threads boil down to two people arguing with each other, and obviously neither will convince the other, and neither is willing to walk away in frustration and there is no end in sight. Then I step in and basically ask people to "step outside." But I know that exchanging contact info is risky and people seldom do that (if they want to because they are enjoying the dialogue, they can post info which I can then erase in a couple days).
DeleteThere is nothing "off-topic" in trying to understand what motivates anti-vaxxers. Tedious, yes. Off-topic, no. I think the objection is to endless, circular commentary. A reasonable objection.
DeleteBTW: "Anonymous" is able to quote my comments (lifted out of context from earlier posts) because I have long history of contributing comments under one pseudonym. But, Anonymous is anonymous, so there's no way of accessing any such history. Kinda...not...fair...at all. Bad faith. Anonymous ought to cease being anonymous or cease trying to turn anonymity to their advantage...uh...IMHO.
DeleteI (and you) can go the supermarket and pick out any food product on any shelf and just worry about price, calories, and if you have an allergy check the label. No worry about it killing/crippling you.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because of government working six ways to Sunday to protect you.
Same with the drug store, and numerous other categories.
Those Congress Critters, the President, and Supremes are not the government.
The functioning government is the millions of employees defending you from bad actors and their harmful plans. Believe it or not the government actually employs some people to make decisions who are smarter than you. People who know more about health, and most any other subject that's not your life's work. When they tell you what you should do it's not a power trip, it's because they know better.
If you disregard them because you're smarter and you investigated it on social media then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
xoxoxoBruce