Choose To Vaccinate [Archive] - Debate Policy

Kathianne

01-31-2015, 05:07 AM

Only the ignorant, pretending to be so erudite, don't. Until the 'Disneyland' attack, it was
assumed that there wasn't a problem, measels were so past..

http://www.kidnurse.org/baby-deserve-exposed-measles/

*For confidentiality purposes, the identity of the children described in this post was changed. However, their mother hopes that this post brings awareness about measles and prevents others from experiencing what her family is going through right now.

Allow me to introduce you to my dear friend’s baby. This is Jack. Jack is the happiest 10 month old boy you could ever hope to meet. He is chubby and handsome. He’s also tough. In his short little life he has already gone through several surgeries from a few health challenges, but through it all, he has the biggest, happiest smile. His mother Tiffany is one of the sweetest, strongest human beings you could ever hope to meet. We have known each other for quite a while, so I write this post not only as a nurse practitioner, but as a friend. Yesterday, I received some terrible news about Jack that led me to think about this question:

Does this sweet baby deserve to be exposed to the measles?

Why do I ask such a question? Because, unfortunately, we are living in a time where it has to be asked. Even though some of the greatest scientific minds have spent the better part of this century trying to eliminate this awful disease with a safe (http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/safe/research.cfm), effective (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6204a1.htm) vaccine, many parents still think it is okay to potentially expose their own children and other children to this deadly disease by not vaccinating. Why? They are incorrectly more afraid of a vaccine than the potentially-deathly disease itself. However, it is time to put this question to rest. Allow me to be clear...

revelarts

01-31-2015, 08:40 AM

Those pretending to be erudite are real trouble. Those who point out facts and ask people to assess the pros and cons for themselves. And use there God given rights to determine their families path to health should be welcomed. Each side should respect the facts presented rather than blindly attack it seems to me.

The recent outbreaks of measles in Canada and the United States came as a shock to many public health experts. But not to Dr. Gregory Poland, one of the world's most admired and most advanced thinkers in the field of vaccinology.The measles vaccine (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/anti-therapeutic-action/vaccination-measles) has failed, he explained two years ago in a prescient paper, "The re-emergence of measles in developed countries (http://www.edwardjennersociety.org/wp-content/uploads/The-re-emergence-of-measles1.pdf)." In that paper, he warned that due to factors that most haven't noticed, measles has come back to be a serious public health threat. Thankfully, in that paper and elsewhere he also spelled out in no-nonsense fashion what now needs to be done.
Dr. Poland is no vaccine denier. Not only is he among the harshest and most outspoken critics of the "irrationality of the antivaccinationists," he is also one of the strongest proponents for vaccines and the good that they can do. As Professor of Medicine and founder and leader of the Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group, one of the world's largest vaccine research organizations; as editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed scientific journal,Vaccine; as recipient of numerous awards; as chair of vaccine data monitoring committees for pharmaceutical giant Merck; as patent holder in various vaccines processes; as someone who enjoys special employee status with the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Department of Defense and as someone who has sat on every federal committee (http://www.mayo.edu/research/discoverys-edge/defense-vaccines) that has dealt with vaccines, no one can accuse him of seeing vaccines from a narrow perspective.
And he sees the need for a major rethink, after concluding that the current measles vaccine is unlikely to ever live up to the job expected of it:

"Outbreaks are occurring even in highly developed countries where vaccine access, public health infrastructure, and health literacy are not significant issues. This is unexpected and a worrisome harbinger -- measles outbreaks are occurring where they are least expected," he wrote in his 2012 paper, listing the "surprising numbers of cases occurring in persons who previously received one or even two documented doses of measles-containing vaccine."
During the 1989-1991 U.S. outbreaks, 20 per cent to 40 per cent of those affected had received one to two doses. In a 2011 outbreak in Canada, "over 50 per cent of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine."
Dr. Poland noted 15 U.S. outbreaks between 2005 and 2011 and 33 in Europe in 2011 alone, involving more than 30,000 known cases. Meanwhile, the "UK has declared measles once again endemic ... such outbreaks result from both failure to vaccinate, and vaccine failure."
People's failure to get vaccinated is deplorable, Dr. Poland often stresses. But the more fundamental problem stems from the vaccine being less effective in real life than predicted, with a too-high failure rate -- between 2 per cent and 10 per cent do not develop expected antibodies after receiving the recommended two shots. Because different people have different genetic makeups, the vaccine is simply a dud in many, failing to provide the protection they think they've acquired.....

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/im-no-anti-vaxxer-measles-vaccine-cant-prevent-outbreaks-1

Just as a personal note,
My little brother got the measles when he was around 2 years old. He had been vaccinated, my mom was a nurse and did everything by the book. He was quarantined in the hospital until he recovered. Thankfully with no issues.

Kathianne

04-24-2019, 12:46 PM

and 4 years later. . .

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/health/measles-outbreak-record-us-bn/index.html

US measles outbreak is largest since disease was declared eliminated in 2000By Jacqueline Howard (https://www.cnn.com/profiles/jacqueline-howard) and Debra Goldschmidt, CNN

Updated 12:15 PM ET, Wed April 24, 2019...

Gunny

04-24-2019, 02:23 PM

and 4 years later. . .

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/health/measles-outbreak-record-us-bn/index.htmlI'm not sure how this works state-to-state. Here, it's not optional. No vaccinations? No kid in school. Being a military brat, I was always up to snuff on my shots, and then some so I never really gave it much thought until I saw in the news after I retired.

STTAB

04-24-2019, 03:04 PM

I'm not sure how this works state-to-state. Here, it's not optional. No vaccinations? No kid in school. Being a military brat, I was always up to snuff on my shots, and then some so I never really gave it much thought until I saw in the news after I retired.

Hate to break it to you Gunny, but even in Texas you can get a vaccine exemption for your child.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/exemptions.aspx

Gunny

04-24-2019, 07:44 PM

Hate to break it to you Gunny, but even in Texas you can get a vaccine exemption for your child.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/exemptions.aspxWhat would a rule in this country be without a half-dozen or more exceptions? The rule is if you don't have your shots, you don't go to school. If knuckleheads want to waste their time getting those "exceptions", it's their time and their dime.

And just for funsies .... I fell under one of those exceptions :). We went overseas when I was 2 the first time. Been a military pin cushion since. And we STILL got chickenpox and measles. There were no vaccines for them back then.

As I said, I never thought anything about it. Came up once when I retired, I think, when I moved from CA to here and I had to produce the rugrat's shot record to enroll her in school.

darin

04-25-2019, 06:16 AM

I dislike mandatory vaccination laws.

Kathianne

04-25-2019, 07:10 AM

I dislike mandatory vaccination laws.

I get that. Seems to me that there shouldn't have to be a law, people should not be dumb.

STTAB

04-25-2019, 07:19 AM

What would a rule in this country be without a half-dozen or more exceptions? The rule is if you don't have your shots, you don't go to school. If knuckleheads want to waste their time getting those "exceptions", it's their time and their dime.

And just for funsies .... I fell under one of those exceptions :). We went overseas when I was 2 the first time. Been a military pin cushion since. And we STILL got chickenpox and measles. There were no vaccines for them back then.

As I said, I never thought anything about it. Came up once when I retired, I think, when I moved from CA to here and I had to produce the rugrat's shot record to enroll her in school.

I never gave it much thought either until later in life when I became a school member and realized how many dopes there are even in our small district who think that since other kids are vaccinated their kids don't need to be.

When I was a kid mom said time to go to the doctor and get your shots, we went, and then later when the Army told me to line up for more shots, I lined up. It jut was the way it was.

darin

04-25-2019, 09:11 AM

I get that. Seems to me that there shouldn't have to be a law, people should not be dumb.

I'm just unsure about compulsory stuff from the government - you know me. :)

Kathianne

04-25-2019, 09:20 AM

I'm just unsure about compulsory stuff from the government - you know me. :)

Again, I hear you. However it does seem that there are too many 'educated' folks who think that they can forgo vaccinating their children, because well, ouch and proven fake autism possibilities. These fools are gathered in more or less elite enclaves, putting the vulnerable at risk.

So while we share the concern over government's heavy hand, acknowledging their hypocrisy about the unborn, it is within their duty to protect the most vulnerable.

jimnyc

04-25-2019, 09:28 AM

No vaccination, no school. NO ONE should ever be forced to be within breathing distance for a spell or in contact, with someone who puts themselves at risk, and everyone else at risk. Do as you please, preserve your rights, I get it - but other places have rights as well - and rules and regulations.

Take your own risk - and one should be eliminated from many places. Not sure how, but a hospital should be an off limits place. Yeah, I know, go for help is your right - and then possibly hundreds get sickened in such an environment.

Gunny

04-25-2019, 08:04 PM

I dislike mandatory vaccination laws.

I get that. Seems to me that there shouldn't have to be a law, people should not be dumb.I can't make up my mind and I DO know where you're going. Which is more important? The Rights of the individuals, or the Rights of the People.

In a normal World unlike the one we currently live in, it wouldn't be a question (MY opinion, of course) because one's sense of responsibility for the safety of their children and their community would override the "self" button. Is that not what we are taught in civics?

Laws are for weak and stupid people.

Kathianne

04-25-2019, 08:59 PM

I can't make up my mind and I DO know where you're going. Which is more important? The Rights of the individuals, or the Rights of the People.

In a normal World unlike the one we currently live in, it wouldn't be a question (MY opinion, of course) because one's sense of responsibility for the safety of their children and their community would override the "self" button. Is that not what we are taught in civics?

Laws are for weak and stupid people.
Spot on. Unfortunately we’re not teaching civics anymore.

darin

04-26-2019, 01:28 AM

STTAB

04-26-2019, 08:28 AM

But what if vaccines aren't effective? What if they have danger to some folks? Making exceptions will not hurt vaccinated people.

Because, while it is true in EVERY case that vaccines present a danger to the individual, in the overall they are good for the collective.

pete311

04-26-2019, 09:57 AM

But what if vaccines aren't effective? What if they have danger to some folks? Making exceptions will not hurt vaccinated people.

what if aliens are on earth? what if the sea is really made of chocolate pudding? there is a tiny tiny tiny chance someone is allergic to the vaccine. everything you put in your body has a chance to hurt you. ever seen read the full warnings on aspirin? I saw one that mentioned brain hemorrhaging. gonna stop taking it?

jimnyc

04-26-2019, 10:41 AM

But what if vaccines aren't effective? What if they have danger to some folks? Making exceptions will not hurt vaccinated people.

What if their are babies around or others that are susceptible to disease, due to no fault of their own, from those who voluntarily choose to not vaccinate?

Funny OT - there was a woman a few months back who's FB stuff made news stories. She had posted on FB something about a breakout or whatever, and that she was taking her child who was never vaccinated because she doesn't believe in it....

But she made this long post and asked everyone if they knew of any way that she could protect her child from getting the disease. Hmmmmmm, I have an idea for her, as did many others. :)

And I've heard some say it causes this that or the other thing and even autism. But how many untold millions around the world are currently getting them in today's age. and how many hundred of millions and then some over the years have been made sick from them? I honestly can't say it does not do anything, as I'm no doctor, but billions of shots later and such a small number of any type of infected... makes me believe those folks are wrong. Seems like the most people tend to get are "side effects" which they tell you u may even experience. Fevers and such.

I quickly grabbed these from a government site and from the Mayo Clinic.

---

Making the Vaccine Decision

-As a parent, you want to protect your little one from harm. Before you decide to vaccinate your baby, you may wish to know more about:
-how vaccines work
-how vaccines work with your baby’s immune system
-vaccine side effects/risks
-vaccine ingredients
-vaccine safety
-Use this page to find this information as you make the vaccine decision. If you have more questions, talk with your child’s doctor or see Infant Immunization FAQs for additional information.

How Vaccines Prevent Diseases

The diseases vaccines prevent can be dangerous, or even deadly. Vaccines reduce your child’s risk of infection by working with their body’s natural defenses to help them safely develop immunity to disease.

When germs, such as bacteria or viruses, invade the body, they attack and multiply. This invasion is called an infection, and the infection is what causes illness. The immune system then has to fight the infection. Once it fights off the infection, the body has a supply of cells that help recognize and fight that disease in the future. These supplies of cells are called antibodies.

Vaccines help develop immunity by imitating an infection, but this “imitation” infection does not cause illness. Instead it causes the immune system to develop the same response as it does to a real infection so the body can recognize and fight the vaccine-preventable disease in the future. Sometimes, after getting a vaccine, the imitation infection can cause minor symptoms, such as fever. Such minor symptoms are normal and should be expected as the body builds immunity.

As children get older, they require additional doses of some vaccines for best protection. Older kids also need protection against additional diseases they may encounter. Learn more about vaccines for your pre-teens and teens.

Vaccines and Your Child’s Immune System

As a parent, you may get upset or concerned when you watch your baby get 3 or 4 shots during a doctor’s visit. But, all of those shots add up to protection for your baby against 14 infectious diseases. Young babies can get very ill from vaccine-preventable diseases.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIPCdc-pdf), a group of medical and public health experts that develops recommendations on how to use vaccines to control diseases in the United States, designs the vaccination schedule. The ACIP designs the vaccination schedule to protect young children before they are likely to be exposed to potentially serious diseases and when they are most vulnerable to serious infections. This is the schedule CDC recommends.

Although children continue to get several vaccines up to their second birthday, these vaccines do not overload the immune system. Every day, your healthy baby’s immune system successfully fights off thousands of antigens – the parts of germs that cause their immune system to respond. The antigens in vaccines come from weakened or killed germs so they cannot cause serious illness. Even if your child receives several vaccines in one day, vaccines contain only a tiny amount of antigens compared to the antigens your baby encounters every day.

This is the case even if your child receives combination vaccines. Combination vaccines take two or more vaccines that could be given individually and put them into one shot. Children get the same protection as they do from individual vaccines given separately—but with fewer shots.

Vaccine Side Effects/Risks

Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects. The most common side effects are mild. On the other hand, many vaccine-preventable disease symptoms can be serious, or even deadly. Even though many of these diseases are rare in this country, they still occur around the world. Unvaccinated U.S. citizens who travel abroad can bring these diseases to the U.S., putting unvaccinated children at risk.

The side effects from vaccines are almost always minor (such as redness and swelling where the shot was given) and go away within a few days. If your child experiences a reaction at the injection site, use a cool, wet cloth to reduce redness, soreness, and swelling.

Serious side effects after vaccination, such as severe allergic reaction, are very rare and doctors and clinic staff are trained to deal with them. Pay extra attention to your child for a few days after vaccination. If you see something that concerns you, call your child’s doctor.

Rest - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/vaccine-decision/index.html

Childhood vaccines: Tough questions, straight answers

Do vaccines cause autism? Is it OK to skip certain vaccines? Get the facts on these and other common questions.

By Mayo Clinic Staff

Childhood vaccines protect children from a variety of serious or potentially fatal diseases, including diphtheria, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) and others. If these diseases seem uncommon — or even unheard of — it's usually because these vaccines are doing their job.

Still, you might wonder about the benefits and risks of childhood vaccines. Here are straight answers to common questions about childhood vaccines.

Is natural immunity better than vaccination?

A natural infection might provide better immunity than vaccination — but there are serious risks. For example, a natural chickenpox (varicella) infection could lead to pneumonia. A natural polio infection could cause permanent paralysis. A natural mumps infection could lead to deafness. A natural Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) infection could result in permanent brain damage or even death. Vaccination can help prevent these diseases and their potentially serious complications.

Do vaccines cause autism?

Vaccines do not cause autism. Despite much controversy on the topic, researchers haven't found a connection between autism and childhood vaccines. In fact, the original study that ignited the debate years ago has been retracted.

Are vaccine side effects dangerous?

Any vaccine can cause side effects. Usually, these side effects are minor — a low-grade fever, fussiness and soreness at the injection site. Some vaccines cause a temporary headache, fatigue or loss of appetite. Rarely, a child might experience a severe allergic reaction or a neurological side effect, such as a seizure. Although these rare side effects are a concern, the risk of a vaccine causing serious harm or death is extremely small. The benefits of getting a vaccine are much greater than the possible side effects for almost all children.

Of course, vaccines aren't given to children who have known allergies to specific vaccine components. Likewise, if your child develops a life-threatening reaction to a particular vaccine, further doses of that vaccine won't be given.

Rest - https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/infant-and-toddler-health/in-depth/vaccines/art-20048334

Drummond

04-26-2019, 11:27 AM

Over here in jolly ol' Blighty ... our ever-mighty NHS introduced, quite a few years ago now, the 'MMR' vaccine. 'MMR' stood for 'Mumps, Measles, Rubella'. The aim, as the name suggests, was to pack immunisations for all these three illnesses into one single shot.

The Almighty State then did its best to indoctrinate people into accepting that the MMR vaccine should be compulsory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2088426.stm

A motion at the British Medical Association's annual meeting suggests that baby and childhood vaccination should be compulsory for all unless there are clear medical reasons not to.

Despite Government insistence that the MMR injection is safe, many parents have refused to give their child the vaccine after a study suggested it may be linked to autism.

The vaccine is already compulsory in some countries like the US, where children are not allowed to attend school unless they have had the jab.

This article pre-empts what I was going to suggest in this post .. that it'd only be a matter of time before people in the US were robbed of individual choice on the matter ! Seems that you already are .. ?

Well ... there was a lot of debate over here as to whether the jab was responsible for some autism 'outbreaks' (I see that was a concern in the US as well). Many parents refused to allow the MMR vaccination in fear of that. I for one don't blame them !

My point is this: introduce a culture of accepted compulsion into issues such as this, and it can lead, even if only theoretically, to enforced catastrophes. The medical world is ever-evolving its knowledge, and a treatment thought through ignorance to be entirely safe might ultimately prove, years later, NOT to be. Add State-backed compulsion to the mix, and you've a situation where, if individual choice had only been possible, some kids might've been saved from having their lives blighted ... 'By Order'.

I say: yes, educate. Yes, encourage treatments, always have them available and backed by the fullest known data on them. But ... compulsion ? Definitely not. Sometimes mass treatment programmes can be a good thing, but I can't believe they always, unfailingly, are. ALWAYS permit individual choice - never trample on that.

The moment you do ... you invite the culture where it can keep happening, en masse. Whether you like it, or not.

STTAB

04-26-2019, 11:32 AM

Over here in jolly ol' Blighty ... our ever-mighty NHS introduced, quite a few years ago now, the 'MMR' vaccine. 'MMR' stood for 'Mumps, Measles, Rubella'. The aim, as the name suggests, was to pack immunisations for all these three illnesses into one single shot.

The Almighty State then did its best to indoctrinate people into accepting that the MMR vaccine should be compulsory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2088426.stm

This article pre-empts what I was going to suggest in this post .. that it'd only be a matter of time before people in the US were robbed of individual choice on the matter ! Seems that you already are .. ?

Well ... there was a lot of debate over here as to whether the jab was responsible for some autism 'outbreaks'. Many parents refused to allow the MMR vaccination in fear of that. I for one don't blame them !

My point is this: introduce a culture of accepted compulsion into issues such as this, and it can lead, even if only theoretically, to enforced catastrophes. The medical world is ever-evolving its knowledge, and a treatment thought through ignorance to be entirely safe might ultimately prove NOT to be. Add State-backed compulsion to the mix, and you've a situation where, if individual choice had only been possible, some kids might've been saved from having their lives blighted ... 'By Order'.

I say: yes, educate. Yes, encourage treatments, always have them available and backed by the fullest known data on them. But ... compulsion ? Definitely not. Sometimes mass treatment programmes can be a good thing, but I can't believe they always are. ALWAYS permit individual choice - never trample on that.

The moment you do ... you invite the culture where it can keep happening, en masse. Whether you like it, or not.

NO ONE is forced to vaccinate. You can choose to home school your unvaccinated children, or send them to a private school that does not vaccinate.

It is, of course, completely illogical to suggest that the government doesn't have a right to set rules for who may or may not attend their schools

jimnyc

04-26-2019, 12:03 PM

STTAB

04-26-2019, 12:16 PM

Gunny

04-26-2019, 12:50 PM

I still look at it as a Rights issue. You have the right to die of the measles if you want as far as I'm concerned. Your Rights end where my Right to not be endangered begin. I've never understood the argument and usually, it comes up when some ideologically-driven parent has refused treatment for their child(ren) and one suffers the consequences. I think that's bullshit.

THIS is just my opinion and guesswork (so don't look for a link :)) but my guess in this particular for instance noting the location of the outbreak, I'd say the shit is comming across the Southern border.

Not that I'd be into stirring up more shit on the topic :halounplugged:

Kathianne

04-26-2019, 01:40 PM

jimnyc

04-26-2019, 01:49 PM

Not from migrants, throughout country in enclaves of what used to be yuppies. Ijits bought into fake autism, missed that it was fake

If folks would actually research in depth, which I don't blame anyone, they would find the answers. I guarantee you that many of these so called "anti-vaxxers" are more the activist type and more than likely get a lot of their information from poor places and word of mouth and nothing but anti-vaxxer websites. There are websites out there that claim the autism and other things and convince others to refrain, but the proof the offer isn't much proof at all. Whereas the sicknesses and deaths from those choosing to vaccinate speaks for itself, IMO.

Kathianne

04-26-2019, 01:54 PM

If folks would actually research in depth, which I don't blame anyone, they would find the answers. I guarantee you that many of these so called "anti-vaxxers" are more the activist type and more than likely get a lot of their information from poor places and word of mouth and nothing but anti-vaxxer websites. There are websites out there that claim the autism and other things and convince others to refrain, but the proof the offer isn't much proof at all. Whereas the sicknesses and deaths from those choosing to vaccinate speaks for itself, IMO.
It started with a Lancet article, at the time, a highly regarded British Medical Journal. About a year later, Lancet published that the study was fake, they took the blame for not researching it as should have. Took big hit, but the harm was already done.

Elessar

04-26-2019, 04:12 PM

To get involved in high school athletics -especially football, wrestling, track,
or baseball - we were required to get a tetanus shot. That was done in early
August before the school session began and went on our record.

I got used to needles and like Gunny said, ended feeling like a pincushion!:laugh:
Military branches make all sorts of vaccinations mandatory. Only ones I refused, and went on
record were annual flu shots, because they made me sick, and Anthrax because I was not going
to be deployed overseas nor would I be exposed to that germ.

Drummond

04-26-2019, 04:27 PM

Hey Drummond!

Folks do have a choice to get them or not - it's just that you NEED them in certain circumstances. For example, at school - a MAJOR shared environment, when parents sign up their children, one of the first things they ask for is doctor paperwork showing various shots that were given and the dates. I'm ALL for that. The health of the majority in those cases should prevail.

It's just that if you DON'T get them done, then schools for one won't let you register, and understandable. There are various other reasons/places that will also ask for these records. If folks choose not to vaccinate, then they are perhaps giving up their abilities to go certain places and register at some places. Usually shared environment type places. A lot of it is even more important if the children or even adults are traveling abroad to countries where these diseases aren't treated properly and vaccinations aren't the same as in the US - so folks need to not only ensure their own regular vaccinations have been done - but man get all kinds of additional shots when preparing to go to places in Africa, for example. Otherwise, they are much more likely to get infected when traveling to such places. My friend traveled to India once too and told me he get a bevy of shots so he didn't get all kinds of fevers I never even heard of! LOL

BUT, I agree with a man/woman's rights to be in charge of what goes in their own bodies, and not by force. And it remains so. But at the end of the day, if one does enough research, while there may be a fair amount of anti-vaxxer sites and other things you can find out that people are afraid of - and you'll find about 75,000% more information that shows what it does and protects and the lives its saved over the years, and what often happens to those who choose against. Read, learn, inform ones self - and then make the educated choice. But I think all proper avenues of research will lead on to the doc to get those vaccinations.

I see your overall point.

But though I follow the logic of safeguarding against outbreaks of disease having to be safeguarded against, and bureaucratic exclusion measures taken to further that safeguarding effort .... still, there's something of a fine line to be drawn against doing something because you feel it's necessary for the greater good, and allowing authorities to instill a psychology in people that makes them feel the need to defer to authoritarian directives, just because they're told to.

I feel that the greater the deference to such 'diktats', the greater the degree of dictation society will (if the Left has its way) foist upon its population. Ultimately it is a question of how far you 'reasonably' go, to erode individual rights.

I've never, ever, been vaccinated against anything. Such vaccinations existed even when I was a kid, but my mother was firmly against taking any 'risk' with them, as she saw it. So, I never had any.

Had I been born around 40 years later ... she might've similarly prevailed, but, I'm in no doubt that the societal pressures to conform to 'expectations' would've been far greater.

If anyone needs to know .. I've been healthy throughout my life (a touch of high blood pressure, true; not helped if Labour wins an election here ... but otherwise, perfectly fine ... and a near-perfect work attendance record throughout my working life). If my example is anything to go by, the 'need' to mass-vaccinate is overly exaggerated, in my opinion.

Noir

04-26-2019, 06:06 PM

the 'need' to mass-vaccinate is overly exaggerated, in my opinion.

Good grief.

On a related note I recently watched an amazing short video about a man who is still using an iron lung after contracting polio as a child, he was able to become a successful lawyer. He’s also concerned about polio resurfacing because of ignorant parents.

jimnyc

04-26-2019, 06:12 PM

I see your overall point.

But though I follow the logic of safeguarding against outbreaks of disease having to be safeguarded against, and bureaucratic exclusion measures taken to further that safeguarding effort .... still, there's something of a fine line to be drawn against doing something because you feel it's necessary for the greater good, and allowing authorities to instill a psychology in people that makes them feel the need to defer to authoritarian directives, just because they're told to.

I feel that the greater the deference to such 'diktats', the greater the degree of dictation society will (if the Left has its way) foist upon its population. Ultimately it is a question of how far you 'reasonably' go, to erode individual rights.

I've never, ever, been vaccinated against anything. Such vaccinations existed even when I was a kid, but my mother was firmly against taking any 'risk' with them, as she saw it. So, I never had any.

Had I been born around 40 years later ... she might've similarly prevailed, but, I'm in no doubt that the societal pressures to conform to 'expectations' would've been far greater.

If anyone needs to know .. I've been healthy throughout my life (a touch of high blood pressure, true; not helped if Labour wins an election here ... but otherwise, perfectly fine ... and a near-perfect work attendance record throughout my working life). If my example is anything to go by, the 'need' to mass-vaccinate is overly exaggerated, in my opinion.

All very well written and stated.

You KNOW I'm concerned about individual rights, and in more ways than just this subject, that's for sure! But even in this case, citizens do have the right to NOT get these shots. But since there have been various kinds of outbreaks at schools and other places over the decades, they implement THEIR requirements to attend their particular school, or some sporting teams and events as pointed out. That's another area where the physical interaction between people is a lot more than just being in the same classroom. And in many cases, getting hit with their sweat and even saliva at times (don't ask) LOL. And then if a kid gets a cold at a school, you will have some parents that will cry bloody murder. And do NOT let it be a child with a peanut allergy, for example. Their also very susceptible and can have bad symptoms from just being next to someone eating a peanut butter sandwich. Imagine that kid ends up in the hospital, or worse, the school has to have him brought there, and then Mom gets a call and gets frantic. Bloody murder again! And then out comes the brigades and the come changes. So you can only imagine my next few sentences if it were to next be about a school having someone brought to the hospital somehow because they know the kid is sick from measles, mumps, chickenpox or any other such infectious diseases! Bloody murder won't even be enough for some. ALL the schools fault, of course.

I'm glad you're happy and healthy after many years!! And a perfect attendance? I had trouble doing that for a week!! LOL

As to the last part - were you ever 100% for sure exposed into a room at school or otherwise where someone was there with the measles, chickenpox or one of the other bad ones?

Each state here has different laws on specifically what vaccines you need for school. On average across it's like 5 of them, but here are the main they check for. I'm curious if ever exposed to any? Or if you ever saw many outbreaks of any of them in the UK?

Hepatitis B
Diptheria and Tetanus in one shot
Influenza type B
PCV
IPV (polio)
(Ct is the only state that actually mandates the Flu shot for school)
Measles, Mumps & Rubella in one shot
Chickenpox
Hepatitis A

That's the list, but each state is different as to which is a requirement. Common, which I had, was the Hep B, Diptheria/Tetanus, IPV, MMR & Chickenpox. ---- I was near, or in or around definitely Chickenpox, Flu many times - and right now there is a major issue with measles going around - and I'm sure glad I'm not near it!!

jimnyc

04-26-2019, 06:22 PM

Good grief.

On a related note I recently watched an amazing short video about a man who is still using an iron lung after contracting polio as a child, he was able to become a successful lawyer. He’s also concerned about polio resurfacing because of ignorant parents.

[/COLOR]

Whenever I hear about polio it makes me instantly think of President Roosevelt ultimately ending up in a wheelchair and unable to walk from polio. And I remember when I was a kid seeing a few movies and documentaries about kids living in iron lungs, using a mirror to look at the person next to them or above/below. Dang, it looked rough. Even if paralyzed and in a wheelchair, you can kinda get around. I'm sure things are different now, but like I said - dang!

Some of them can be deadly or extremely life altering. I'm honestly no expert on how easily each and every disease travels or gets transmitted to others. I'm sure many are similar and many different. Then you have all different kinds of diseases/infections or what not in the 3rd world countries. I have no idea other than - I don't want to take the slightest chance ever if I can end up in on of those ways.

The earlier Roosevelt and then later in life

https://i.imgur.com/Tv8tGXh.png https://i.imgur.com/dN9DXn3.png

And the iron lungs I recall - when you didn't have the vaccination - or I guess if you never took the vaccination

https://i.imgur.com/00ACsGH.png https://i.imgur.com/P55xdur.jpg

Kathianne

04-26-2019, 06:46 PM

Whenever I hear about polio it makes me instantly think of President Roosevelt ultimately ending up in a wheelchair and unable to walk from polio. And I remember when I was a kid seeing a few movies and documentaries about kids living in iron lungs, using a mirror to look at the person next to them or above/below. Dang, it looked rough. Even if paralyzed and in a wheelchair, you can kinda get around. I'm sure things are different now, but like I said - dang!

Some of them can be deadly or extremely life altering. I'm honestly no expert on how easily each and every disease travels or gets transmitted to others. I'm sure many are similar and many different. Then you have all different kinds of diseases/infections or what not in the 3rd world countries. I have no idea other than - I don't want to take the slightest chance ever if I can end up in on of those ways.

The earlier Roosevelt and then later in life

https://i.imgur.com/Tv8tGXh.png https://i.imgur.com/dN9DXn3.png

And the iron lungs I recall - when you didn't have the vaccination - or I guess if you never took the vaccination

https://i.imgur.com/00ACsGH.png https://i.imgur.com/P55xdur.jpg

Jim, when FDR contracted polio, he was forever in wheelchair. That first photo you have is of Teddy Roosevelt. Here's a pic of FDR before polio:

http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cox_james_and_fdr.jpg

Teddy had been a sickly child, but not polio. He worked like crazy to make his lungs stronger, seems like he did ok with that, considering the Rough Riders. ;)

jimnyc

04-26-2019, 06:50 PM

jimnyc

04-26-2019, 06:53 PM

In other words, if that wasn't clear (cause it isn't when I read it back!), I typed in Roosevelt in the search bar and like a dummy just grabbed at the 2 pics. And regardless, honestly, I really wouldn't know what either one of them looked like much in younger years!! I remember mostly later years and what there is when you do simple research and the public school books we used. Not a good excuse though. :(

Drummond

04-26-2019, 08:04 PM

All very well written and stated.

You KNOW I'm concerned about individual rights, and in more ways than just this subject, that's for sure! But even in this case, citizens do have the right to NOT get these shots. But since there have been various kinds of outbreaks at schools and other places over the decades, they implement THEIR requirements to attend their particular school, or some sporting teams and events as pointed out. That's another area where the physical interaction between people is a lot more than just being in the same classroom. And in many cases, getting hit with their sweat and even saliva at times (don't ask) LOL. And then if a kid gets a cold at a school, you will have some parents that will cry bloody murder. And do NOT let it be a child with a peanut allergy, for example. Their also very susceptible and can have bad symptoms from just being next to someone eating a peanut butter sandwich. Imagine that kid ends up in the hospital, or worse, the school has to have him brought there, and then Mom gets a call and gets frantic. Bloody murder again! And then out comes the brigades and the come changes. So you can only imagine my next few sentences if it were to next be about a school having someone brought to the hospital somehow because they know the kid is sick from measles, mumps, chickenpox or any other such infectious diseases! Bloody murder won't even be enough for some. ALL the schools fault, of course.

I'm glad you're happy and healthy after many years!! And a perfect attendance? I had trouble doing that for a week!! LOL

As to the last part - were you ever 100% for sure exposed into a room at school or otherwise where someone was there with the measles, chickenpox or one of the other bad ones?

Each state here has different laws on specifically what vaccines you need for school. On average across it's like 5 of them, but here are the main they check for. I'm curious if ever exposed to any? Or if you ever saw many outbreaks of any of them in the UK?

Hepatitis B
Diptheria and Tetanus in one shot
Influenza type B
PCV
IPV (polio)
(Ct is the only state that actually mandates the Flu shot for school)
Measles, Mumps & Rubella in one shot
Chickenpox
Hepatitis A

That's the list, but each state is different as to which is a requirement. Common, which I had, was the Hep B, Diptheria/Tetanus, IPV, MMR & Chickenpox. ---- I was near, or in or around definitely Chickenpox, Flu many times - and right now there is a major issue with measles going around - and I'm sure glad I'm not near it!!

I can't help but see that there are two sides to this argument. You make a good case.

It's all to the good, of course, that medicine has known the advances it has ... that we can come so close to stamping out the prevalence of measles, or more serious conditions such as typhoid or tuberculosis. I'm of the opinion, though, that the more we fight such diseases and take them out of the environment, the more susceptible we make ourselves to them if they ever re-emerge. People develop their own healthy immune systems, not by having no diseases to ever combat, but by having active immune systems that are primed to be resistant to the very concoctions of germs and viruses we fear being prey to.

I get colds, as do other people, but not at all often. I've had flu precisely once in my life, around 20 years ago. I've never had measles, even though my own school once had a bad outbreak of it when I was in senior school. My school attendance was always devoid of time off for illness. I've only ever been absent from work once from illness .. from the flu I mentioned earlier (the one other time I was away was through recovering from being knocked down by a bus ... !).

I firmly believe that, if left alone, unaided by outside help, our immune systems would cope well with conditions we've become conditioned to fear. Certainly, mine does, and these days I'm no youngster ! I don't believe there's anything exceptional about me.

Gunny

04-26-2019, 08:11 PM

All I knew for sure was that he was standing and walking before, and then the wheelchair days. I never followed him really and only know from what I read, so I had went to Google images and just looked around until I saw one of him standing and one in the chair.He had a lot of "gimmicks" to not be seen in his wheelchair or in a weakened light. The media was a willing accomplice.

By today's standard, some of his iron riggings sound barbaric :laugh: He had straps and steel (I believe actually iron) braces. I don't remember where I read that.

I did know some people who had polio when I was a kid. They were pretty jacked up. I sure wouldn't want to get it. For the most part though we were all vaccinated against polio and smallpox. Then to go overseas at age 2 there were 2 typhoid shots, 2 cholera shots, tetanus shot, plague, tine test (how they used to test for TB) straight-up penicillin. I was good to freakin' go from an early age :)

KarlMarx

04-26-2019, 08:14 PM

Drummond

04-26-2019, 08:16 PM

Good grief.

On a related note I recently watched an amazing short video about a man who is still using an iron lung after contracting polio as a child, he was able to become a successful lawyer. He’s also concerned about polio resurfacing because of ignorant parents.

[/COLOR]:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Actually, I thought it might be Pete who'd post something of this type. That a Leftie would, though ... that was inevitable.

I'm no knocking your sincerity of feeling - not as such, anyway. But of this, I was always certain ... adherents of Left-wing thinking will care a great deal about the promotion of any psychology that results in dependence upon the State, or of otherwise adopting subservience to an authority that'll 'always know better', therefore, must be obeyed to the cost of individual choice.

Creatures of the Left will be in their element if they can get the population they administer to forever bend to their judgments and decrees. Illustrations of 'how much better off we all are, if only we can be dealt with as an obedient, quiescent mass', not as individuals with the scope to exercise contrary choice .. ahh ... what more could you wish for, Noir ?

Drummond

04-26-2019, 08:25 PM

Some things go beyond individual rights

Being vaccinated is one of them

Sorry. Vaccines save lives, and prevent the spread of disease.

Starting in 1917, the Spanish flu pandemic killed 33 million people in 18 months. As many people as World War I did in several years.

The Bubonic Plague during the 13th century killed more people in Europe in 3 years than WWII did in 6 years

At one time, smallpox killed a quarter of a million people... each year. Today it has been eradicated.

Forget a nuclear war, humanity could be wiped out by a virus or superbug. By vaccinating your child, you not only spare him from an early death but, due to a phenomenon known as “herd immunity”, you are also sparing everyone he comes in contact with from the same fate.

Each of the examples you cite deal with social emergencies, each highly unusual. Flu pandemics are the exception, not the norm. Smallpox is definitely an unusual occurrence, and I'm pretty sure bubonic plague is, too ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Because you can crush something with a sledgehammer, doesn't mean that you ALWAYS must. We have nuclear weapons. Every time a war breaks out, would we be wise to launch nukes at each emerging enemy ?

Hardly.

The more we wipe out bacteria and viruses that happen not to be entirely benign, the worse our resistance to them will be, if a re-emergence occurs. Our healthcare systems have become over-reliant on antibiotics ... to the point where they may one day become useless. Combine that with a future pandemic, and, thanks to an over-indulgence of dependence on medicine beforehand, where will we stand if one hits us again ?

Kathianne

04-26-2019, 08:38 PM

Each of the examples you cite deal with social emergencies, each highly unusual. Flu pandemics are the exception, not the norm. Smallpox is definitely an unusual occurrence, and I'm pretty sure bubonic plague is, too ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Because you can crush something with a sledgehammer, doesn't mean that you ALWAYS must. We have nuclear weapons. Every time a war breaks out, would we be wise to launch nukes at each emerging enemy ?

Hardly.

The more we wipe out bacteria and viruses that happen not to be entirely benign, the worse our resistance to them will be, if a re-emergence occurs. Our healthcare systems have become over-reliant on antibiotics ... to the point where they may one day become useless. Combine that with a future pandemic, and, thanks to an over-indulgence of dependence on medicine beforehand, where will we stand if one hits us again ?

You are inappropriately conflating issues: https://www.who.int/features/qa/vaccination-antibiotic-resistance/en/

Why is vaccination important for addressing antibiotic resistance?Online Q&A
November 2016

Q: Why is vaccination important for addressing antibiotic resistance?
A: Vaccines can help limit the spread of antibiotic resistance.
The global increase in disease caused by drug-resistant bacteria, due to overuse and misuse of antibiotics, is a major public health concern. It is more difficult and costly to treat antibiotic-resistant infections and people do not always recover.
Vaccinating humans and animals is a very effective way to stop them from getting infected and thereby preventing the need for antibiotics.
Making better use of existing vaccines and developing new vaccines are important ways to tackle antibiotic resistance and reduce preventable illness and deaths.
Q: How can existing vaccines have an impact?
A: Expanding the use of existing vaccines will reduce the use of antibiotics and the development of resistance.
For example, if every child in the world received a vaccine to protect them from infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria (which can cause pneumonia, meningitis and middle ear infections), this would prevent an estimated 11 million days of antibiotic use each year.
Vaccines against viruses, such as the flu, also have a role to play, because people often take antibiotics unnecessarily when they have symptoms such as fever that can be caused by a virus.
Q: How can new vaccines have an impact?
A: Developing and using new vaccines to prevent bacterial diseases can further reduce the development of resistance.
Antibiotics are currently the standard medical intervention for common diseases such as Group A Streptococcus (which causes “strep throat”), for which we do not yet have vaccines.
We also need vaccines to stop people from catching diseases caused by bacteria that are now frequently antibiotic-resistant. For example, there is an alarming spread of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). In 2015, an estimated 480 000 people were infected with MDR-TB.
Similarly, new vaccines targeting Staphylococcus aureus (which causes skin and soft tissue infections), Klebsiella pneumoniae (which causes pneumonia and infections of the blood stream and urinary tract), Clostridium difficile (which causes diarrhoeal disease), and many others could protect people against diseases that are increasingly difficult to treat.
Developing new vaccines and getting them used appropriately is lengthy and complex. The scientific community needs to prioritise which new vaccines would have the greatest impact on antibiotic resistance, and promote investment in these.

Drummond

04-26-2019, 09:37 PM

You are inappropriately conflating issues: https://www.who.int/features/qa/vaccination-antibiotic-resistance/en/

Interesting and informative. Thank you.

This does overlook my central concern, though ... that of the approach which society (yours, and mine) seems to be increasingly adopting, namely, the over-deference to authority at the expense of individual choice and freedoms. I also believe, as I've also argued, that there's a institutionalised over-use of remedial medicine at the expense of our ability to naturally cope and deal with illnesses using our immune systems' capabilities ... capabilities which we lose over time by overly-sanitising our environment.

I've lived a full and healthy existence despite never, once, having been inoculated / immunised against anything at all. I say there's nothing remotely remarkable about that.

Kathianne

04-26-2019, 10:25 PM

Interesting and informative. Thank you.

This does overlook my central concern, though ... that of the approach which society (yours, and mine) seems to be increasingly adopting, namely, the over-deference to authority at the expense of individual choice and freedoms. I also believe, as I've also argued, that there's a institutionalised over-use of remedial medicine at the expense of our ability to naturally cope and deal with illnesses using our immune systems' capabilities ... capabilities which we lose over time by overly-sanitising our environment.

I've lived a full and healthy existence despite never, once, having been inoculated / immunised against anything at all. I say there's nothing remotely remarkable about that.

I think you are projecting your good health and likely good genes on society as a whole.

Measles were eliminated from the US over a decade ago, now they are back with a vengeance in certain pockets-affluent pockets in general, due to a mix of people who are about as half-smart as they think or they believed they could avoid any possible side effects for 'their precious ones,' along with others similarly selfish/ignorant to remove the herd immunity needed to protect those whose age or fragility of health precluded vaccination against the disease. There are also those few that the immunizations do not work-they too are vulnerable.

As I discussed earlier with Darin and Gunny, it shouldn't be necessary to make the vaccines compulsory, but with the ignorance and selfishness that now makes up our society, it seems we're left without choice. The whole is more important than one. As Gunny said, that used to be just known as civic pride or duty.

It's the vast healthy majority that is 'the herd' that provides the immunity for those small numbers that need either more time or just the chance to avoid another debilitating illness. The herd numbers cannot fall below 95% for measles because of how easily it spreads; 80-85% for polio which is more difficult to transmit.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/herd-immunity/

https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories/what-is-herd-immunity/

Kathianne

04-26-2019, 10:49 PM

I truly think that most of the idiots really haven't a clue to how dangerous diseases such as measles, polio, mumps, rubella, tetanus can be. In the US one hasn't seen these in many years in most if any areas.

For those of us over 40, our parents who did see the ravages of these disease, would not hesitate for a nanosecond to protect us.

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

https://www.cdc.gov/rubella/about/complications.html

https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/about/complications.html

https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/about/complications.html

https://www.cdc.gov/tetanus/about/symptoms-complications.html

https://www.cdc.gov/polio/index.htm

Some of these, such as chicken pox, aren't likely to cause grave dangers to healthy children, though in adults the form of shingles is not a laughing matter. Even with children though, the dangers lie with the most vulnerable, those with weak immune systems and infants.

Elessar

04-26-2019, 11:01 PM

Noir

04-27-2019, 12:58 AM

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Actually, I thought it might be Pete who'd post something of this type. That a Leftie would, though ... that was inevitable.

I'm no knocking your sincerity of feeling - not as such, anyway. But of this, I was always certain ... adherents of Left-wing thinking will care a great deal about the promotion of any psychology that results in dependence upon the State, or of otherwise adopting subservience to an authority that'll 'always know better', therefore, must be obeyed to the cost of individual choice.

Creatures of the Left will be in their element if they can get the population they administer to forever bend to their judgments and decrees. Illustrations of 'how much better off we all are, if only we can be dealt with as an obedient, quiescent mass', not as individuals with the scope to exercise contrary choice .. ahh ... what more could you wish for, Noir ?

Oh yeah because look at all the other “Lefties” in the thread :rolleyes:

pete311

04-27-2019, 09:46 AM

If anyone needs to know .. I've been healthy throughout my life (a touch of high blood pressure, true; not helped if Labour wins an election here ... but otherwise, perfectly fine ... and a near-perfect work attendance record throughout my working life). If my example is anything to go by, the 'need' to mass-vaccinate is overly exaggerated, in my opinion.

Herd immunization is like the entire point...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Drummond

04-27-2019, 12:25 PM

Oh yeah because look at all the other “Lefties” in the thread :rolleyes:

Noir, different people (.. us individualists, anyway ..) will have personal views, held AS SUCH. Individuals will differ in their outlooks, as you'd of course expect. But, those on the Left are far less likely to fit that criterion ... they sing from the same hymn sheet, they are aware of their need to unite behind a 'politically correct' viewpoint. [I call it the 'hive mind' phenomenon ... both with accuracy and with not a little disparagement intended ..]

For this basic reason, the likelihood of a Leftie going 'off message' is small to nonexistent.

You are a creature of the Left, as is Pete. You can expect to find unity of outlook between you. For proof, note Pete's own response, after your own ... note particularly his unashamed worldview, happily likening this situation to the treatment of humanity as 'a herd'.

Funnily enough, I've more respect for individual human beings than this. But then, I for one don't buy into Leftie poison.

Drummond

04-27-2019, 12:33 PM

Herd immunization is like the entire point...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Yes, Pete ... no surprise here, I think ....

Human beings share a common genetic structure. Meaning ... that this makes us akin to 'a herd' in the way we're to be regarded ?

Practicality when it's due, Pete, and only WHERE it's due, to achieve a specific goal. This is the lesson you of the Left choose not to learn. Medically speaking, our biological similarities need to be addressed as necessary, but beyond them, your thinking breaks down.

This is what you will never learn, and I'm wasting my time if I try to teach you that ...

... am I not ?

Kathianne

04-27-2019, 02:02 PM

Yes, Pete ... no surprise here, I think ....

Human beings share a common genetic structure. Meaning ... that this makes us akin to 'a herd' in the way we're to be regarded ?

Practicality when it's due, Pete, and only WHERE it's due, to achieve a specific goal. This is the lesson you of the Left choose not to learn. Medically speaking, our biological similarities need to be addressed as necessary, but beyond them, your thinking breaks down.

This is what you will never learn, and I'm wasting my time if I try to teach you that ...

... am I not ?

I'm not following what you are saying here. Are you for or against vaccinations? Is it Darwinian that you're going for? Only those with the right genetic strength should survive?

Drummond

04-27-2019, 03:46 PM

I'm not following what you are saying here. Are you for or against vaccinations? Is it Darwinian that you're going for? Only those with the right genetic strength should survive?

I'd say that your last option is far removed from what I'm saying.

I'm actually saying a couple of things:

1. Vaccinations are fine. If a medical need for them exists, why withhold them ? That said ... any element of compulsion is surely of concern, at minimum. In times of national emergency, where it's literally vital to life and limb that they happen ... then, they have to be carried out. Anything short of that, though, and choice must play its part.

Compulsory vaccination as a form of 'luxury', or simply a 'preference', is surely wrong. Establish the social precedent of everybody accepting that authorities have the 'right' to insist upon them for no other good reason than that they prefer to have them done ... creates the way for a culture where psychological dependence on those who 'rule' you is increasingly established. Taken to extremes, this precedent can see everyone 'choosing' what their masters insist upon, all in the guise of 'the common good' overriding individual good ....

... in other words ... 'Socialist heaven' ....

... heralding universal approval from all Left-of-centre minded people, where what they want, goes.

2. I believe that too much vaccinating of populations must lead to a medical condition where, eventually, we THINK that diseases and viruses are absent from the population ... when they're not. Two possibilities: one, they exists in much-reduced form, meaning, entire generations live apparently having no genetic need to ward off such diseases, etc ... and have no physical need to be primed against them, meaning, that any re-emergence hits people far harder than otherwise, with any natural immunity long-gone. Two ... following on from one ... any environment we think to be sanitised from diseases cannot help but breed generations whose immune systems cannot cope with serious disease.

Consider this, as an historic example of the dangers of the absence of diseases compromising immune systems ....

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/03/native-americans-didnt-wipe-europeans-diseases/

While estimates vary, approximately 20-50 million people are believed to have lived in the Americas shortly before Europeans arrived. Around 95% of them were killed by European diseases. So why didn’t 19 out of 20 Europeans die from Native American diseases?

The short answer is that Europeans simply had more robust immune systems. Several factors contributed to this: first, Europeans had been the caretakers of domestic animals for thousands of years, and had over time grown (somewhat) immune to the common diseases that accompanied the domestication of such food sources. Native Americans, on the other hand, were largely hunters and gatherers, and even in some domestication cases, it’s thought exposure was limited.

Second, Europeans lived in more densely populated areas than Native Americans. When so many humans live together in relatively close quarters (particularly with lack of good, or any, sewage systems and the like), disease spreads quickly with the general population continually getting exposed to numerous pathogens. The Europeans’ bodies had to adapt to dealing with many of those diseases, and for those who survived, their immune systems thrived as a result.

If you mass-immunise, the point of doing so is to free a population of the disease you're immunising against. Fine if it's 100 percent effective, and the germ, disease (- whatever -) ceases to exist anywhere on the planet ! But, IF IT DOESN'T, and it reappears generations later, the population having had zero exposure to it for decades, won't have maintained any natural immunity to it.

So there are dangers to immunisation which proves TOO successful.

One other thought: do germs, diseases, never evolve ? Strains of bird flu, for example, can evolve and mutate rapidly. What if, decades away, a strain of measles comes along that's far stronger than before, and a population having no defence against it finds itself unable to cope ?

Fact: we DARE NOT have an environment too sanitised. History itself teaches us that.

Kathianne

04-27-2019, 04:00 PM

I'd say that your last option is far removed from what I'm saying.

I'm actually saying a couple of things:

1. Vaccinations are fine. If a medical need for them exists, why withhold them ? That said ... any element of compulsion is surely of concern, at minimum. In times of national emergency, where it's literally vital to life and limb that they happen ... then, they have to be carried out. Anything short of that, though, and choice must play its part.

Compulsory vaccination as a form of 'luxury', or simply a 'preference', is surely wrong. Establish the social precedent of everybody accepting that authorities have the 'right' to insist upon them for no other good reason than that they prefer to have them done ... creates the way for a culture where psychological dependence on those who 'rule' you is increasingly established. Taken to extremes, this precedent can see everyone 'choosing' what their masters insist upon, all in the guise of 'the common good' overriding individual good ....

... in other words ... 'Socialist heaven' ....

... heralding universal approval from all Left-of-centre minded people, where what they want, goes.

2. I believe that too much vaccinating of populations must lead to a medical condition where, eventually, we THINK that diseases and viruses are absent from the population ... when they're not. Two possibilities: one, they exists in much-reduced form, meaning, entire generations live apparently having no genetic need to ward off such diseases, etc ... and have no physical need to be primed against them, meaning, that any re-emergence hits people far harder than otherwise, with any natural immunity long-gone. Two ... following on from one ... any environment we think to be sanitised from diseases cannot help but breed generations whose immune systems cannot cope with serious disease.

Consider this, as an historic example of the dangers of the absence of diseases compromising immune systems ....

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/03/native-americans-didnt-wipe-europeans-diseases/

If you mass-immunise, the point of doing so is to free a population of the disease you're immunising against. Fine if it's 100 percent effective, and the germ, disease (- whatever -) ceases to exist anywhere on the planet ! But, IF IT DOESN'T, and it reappears generations later, the population having had zero exposure to it for decades, won't have maintained any natural immunity to it.

So there are dangers to immunisation which proves TOO successful.

One other thought: do germs, diseases, never evolve ? Strains of bird flu, for example, can evolve and mutate rapidly. What if, decades away, a strain of measles comes along that's far stronger than before, and a population having no defence against it finds itself unable to cope ?

Fact: we DARE NOT have an environment too sanitised. History itself teaches us that.

I already said before you even posted on this thread that it shouldn't 'need' to be compulsory, yet we can see that enough self-professed, 'enlightened' (I read, selfish), people have opted out to have reduced the herd immunity in certain areas.

I do not think, granted my medical knowledge is sparse at best, that vaccines actually reduce the naturally immunity, after all they are live or dead parts of the immunization.

We seem to be in total agreement though regarding antibiotic overuse, my real concern regarding that is in the feeding of animals.

I do think governments, US and France in particular, should be rewarding pharmaceuticals to research and develop more to deal with the superbugs.

Noir

04-27-2019, 04:40 PM

You are a creature of the Left, as is Pete. You can expect to find unity of outlook between you. For proof, note Pete's own response, after your own ... note particularly his unashamed worldview, happily likening this situation to the treatment of humanity as 'a herd'.

Funnily enough, I've more respect for individual human beings than this. But then, I for one don't buy into Leftie poison.

Herd immunity is a well defined and understood term, your feelings about it being ‘respectful’ or not could hardly be less meaningful when put in the context of medical science.

Noir

04-27-2019, 04:45 PM

We seem to be in total agreement though regarding antibiotic overuse, my real concern regarding that is in the feeding of animals.

I do think governments, US and France in particular, should be rewarding pharmaceuticals to research and develop more to deal with the superbugs.

The writing has been on the wall re: animal antibiotics for a while now, the guaranteed solution (stop putting animals in the position where we need to pump them full of drugs) is a non-starter (i.e. less profitable) so we can look forward to this problem getting worse and worse in the future.

Kathianne

04-27-2019, 04:50 PM

The writing has been on the wall re: animal antibiotics for a while now, the guaranteed solution (stop putting animals in the position where we need to pump them full of drugs) is a non-starter (i.e. less profitable) so we can look forward to this problem getting worse and worse in the future.

Yeah, I only buy antibiotic free meats now. The cost is worth it.

pete311

04-27-2019, 05:33 PM

Herd immunity is a well defined and understood term, your feelings about it being ‘respectful’ or not could hardly be less meaningful when put in the context of medical science.

Maybe he would like to learn from a fine university from his very own country (I think!)
https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immunity-how-does-it-work

Drummond

04-27-2019, 07:23 PM

I already said before you even posted on this thread that it shouldn't 'need' to be compulsory, yet we can see that enough self-professed, 'enlightened' (I read, selfish), people have opted out to have reduced the herd immunity in certain areas.

Meaning .. either be a part of the 'herd', or be thought less of if you fail to be a part of it ?

I think my previous reply defends my position in sufficient detail. In cases of life v death emergencies, compulsion can be defended. In matters falling short of this, I don't think compulsion is acceptable. So, choice is reasonable ... just so long as anyone exercising it is, in so doing (if I understand your approach sufficiently well), are thought much the less of, if they do ?

I do not think, granted my medical knowledge is sparse at best, that vaccines actually reduce the naturally immunity, after all they are live or dead parts of the immunization.

So, you immunise en masse. Result .. that what you've immunised against, over time, seems to have disappeared. Sooner or later, budget-conscious medical authorities would want to save money by not immunising against something that appears to have disappeared (for example, who, these days, would offer routine immunisation against plague ?).

Then, it re-emerges. Stronger ? Mutated ? An absence of exposure over enough time means, no defence.

We seem to be in total agreement though regarding antibiotic overuse, my real concern regarding that is in the feeding of animals.

Fair enough.

I do think governments, US and France in particular, should be rewarding pharmaceuticals to research and develop more to deal with the superbugs.

... so long as the action of centralised Governmental action doesn't of itself create a dependence on them, I agree ... establish a methodology for one sector of care, and will it remain limited in application ?

Drummond

04-27-2019, 07:26 PM

Herd immunity is a well defined and understood term, your feelings about it being ‘respectful’ or not could hardly be less meaningful when put in the context of medical science.

In some quarters, Noir, Socialism is also regarded as 'well defined and understood'. This says precisely nothing about how reputably or justifiably it can be defended.

You really like the term being discussed, though, don't you, Noir ? Does it appeal to you ?

Do you feel driven to defend and sanction the whole nature of the methodology, because you identify so readily with it ? Does it just seem 'right' to you on a very basic, fundamental level, and those resisting it are very fundamentally 'wrong' for stepping outside of it ?

Drummond

04-27-2019, 07:28 PM

Maybe he would like to learn from a fine university from his very own country (I think!)
https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immunity-how-does-it-work

H'm. Are those of you from the Left lining up to offer a defence of the term ? Usage, and application ?

Try to curb your enthusiasm, Pete ... if only a little.

Kathianne

04-27-2019, 07:46 PM

Meaning .. either be a part of the 'herd', or be thought less of if you fail to be a part of it ?

I think my previous reply defends my position in sufficient detail. In cases of life v death emergencies, compulsion can be defended. In matters falling short of this, I don't think compulsion is acceptable. So, choice is reasonable ... just so long as anyone exercising it is, in so doing (if I understand your approach sufficiently well), are thought much the less of, if they do ?

So, you immunise en masse. Result .. that what you've immunised against, over time, seems to have disappeared. Sooner or later, budget-conscious medical authorities would want to save money by not immunising against something that appears to have disappeared (for example, who, these days, would offer routine immunisation against plague ?).

Then, it re-emerges. Stronger ? Mutated ? An absence of exposure over enough time means, no defence.

Fair enough.

... so long as the action of centralised Governmental action doesn't of itself create a dependence on them, I agree ... establish a methodology for one sector of care, and will it remain limited in application ?

Not sure your understanding of the science of medicine is light years above my own. I remember 30+ years ago, searching out information prior to my first child being born. Yes, I was concerned about vaccines back even before the Lancet article. What I found in the library and from my doctor was more than enough to follow the suggested routines.

Indeed, it seems that immunizations to combat superbugs is one of the possible ways medical science is looking:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655118/

From my perusal it seems to be for the very reason that mutations haven't appeared, even for tetanus, which has been one of the longest running vaccinations available.

Great minds: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/health/01smallpox.html

...

But as a historian, I found it even more bewildering to hear speakers claim that government-sponsored vaccines were a violation of the founding fathers’ design.
It is true that in their time there was no such thing as safe, standardized immunization. But even then, inoculation was used to quell smallpox, the deadliest scourge of the day. Such preventive public health measures framed the early days of our nation as tightly as the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

John Adams was inoculated in 1764. Twelve years later, while he was in Philadelphia declaring American independence, his wife and children were inoculated as an epidemic raged in Boston. Gen. George Washington ordered his soldiers to be inoculated in 1777 because more men were falling to smallpox than to Redcoat muskets.
Thomas Jefferson, who avidly followed the scientific literature on the subject, inoculated himself and his children in 1782.

...

But the most eloquent advocate of smallpox inoculation was
Benjamin Franklin.In 1721, the Puritan minister Cotton Mather promoted inoculation in partnership with a Boston physician named Zabdiel Boylston, who risked life and limb by inoculating his children, his black servants and many of his patients.
Among those opposing Mather’s efforts was Franklin’s brother James, the contrarian publisher of The New England Courant. Aside from the inherent danger of the procedure, James Franklin argued that religious zealots had no business practicing medicine. He was hardly alone; many colonists considered inoculation a breach of the Sixth Commandment (“Thou shalt not kill”).
Inoculation involved lancing open a wound and implanting dried scabs or fresh pus containing variola (the virus that causes smallpox) under the skin of a healthy, uninfected person. Said to have originated in China, it was commonly practiced across the Far East and the Ottoman Empire.
The procedure typically caused a milder form of smallpox and conferred lifelong immunity. Still, many people became ill from it, and not a few died. Moreover, it was feared that the inoculated would infect others.
Yet after an initial silence (perhaps out of fear of enraging his older brother), Benjamin Franklin became one of the colonies’ leading proponents of inoculation, trumpeting his advocacy in the pages of his own newspaper, The Pennsylvania Gazette.

...

Inoculation was eventually replaced by the far safer method of vaccination, which uses a milder virus to induce immunity. An English country doctor named Edward Jenner made this discovery in 1796 after noting that local milkmaids who contracted the annoying but harmless cowpox infection on their hands remained healthy during lethal smallpox epidemics.
Jenner’s vaccination soon became the major means of preventing smallpox. In 1801 President Thomas Jefferson declared vaccination one of the nation’s first public health priorities. Two years later, he instructed
Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to take vaccine on their expedition to the Pacific.

...

KarlMarx

04-27-2019, 08:55 PM

Elessar

04-27-2019, 10:34 PM

Let's put it all down in 'brass tacks'.

I am no doctor but learned over the years that each individual has certain levels of immunity.
I do not get "Flu", but the person next to me might be susceptible to all strains.

So if it is wise to inoculate kids exposed to others that might carry a certain 'bug',
what is the harm? Kids at an early age need to be vaccinated. They might get a
mild reaction, but that is the parents and doctors responsibility to monitor.
It is NOT the public opinion to monitor any of that.

Kathianne

04-28-2019, 04:56 AM

Drummond

04-28-2019, 02:05 PM

It comes down to this

Do I have the right to endanger the public well being? That is, do I have the right to act in such a way that endangers the life, property, and safety of others? The answer is clearly Â“noÂ” and there are many laws on the books that protect us from such actions.

For instance, I have the right to private property, but I do not have the right to build a bonfire on my property during a severe drought when there is a good chance I can start a wildfire that will burn down my neighborÂ’s house

I have the right to free speech but I do not have the right to shout Â“FIRE!!Â” in a crowded theater.

I see vaccinations as one of these. By not being vaccinated against diseases like the measles (which can be fatal to adults), I am acting in such a way that endangers the life, or property, or safety of my neighbor and the public in general.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see your argument.

However .. my concern is with the liberties that a heavy-handed authoritative body, such as central Government, or even local Government, can take -- all 'for the greater good'. At least, that's how it'd be argued, repeatedly.

A Socialist-run Government can be expected to put 'the masses' before 'the individuals' in as many cases as they can get away with.

There are two stages to this:

1. Convince the vast majority of people to adopt 'preferred' parameters as to what's the correct social attitude to take, then, to translate it into standards they'll be persuaded to agree to in real terms. The powers that can be adopted, and the latitude to employ them, for example. What constitutes 'social risk', requiring authoritative intervention. What individuals must be expected - on pain of being called 'antisocial' if those individuals refuse - to declare they'll accept without question.

2. Pass laws enshrining (mandating) the unquestioned compulsion of the population to obey all measures the authority in question sees fit to implement.

Our own Socialists (and unfortunately, our Conservatives feel themselves so hamstrung in this as to see the need to carry on with this task, such are social pressures here !!) have applied all this to the matter of organ donation. Previously, the individual had to volunteer to donate organs after death, for transplant purposes ... donors carried 'donor cards' for the purpose.

Then, Socialists intervened ... turning this whole scheme on its head.

Wales has its own devolved 'Government' (with limited powers ... Westminster still dominates on many matters). That devolved Government has been Socialist-led for a long time. Their Administration introduced a 'Presumed Consent' Bill, where Welsh citizens, at time of death, are automatically presumed to have given consent to organ donation UNLESS proof is forthcoming to say otherwise.

How does this work out, in the case of no family members who can say what the 'donor' wishes would've been ? Or where the dead body couldn't be identified ? As far as I know, presumption of consent wins out as the automatic default.

The argument the Socialists put forward was that greater organ donation was badly needed to meet demand. They embarked on a media campaign to persuade people of that. The 'Presumed Consent' law was passed, and has been law for the past couple of years. The Greater Good needed to be served !

Well, now -- England may well follow suit before long. The debate hasn't been had yet, but with its successful acceptance in Wales, the outcome is highly predictable. The social precedent has been set, has been successfully applied, without significant opposition. Acceptance is there for all to see ... job done !!

So:

1. Contempt for individual rights, where 'for the greater good', a person's body becomes raw material for The State .. this is mooted.

2. People are persuaded that 'for the greater good', it's essentially an antisocial act to refuse, or object to, the change to 'Presumed Consent'

3. The law is introduced, the precedent set in stone .. AND .. the principle of 'greater good overriding individual rights' is one taken on board as a yardstick for future such abuses of other types !!

See where I'm going with this ? The more people abdicate their individual rights 'FOR THE GREATER GOOD', the greater will be the pressures, and the ease by which it can be managed, to do it again and again. There'll be a slippery slope along which, in time, all will be forced to travel, because social pressures (suitably orchestrated, of course) increasingly demand it.

So, folks. I suggest that all who happily cry 'It must be done for the greater good' are enabling a process whereby individual rights will be steadily and increasingly eroded, over time ....

... AND, HEYY ... YOUR SOCIALISTS WILL LOVE YOU FOR IT !!!! .....

Drummond

04-28-2019, 02:23 PM

Kathianne

04-28-2019, 05:22 PM

To be clear, then: what's your recommendation, in terms of what should actually happen ??

As stated, commonsense should dictate the immunizations-but there are enough of the selfish willing to risk the most vulnerable for their own wishes. The only time there is a lament is when one of their precious ones fall to the disease.

Thus the form most governments have taken, "Keep your choice, but not in public," has been the least restrictive. If the numbers of victims of measles and mumps grow much more, it will be more heavy handed.

I am much more concerned about attacks on the first and second amendments than on mandatory vaccination laws.

Kathianne

04-28-2019, 05:35 PM

Just slightly OT:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/the-antibiotics-industry-is-broken-but-theres-a-fix/

The antibiotics industry is broken—but there’s a fixAttempts to develop new antibiotics are failing because the projects aren't profitable.MARYN MCKENNA, WIRED.COM - 4/27/2019, 4:30 AM

...

STTAB

04-29-2019, 10:07 AM

STTAB

04-29-2019, 10:12 AM

Exactly. Should we need 'laws' to basically force people not to be fools? No. But it seems there are some that will not do what is right, unless there are laws. Still there are those that in spite of the law will put force their 'exceptions' to the point where the government at the local level at least, will become very strong armed. The 'greater good' and all.

Sadly, yes we need laws to at least somewhat help people from being fools. Arkansas last year passed a law stating that it is now illegal to smoke in a car if you have children in the vehicle with you, for example. Now any fucking fool realizes that you are putting children at risk if you are smoking in a confined space like a car with them in it, and you would think 99.9% of smokers would say "hey maybe I won't do that" without a law, but you can guarantee that a law wasn't passed because .1% of smokers were smoking with children in the car. The number was without question much higher than that.

You have to be pretty damn dumb to either smoke with your kids in the car with you, or to forego vaccinations against crippling diseases. Unfortunately a large percentage of the population is very dumb.

Drummond

04-29-2019, 02:50 PM

As stated, commonsense should dictate the immunizations-but there are enough of the selfish willing to risk the most vulnerable for their own wishes. The only time there is a lament is when one of their precious ones fall to the disease.

Thus the form most governments have taken, "Keep your choice, but not in public," has been the least restrictive. If the numbers of victims of measles and mumps grow much more, it will be more heavy handed.

I am much more concerned about attacks on the first and second amendments than on mandatory vaccination laws.

Try comparing 'commonsense' between a Left-leaning mindset, and a Right-leaning one. Do you seriously think that there'd be less than massive differences between the two ?

The approach of the Left has always been to not only be ruled by dogma, but to then insist that everybody else sees things as they do. They get that power by fostering the 'we must always put the masses before the individual' psychology, making sure that everyone sees that as their own preference. What concerns me is that, the more citizens argue for authoritative interventions, the more it'll be abused. Who's to say that the mood of your country won't turn into an acceptance of the abandonment of free will itself, if taken far enough ?

I'm not against mass immunisations, IF the need for them exists, such as if a national emergency requires it. I am against such measures being taken for dogmatic purposes, a product of a 'nanny State' outlook, where acceptance of power wielded 'for the greater good' becomes an inviolable norm, where the individual is branded - shall we say - 'selfish' - for resisting a 'greater good' diktat.

Who thinks that's wrong, that I'm 'a fool' for thinking as I do ? Because, in the country I live in, there are plenty who see people as 'fools' if they resist the State's insistence upon organ plundering being a State 'default', in law, after death. They argue that people have a right to such plentiful supplies of organs for organ transplants that it's 'right' for dead bodies to become raw material owned by the authorities, for their use, as they see fit. YES, an individual can successfully resist that plundering, IF steps are taken to record that wish. But before, the automatic default was precisely the opposite, as, currently, it is in your country.

But, heyy ... what's a bit of body desecration, if it serves 'the greater good' ... eh ?

I also believe, though, that Mankind overly sanitises its environment, reducing exposure to certain bacterias and diseases. That this damages the immune system's ability to cope certainly has been (as I've shown in a previous post) a proven, historic, fact.

What's been the modern medical world's answer ? Overuse of antibiotics. How's that working out ?

Try telling any of that to a Leftie, though ... if it conflicts with prevailing dogma, trying would swiftly become an exercise in futility.

So I argue (pointlessly ?) that the bigger issue really involved is whether the masses will be so completely persuaded to adopt the 'greater good' imperative, that whenever it's cited, individual free will is forever sacrificed to it. Because if that happens, one day we'll all wake up and suddenly realise that freely held opinions MUST be in lockstep with your masters ... 'or else' .....

Drummond

04-29-2019, 03:07 PM

Sadly, yes we need laws to at least somewhat help people from being fools. Arkansas last year passed a law stating that it is now illegal to smoke in a car if you have children in the vehicle with you, for example. Now any fucking fool realizes that you are putting children at risk if you are smoking in a confined space like a car with them in it, and you would think 99.9% of smokers would say "hey maybe I won't do that" without a law, but you can guarantee that a law wasn't passed because .1% of smokers were smoking with children in the car. The number was without question much higher than that.

You have to be pretty damn dumb to either smoke with your kids in the car with you, or to forego vaccinations against crippling diseases. Unfortunately a large percentage of the population is very dumb.

On the face of it, your argument makes a lot of sense. But, I'd argue this ... decades ago, such laws didn't exist. Smoking in a confined space (e.g a car) with children present, was not legislated against. It happened. Quite a lot, I think.

So, I ask: what statistics exist to prove that those children present, actually DID have their health damaged because of it ? Do we know of real numbers of blighted lives, this proven to be because of that specific cause ? If we don't have that information, why not ?

You see, I'm wondering if the threat has been exaggerated so that those able to wield power persuade the general population to take on board greater restrictions on their freedom, as an end in itself. To help the psychology along of near-automatic deference to 'better minds', all done 'for the greater good'.

I'd rather not march to the insisted-upon drumbeat of such psychology-wielding 'masters'. I dare to be an individual, who ... yes ... questions authority, if I feel there's enough reason to.

Naughty ol' me.

Drummond

04-29-2019, 08:29 PM

Kathianne

04-30-2019, 03:51 AM

We've had it quoted to us that 99 percent of people get vaccinated (an American statistic, no doubt, but let's accept it as a good overall guideline across the West (?)).

Well, now. Add to that, from the remaining 1 percent, those who are either never exposed to a disease such as measles, &/or, whose immune systems cope well enough to exposure (such as myself) to not be susceptible to it anyway (as I said, nobody's ever vaccinated me against anything, and I'm doing just fine without them).

Add to this the fact that such mass immunisations have been conducted over decades ... generations, even. SO .... with that tiny, tiny percentage of the remainder out there ... how do they retain the means to start 'alarming outbreaks', today ? You'd think that even with measles running rampant in the environment ... you'd barely notice its effect in any community.

It's not as though we're talking about a disease carrying a high mortality rate, in any case.

No. I believe authorities press the panic button, insist upon programs of mass vaccination, (a) because they CAN, and (b) because such an exercise reinforces the psychological imperative of 'greater good before individual thought or opinion' in everybody. It's a power play, a means to an end, in itself. To push a political correctness imperative, one that says 'YOUR AUTHORITIES KNOW BEST. LEARN THAT, DON'T EVER QUESTION THEIR WISDOM ...

.... By Order ....

Be concerned about Amendment rights, Kathianne. But don't think there aren't other liberties' threats out there, not deserving of an awareness of them.

Don't know where you've been, in real life or in this thread from the start. In certain parts of the US MMR participation has fallen below the needed 95% for herd immunity regarding measles. In a few areas it's fallen below the 85% needed for mumps protection. Thus the outbreaks. What did you think we were talking about?

STTAB

04-30-2019, 07:34 AM

Abbey Marie

04-30-2019, 07:58 AM

Noir

04-30-2019, 08:40 AM

Smoking in a confined space (e.g a car) with children present, was not legislated against. It happened. Quite a lot, I think.

So, I ask: what statistics exist to prove that those children present, actually DID have their health damaged because of it ? Do we know of real numbers of blighted lives, this proven to be because of that specific cause?

Bloody hell.
Your posts in this thread have been impressively poor Drummond.
A shame for sure.

STTAB

04-30-2019, 08:43 AM

I am all for freedom from government. But if we choose to live in a society, communally if you will, we must follow some rules that are for “the greater good”, which may not cater to our individual preferences. It seems to me that protection, whether it be from violence, natural disasters, or disease, is the most obvious “greater good”.
It’s really that simple.

That is actually the true purpose of government . To provide for the greater good, and punish those who would act against that greater good.

Just as a quick example. Speeding is against the law for one reason and one reason only. Speeding causes accidents. Therefor the government regulates the speed limits and punishes those who don't follow them. Sure , in a perfect society no one one would speed and thus we wouldn't need such a law, but we don't live in a perfect world, so government.....

This is the concept that really pisses me off at Democrats right now. There is NO argument that our illegal immigration problem right now is bad for the greater good of this country and yet they don't even care when the greater good of OUR people is supposed to be their number one reason for existing They don't exist to make things better for Guatemalans. they exist to make things better for AMERICANS

Drummond

04-30-2019, 10:10 AM

Bloody hell.
Your posts in this thread have been impressively poor Drummond.
A shame for sure.

'Oh dear. How sad .. never mind !!'

Noir, I know I've got you on the ropes, when all you can post to me is a denigratory comment, with no additional substance added.

But I can congratulate you, it seems. The contributions to this thread, mine notwithstanding, must - of course ! - be very much to your liking. I tell you: I find it appalling that so much faith is placed, even among Conservative thinkers here, in their Government.

Seems to me that your ideological counterparts in the US, Noir, have all the opportunity they need, should they ever get to power (as surely they will, sooner or later), to 'macro-manage' the opinions of their population, on the basis that anything can be excused, anything can be approved of, just so long as the basis for it is reputedly 'for the greater good'.

America's Left has its psychological leverage, all ready-prepared, just waiting for their exploitation of it. I'm sure they'll use it to the hilt.

Drummond

04-30-2019, 11:28 AM

That is actually the true purpose of government . To provide for the greater good, and punish those who would act against that greater good.

Just as a quick example. Speeding is against the law for one reason and one reason only. Speeding causes accidents. Therefor the government regulates the speed limits and punishes those who don't follow them. Sure , in a perfect society no one one would speed and thus we wouldn't need such a law, but we don't live in a perfect world, so government.....

This is the concept that really pisses me off at Democrats right now. There is NO argument that our illegal immigration problem right now is bad for the greater good of this country and yet they don't even care when the greater good of OUR people is supposed to be their number one reason for existing They don't exist to make things better for Guatemalans. they exist to make things better for AMERICANS

I actually agree with you. Government DOES exist to serve the greater good. I've no quarrel with that whatever.

But this doesn't address the overall point I've tried (and apparently failed) to make in this thread.

Government exists to serve The People. That's to say .. to serve THEIR best interests. Nobody can have good cause to quarrel with actions taken by authorities such as Government, IF the underlying direction of purpose is to SERVE people and their best interests.

Trouble is ... that ... there are those who'll use the process of authority to serve an agenda. Not the Peoples' agenda ... but, the agenda, aspirations, objectives, of those who are wielding the power. Let the Left in, and they'll play 'The Greater Good' as an excuse for all the power-leverage they can contrive. Convince everybody that The Greater Good justifies all that THEY want to achieve, and - it seems - the Left have a ready-made, fully pre-prepared, level of psychological aquiescence already instilled in people to, effectively, RULE them.

I've given an example of a change in my society that I regard as obscene (emanating from the Left, but of course !) ... that of harvesting organs from dead bodies on the basis of a State-legislated 'Presumed Consent' law, this entirely flipping the principle of organ donation to make it the exact opposite of what it was. There are plenty of people who'd argue that The Greater Good is served by giving authorities such power, and certainly, that is the much-vaunted official basis for it. So ... I must ask: how far is TOO far, when citing 'The Greater Good' as an excuse for foisting ideas and actions upon people ?

As I say: 'there are those who'll use the process of authority to serve an agenda'. With a psychology ready-primed in people to defer to actions taken in the name of 'The Greater Good', well ... such people have got it made. No level of atrocity is beyond reach, just so long as acceptance of it will happen, by accepting The Greater Good as an excuse for it.

But, what the hell. I'm getting the message loud and clear that Americans, no matter what they SAY their regard for individual liberty 'is', will happily sit back and watch liberty be eroded away, by opportunists ... just so long as the excuse for it seems acceptable to them.

God help you.

On the bright side ... you've all made Noir's day. Well done.

Drummond

04-30-2019, 11:49 AM

I am all for freedom from government. But if we choose to live in a society, communally if you will, we must follow some rules that are for “the greater good”, which may not cater to our individual preferences. It seems to me that protection, whether it be from violence, natural disasters, or disease, is the most obvious “greater good”.
It’s really that simple.

No, it's not that simple, Abbey. I wish it was. But, it isn't.

Your post, as commendable as the spirit of it is, nonetheless frightens me, because it tells me that you'll employ all the blind faith that your masters could ever wish you to do, apparently unquestioningly. You make this clear from your words:

'we must follow some rules that are for “the greater good”, which may not cater to our individual preferences.'

So, if they don't cater to individual preferences AT ALL ... still ... you'll accept everything, just so long as The Greater Good is touted as the reason behind whatever actions your authorities intend to do.

If the motivation behind Governmental actions is reputable, i.e is genuinely done to serve people and is devoid of ulterior motives ... fair enough ! Who could object to that ? BUT, the POINT is, that such a status quo is easily exploited by the unscrupulous.

I wonder how great the reliance was on the excuse of 'It's For The Greater Good', when Stalin perpetrated some of his own outrages on his people ?

... anyway. I don't think I'll convince anybody here of my point of view. Which is great news for your Left-leaning contributors here, because for once, they have everybody thinking as they'd like them to.

STTAB

04-30-2019, 11:59 AM

I actually agree with you. Government DOES exist to serve the greater good. I've no quarrel with that whatever.

But this doesn't address the overall point I've tried (and apparently failed) to make in this thread.

Government exists to serve The People. That's to say .. to serve THEIR best interests. Nobody can have good cause to quarrel with actions taken by authorities such as Government, IF the underlying direction of purpose is to SERVE people and their best interests.

Trouble is ... that ... there are those who'll use the process of authority to serve an agenda. Not the Peoples' agenda ... but, the agenda, aspirations, objectives, of those who are wielding the power. Let the Left in, and they'll play 'The Greater Good' as an excuse for all the power-leverage they can contrive. Convince everybody that The Greater Good justifies all that THEY want to achieve, and - it seems - the Left have a ready-made, fully pre-prepared, level of psychological aquiescence already instilled in people to, effectively, RULE them.

I've given an example of a change in my society that I regard as obscene (emanating from the Left, but of course !) ... that of harvesting organs from dead bodies on the basis of a State-legislated 'Presumed Consent' law, this entirely flipping the principle of organ donation to make it the exact opposite of what it was. There are plenty of people who'd argue that The Greater Good is served by giving authorities such power, and certainly, that is the much-vaunted official basis for it. So ... I must ask: how far is TOO far, when citing 'The Greater Good' as an excuse for foisting ideas and actions upon people ?

As I say: 'there are those who'll use the process of authority to serve an agenda'. With a psychology ready-primed in people to defer to actions taken in the name of 'The Greater Good', well ... such people have got it made. No level of atrocity is beyond reach, just so long as acceptance of it will happen, by accepting The Greater Good as an excuse for it.

But, what the hell. I'm getting the message loud and clear that Americans, no matter what they SAY their regard for individual liberty 'is', will happily sit back and watch liberty be eroded away, by opportunists ... just so long as the excuse for it seems acceptable to them.

God help you.

On the bright side ... you've all made Noir's day. Well done.

Again, your "liberty" ends where mine begins.

Are you free to just let your toilet drain into the street (well apparently you now are in San Fransisco, but that's disgusting?) Of course you are not, because doing so could affect your neighbors' health, and unfortunately we both know that if there weren't laws against it, there would be people who didn't give a shit about their own health let alone the health of their neighbors and would simply dump their shit out on the ground.

The ultimate freedom is afforded to those who live in a society that has rules and safety. How free are you if you don't leave your own home for fear of your children contracting Measles? Or of your wife being raped, or what have you? The answer, of course, is not very damn free.

Sometimes we have to slow our roll and remind ourselves that being for small government doesn't mean being for no government I damn sure want outside scientists agreeing with government conclusions that vaccines are safe and effective, but once that's done I want the government punishing those who act against what is safe for the larger part of society.

jimnyc

04-30-2019, 02:56 PM

On the face of it, your argument makes a lot of sense. But, I'd argue this ... decades ago, such laws didn't exist. Smoking in a confined space (e.g a car) with children present, was not legislated against. It happened. Quite a lot, I think.

So, I ask: what statistics exist to prove that those children present, actually DID have their health damaged because of it ? Do we know of real numbers of blighted lives, this proven to be because of that specific cause ? If we don't have that information, why not ?

You see, I'm wondering if the threat has been exaggerated so that those able to wield power persuade the general population to take on board greater restrictions on their freedom, as an end in itself. To help the psychology along of near-automatic deference to 'better minds', all done 'for the greater good'.

I'd rather not march to the insisted-upon drumbeat of such psychology-wielding 'masters'. I dare to be an individual, who ... yes ... questions authority, if I feel there's enough reason to.

Naughty ol' me.

I think you have someone like myself mis-read, perhaps others. I want NOTHING from the government as far as "demands" are made, and of course then laws made to cover those demands. In this case, there are still no demands or laws from our government. But the "laws" from the overall community tend to make such decisions. Those would be made with feedback from scientists and doctors from around the world, and based on facts and prior cases. With so much data in front of the community, from government and private resources, all come back mostly to the same conclusions. And we unfortunately have seen far too many results of case of folks with such ailments, infections or diseases and what happens when left unchecked.

I agree with you and applaud your efforts to question, especially when it comes to things coming from our government. I do the same and think 9 times and check endless sources before I make my own conclusions. And no matter which manner I look into the investigations concerning vaccines, it comes back to making the most sense in getting them - with both my own health, health of a child, and for my attachment to the community of which I am a part of. If they all get, and I don't - this will more than likely leave me potentially exposed, and potentially exposing others.

I was a smoker for longer than I care to admit, and was a smoker when they started limiting where and when we could smoke, and it sure did piss me off in many ways. But there was MORE than enough proof shown over the years to prove that second hand smoke was in fact dangerous to others, and especially in such confined spaces and towards someone like a baby, for example, who is least able to care for itself. I never took a single chance with my wife while she was pregnant nor while my baby was ever in the car. The proof given was at least enough to protect the un-protected. But for anyone else? Don't like it don't get in my car! LOL

But I still don't trust the government, and am not for making laws/rules/regulations in forcing the masses to do anything. To me this is more about the community and the health to all of us sharing it together. And in the case of vaccines, it made the most sense in getting them.

jimnyc

04-30-2019, 02:57 PM

While my actions DO help the greater good and they do help the herd immunity plan - I'm more about helping the greater Jim when it comes to preventing infection or disease taking off! :thumb:

Drummond

04-30-2019, 04:35 PM

Again, your "liberty" ends where mine begins.

Are you free to just let your toilet drain into the street (well apparently you now are in San Fransisco, but that's disgusting?) Of course you are not, because doing so could affect your neighbors' health, and unfortunately we both know that if there weren't laws against it, there would be people who didn't give a shit about their own health let alone the health of their neighbors and would simply dump their shit out on the ground.

The ultimate freedom is afforded to those who live in a society that has rules and safety. How free are you if you don't leave your own home for fear of your children contracting Measles? Or of your wife being raped, or what have you? The answer, of course, is not very damn free.

Sometimes we have to slow our roll and remind ourselves that being for small government doesn't mean being for no government I damn sure want outside scientists agreeing with government conclusions that vaccines are safe and effective, but once that's done I want the government punishing those who act against what is safe for the larger part of society.

We agree on more than you think. Nonetheless, you're missing my point.

I'm not against a Government doing what it must to maximise the health and wellbeing of citizens within the society they're charged with doing a duty to protect ! I'm not an 'anti-Government' voice, as such.

My questioning and objections (potential, or actual) have to do with (1) a Government which has an agenda which is self-serving, where their citing of 'The Greater Good' is simply a vehicle for the furthering of that agenda, and (2) the unthinking and unquestioning trust which people will have even if, or when, the evoking of the 'Greater Good' leads towards the unacceptable crossing beyond decency towards a greater means of public control. I've repeatedly cited a case in my own society where decency itself has been circumvented by use of a Greater Good 'justification', to show a misuse of power of the worst sort.

Frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself.

It's clear from peoples' responses here that they have a blind trust in any and all evoking your authorities will make of the 'Greater Good' argument. In most cases, I'm sure, Government acts honourably. My POINT is that a cynical, all-controlling power can expect to command the blind trust of those it rules, if they ever use that argument to persuade others to accept what might otherwise have been unthinkable. 'The Greater Good', used as a means to adjust thinking to a 'preferred' mindset, is just plain WRONG.

But I'm wasting my time on this thread.

You've seen how approving the Left-leaning contributors here are of the mood expressed here. Naturally so ! None on the Left will be less than happy to see hearts and minds governed, shaped, persuaded, dare I even say 'terraformed', to adopt THEIR worldview. Any device that'll achieve that end, is one they want to see succeed ....

... and individual human rights, be damned. Left-wing political thinking favours 'the masses', to the absolute detriment of the individual.

I see it in my society. At this rate, it won't be too long before this takes hold in yours. But such is the blind faith you exercise, that by the time you recognise the truth of that agenda in action, you'll realise just how far you've compromised core values.

There's no point in saying more. I am most disappointed by what I've learned here. At best, though, I'm sure Noir will now want to expand his Christmas card list.

He and his ideological equivalents here have won (or been handed) a victory, of sorts, here today. They will know that a future Socialist Administration can achieve much of what they'd plan. Conditions are ripe for it.

Drummond

04-30-2019, 04:37 PM

While my actions DO help the greater good and they do help the herd immunity plan - I'm more about helping the greater Jim when it comes to preventing infection or disease taking off! :thumb:

Naturally you are. Naturally, we all are.

But blind trust is exploitable.

Kathianne

04-30-2019, 08:52 PM

Drummond

04-30-2019, 10:24 PM

I think if anyone wishes to go to the OP or the post that I updated with a few years later, you'll find my intent with this thread was NOT to promote government intrusion, but rather to bring light on the idiots who reside side-by-side in this world.

We in the US and those on the board in mainly Western Europe are fortunate that we have vaccines readily available, to the rich and poor. Most of the world would be thrilled with the chance to make their children's lives just a bit more likely to be long. They are not lucky enough to have a choice to vaccinate or not, unless missionaries or volunteer health workers come to call.

We on the other hand live long lives in the main, most having been immunized at the proper ages and having good diets with nearly any foods we wish. We have central heating and most central air. Clothing appropriate for the weather. We 'nurture' most of our 'children' into their 20's and some into their 30's.

After decades of 'childhood illness' becoming nearly non-existent, one crack-pot medical article is allowed to fester into a wave of fear and selfishness having convinced many that they needn't have their children exposed to any 'possible' side effects. Without 100% guarantee that there will be none, they choose to go with the exceptions possible.

Now there are infants and very sick children who were not able to be vaccinated that are no longer herd protected. That is wrong, one can even see it being criminally wrong.

What a wonderful picture you paint, Kathianne. I'm sorry to see that you won't look beneath the surface, and see the potential for exploitation.

OK, then. I'll make (pointlessly, of course) two points in reply.

One is yet another regurgitation of my previous one, looked at using something of the upbeat viewpoint you yourself want to promote.

So, OK. 'We' in Wales, UK, decided that the availability of organ donation was failing to reach an optimum level. How to better that, 'for the greater good' ... ?

Our Lefties had an idea about that, one befitting their outlook when it comes to humanity. They decided that the status quo, where people were free, as they freely chose, to donate organs after death, was too limiting. The form of choice employed was too greatly under the control of the individual.

This had to be stopped.

Of course it did !

So, it was.

The Welsh Government took over. After a little public debate (remarkably little, come to think of it), they decreed that the whole system had to be completely reversed. Instead of active choice from the individual, 'Presumed Consent' to donate became the law. Under it, organ donation, organ 'grabs', were the automatic default UNLESS an individual FENDED IT OFF by officially registering personal opposition to it.

Many people just wouldn't bother, which was great news to the Left wing Administration. There'd also be cases where people weren't readily identifiable, but who provided an ideal tissue match for someone needing an organ. A kidney, a liver ? Fine. Plunder away, because a Leftie authority has the perfect justification: it's All For The Greater Good.

It's a classic example of medical need defying sheer decency. But, never mind. The Greater Good is served. So, that's fine. Lives saved ? Maybe so ! To hell with the individual. But, The Greater Good is served.

Whoopee.

Find me a Leftie who'd care a jot about desecration, Kathianne, or even who'll have a nodding acquaintance with the concept .. you'll fail. The Greater Good is all. It is DECREED. So, that's just wonderful.

Don't you agree ? The prevailing Governmental authority is happy with its Presumed Consent legislation. Many citizens would mirror that contentment. Overlook the high proportion who'd happen to be Lefties. All-importantly: The Greater Good is served.

Let me borrow a little from your own wording. Decades of crackpot thinking allowed people to think that THEIR bodies were, inviolably, THEIRS. No more, though. Upon death, they become fodder for the State. But no matter. Our Left have fixed that old, 'crackpot' thinking. The Greater Good is now served.

Isn't it wonderful ? Inspiring, even ?

I've illustrated to you, previously, that Europeans have been historically proven to have greater capacity for disease resistance, IF their immune systems have exposure to an environment in which a countering resistance to present organisms can be maintained. Shall I post a link to the post in question, or, would you just disregard my evidence again ?

In the case of virulent pandemics, plague, bird flu ... the really dangerous pathogens out there ... naturally, I'm all in favour of mass immunisations. Find me any of my wording where I've said otherwise ! Where minor maladies are concerned, though .. it's all reduced to a comparative luxury.

HOWEVER ... I will agree that even those immunisations serve a vital purpose. It may not be the one you'd think of, but trust me, the Left think it to be absolutely vital.

I'm talking about a culture of dependence. Of trust. Of insisting that blind trust towards, and satisfaction with, The Almighty Benevolent State, is so promoted and so rammed down peoples' throats that, ultimately, dependence and trust is always unwavering.

So, tell me this. Why is the British NHS so revered ? By criteria promoted on this thread, why wouldn't it be ? The NHS is the dominant healthcare system here, having no serious rivals capable of matching its scope. Why not trust it ? The Brits do !! Any politician fighting the NHS here commits political suicide.

There have been MRSA outbreaks, C-Difficile outbreaks, ditto. Mid Staffordshire Health trust presided over a regime leading to hundreds of needless deaths. A 'N.I.C.E' board regularly meets to discuss funding of new, sometime lifesaving, drug treatments to be adopted, or not, by the NHS. Many get approval. Some do not, on grounds of cost.

But, never mind. All this time, The Greater Good is served. The taxpayer can be saved from costly treatment funding, but that's arguably OK, because The Greater Good is still served.

Wallets are happier, you see.

Reverence of our NHS is near-universal ... ask Noir, if you don't believe me. No matter what their failings, respect for the NHS is limitless, unfailing.

Why ?

Because our long-crafted culture of dependence absolutely insists upon it. No matter what the failings, respect and acceptance is boundless for the NHS. People see the Greater Good imperative, and even in the midst of its sometimes catastrophic failures, STILL, people only see The Greater Good in it all.

Political correctness can literally shape minds, remove all objectivity. The rights of the individual recede to utter insignificance in the face of it all.

Try getting Noir to show a lack of support for our NHS. You'll fail. He's a Left winger, so, he'll be wedded to support for it.

But then ... people just see what they're told to see, because, after all, The Greater Good is 'served'. The power of a mantra, eh ? So, that's OK ... guaranteed.

... Yes ?

So, OK. Who's for enhanced Obamacare on this board ? Come on. Don't be shy .....

Abbey Marie

04-30-2019, 11:40 PM

STTAB

05-01-2019, 08:52 AM

We agree on more than you think. Nonetheless, you're missing my point.

I'm not against a Government doing what it must to maximise the health and wellbeing of citizens within the society they're charged with doing a duty to protect ! I'm not an 'anti-Government' voice, as such.

My questioning and objections (potential, or actual) have to do with (1) a Government which has an agenda which is self-serving, where their citing of 'The Greater Good' is simply a vehicle for the furthering of that agenda, and (2) the unthinking and unquestioning trust which people will have even if, or when, the evoking of the 'Greater Good' leads towards the unacceptable crossing beyond decency towards a greater means of public control. I've repeatedly cited a case in my own society where decency itself has been circumvented by use of a Greater Good 'justification', to show a misuse of power of the worst sort.

Frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself.

It's clear from peoples' responses here that they have a blind trust in any and all evoking your authorities will make of the 'Greater Good' argument. In most cases, I'm sure, Government acts honourably. My POINT is that a cynical, all-controlling power can expect to command the blind trust of those it rules, if they ever use that argument to persuade others to accept what might otherwise have been unthinkable. 'The Greater Good', used as a means to adjust thinking to a 'preferred' mindset, is just plain WRONG.

But I'm wasting my time on this thread.

You've seen how approving the Left-leaning contributors here are of the mood expressed here. Naturally so ! None on the Left will be less than happy to see hearts and minds governed, shaped, persuaded, dare I even say 'terraformed', to adopt THEIR worldview. Any device that'll achieve that end, is one they want to see succeed ....

... and individual human rights, be damned. Left-wing political thinking favours 'the masses', to the absolute detriment of the individual.

I see it in my society. At this rate, it won't be too long before this takes hold in yours. But such is the blind faith you exercise, that by the time you recognise the truth of that agenda in action, you'll realise just how far you've compromised core values.

There's no point in saying more. I am most disappointed by what I've learned here. At best, though, I'm sure Noir will now want to expand his Christmas card list.

He and his ideological equivalents here have won (or been handed) a victory, of sorts, here today. They will know that a future Socialist Administration can achieve much of what they'd plan. Conditions are ripe for it.

You're misreading or only seeing what you want to see my friend. I have made it clear, Katherinne has made it clear, Abbey has made it clear, Jimmy has made it clear , etc etc etc NO ONE posting here has blind faith in the government.

Let me give you a related example. Gun laws. Now before you scoff hear me out on how the issues are related.

The government tells us time and time again that restrictive gun laws are best for society as a whole. Under YOUR theory Jimmy, and Kath, and Abbey, and I would all applaud the government taking away gun and agree yes guns need to be taken for the greater good, but we don't because we don't trust the government and unlike with vaccines all the data and all the non government studies prove conclusively that taking guns from law abiding citizens does not lower the crime rate at all. Whereas with vaccines, we have seen independent study after independent study going back DECADES that prove that vaccines are safe and effective.

That's not us trusting the government, that's us trusting science and then calling on the government to enforce laws that prevent others from ignoring science when doing so would endanger others. That's exactly the same reason, for example, that it's illegal to just dump your raw sewage in the local river. SCIENCE proves that doing so isn't so good for your neighbors. So we have called on the government to punish anyone who would do such a thing. That isn't trusting the government, that's trusting the science that says poo water will kill you.

Drummond

05-01-2019, 09:43 AM

You're misreading or only seeing what you want to see my friend. I have made it clear, Katherinne has made it clear, Abbey has made it clear, Jimmy has made it clear , etc etc etc NO ONE posting here has blind faith in the government.

Let me give you a related example. Gun laws. Now before you scoff hear me out on how the issues are related.

The government tells us time and time again that restrictive gun laws are best for society as a whole. Under YOUR theory Jimmy, and Kath, and Abbey, and I would all applaud the government taking away gun and agree yes guns need to be taken for the greater good, but we don't because we don't trust the government and unlike with vaccines all the data and all the non government studies prove conclusively that taking guns from law abiding citizens does not lower the crime rate at all. Whereas with vaccines, we have seen independent study after independent study going back DECADES that prove that vaccines are safe and effective.

That's not us trusting the government, that's us trusting science and then calling on the government to enforce laws that prevent others from ignoring science when doing so would endanger others. That's exactly the same reason, for example, that it's illegal to just dump your raw sewage in the local river. SCIENCE proves that doing so isn't so good for your neighbors. So we have called on the government to punish anyone who would do such a thing. That isn't trusting the government, that's trusting the science that says poo water will kill you.

... H'm ! Congrats on a very good post. Good points.

OK, then. I hope, from what you say, that my conclusions about blind faith, gullibility, the Left having complicity ready-made for them, all this is in error. Your post gives me hope that I'm wrong. Yours is the spirit that I'd hope to see as true of all good Conservatives.

IS IT, actually, mirrored by others as a widespread truth ? I'm not sure I'm convinced, not from the other contributions I've seen here, certainly. I suspect that America's future will see a harder-Left Administration take over one day, and they'll do the job of terraforming opinion just as has already happened on my side of the Pond.

Over here, people will accept having their bodies plundered for 'spare parts', as if they have no other greater significance than a busted automobile. The Greater Good is ALL, you see. What's already true in Wales threatens to be implemented throughout the UK, and I think our people will meekly accept it.

They've been conditioned into it. Our Left has far more sway in opinions, here, has done far more to - yes - BRAINWASH people into taking on THEIR worldview and sensiblities than I think most Americans could properly comprehend, or believe. The trouble is, it all has a sort of subliminal character to it. People think their values and beliefs are entirely their own, when the truth is, they've been dripfed them all over a period of many years, via the media.

Blind faith in what's done in the name of The Greater Good is what I think I've seen on this thread. The likes of Noir and Pete will be delighted by what they've seen here ... they couldn't ask for more.

But perhaps your last post will have Noir remove you from his Christmas card list, after all. Good for you ! I just hope that individualism hasn't been dying the death that other contributions here suggest to me might be the case.

Socialism is a pernicious, sneaky cancer. It best works by creeping up on you, working patiently to force opinion in gradual but increasing lockstep with it. I have a lingering, if much reduced, hope that Americans will have the spirit in them to put a stop to their games.

We'll see. But this thread reduces my hope that this is so.

Abbey Marie

05-01-2019, 09:49 AM

Drummond, I’ve seen at least 2 posts recently in this thread where you more than imply that many other posters here are liberal. I find it unreal that you would say that, given that the only liberal here anymore is Pete, and I’m not sure he’s even posting, and Noir maybe. He’s hard to categorize.
How is that unsubstantiated view working for you?

STTAB

05-01-2019, 09:50 AM

... H'm ! Congrats on a very good post. Good points.

OK, then. I hope, from what you say, that my conclusions about blind faith, gullibility, the Left having complicity ready-made for them, all this is in error. Your post gives me hope that I'm wrong. Yours is the spirit that I'd hope to see as true of all good Conservatives.

IS IT, actually, mirrored by others as a widespread truth ? I'm not sure I'm convinced, not from the other contributions I've seen here, certainly. I suspect that America's future will see a harder-Left Administration take over one day, and they'll do the job of terraforming opinion just as has already happened on my side of the Pond.

Over here, people will accept having their bodies plundered for 'spare parts', as if they have no other greater significance than a busted automobile. The Greater Good is ALL, you see. What's already true in Wales threatens to be implemented throughout the UK, and I think our people will meekly accept it.

They've been conditioned into it. Our Left has far more sway in opinions, here, has done far more to - yes - BRAINWASH people into taking on THEIR worldview and sensiblities than I think most Americans could properly comprehend, or believe. The trouble is, it all has a sort of subliminal character to it. People think their values and beliefs are entirely their own, when the truth is, they've been dripfed them all over a period of many years, via the media.

Blind faith in what's done in the name of The Greater Good is what I think I've seen on this thread. The likes of Noir and Pete will be delighted by what they've seen here ... they couldn't ask for more.

But perhaps your last post will have Noir remove you from his Christmas card list, after all. Good for you ! I just hope that individualism hasn't been dying the death that other contributions here suggest to me might be the case.

Socialism is a pernicious, sneaky cancer. It best works by creeping up on you, working patiently to force opinion in gradual but increasing lockstep with it. I have a lingering, if much reduced, hope that Americans will have the spirit in them to put a stop to their games.

We'll see. But this thread reduces my hope that this is so.

Again , I don't pretend that what I believe is what most believe. In fact the opposite, I believe most Americans are STUPID and just simply can't think and don't think, they are told to believe something and they believe it. I only speak for people who I KNOW think the way I do.

THAT , however, is an entirely different argument. I'm merely pointing out that when someone like me says "okay the government is doing the right thing here" on the very rare occasion that they are doing the right thing it isn't because we have blind faith in government, it's because on the very rare occasion we believe the government does the right thing, usually by accident, but still...

I'm pro SMALL government, which is not the same thing as saying NO government, and that means sometimes applauding a government which steps in and tells stupid people they can't do stupid things.

STTAB

05-01-2019, 09:53 AM

Drummond, I’ve seen at least 2 posts recently in this thread where you more than imply that many other posters here are liberal. I find it unreal that you would say that, given that the only liberal here anymore is Pete, and I’m not sure he’s even posting.
How is that unsubstantiated view working for you?

I recently had it out with 3 other posters here because they called me a liberal and I took umbrage and then they went off the rails. Isn't it strange how people can label people simply because they don't agree with them on every point. Being pro laws forcing vaccinations before kids can go to school isn't being a liberal LOL

Abbey Marie

05-01-2019, 09:57 AM

Drummond

05-01-2019, 09:57 AM

Let’s all stop following the traffic rules while we’re at it. Why should the government be allowed to makes rules and apply them to me? Plus I feel safer driving my own way, which includes not stopping for red lights or stop signs.

And I don’t care if you happen to be naively crossing with the green light at that moment. That’s your problem. What’s important to me is that I do what I think is safest for me, and I don’t let the government make me do otherwise.

Sounds good on the face of it Abbey.

But to what extent could any future Administration succeed in presenting a case to you that shifts you into a spirit of meek abeyance, where for the touted perception of The Greater Good being 'served', all manner of authoritarian pronouncements are enforced ? And in the enforcement of them, what social precedents might be set ?

I've shown you all, in this thread, how that could work, and what is already happening where I am. This SHOULD give food for thought, be a cautionary tale to be learned from.

But I haven't seen that here. My belief: one day, Pete and Noir's ideas of the way society should be run will be blindly accepted as reflecting inviolable principles.

Maybe, on that day, the true America, the one I want to believe in, will have died a death.

Abbey Marie

05-01-2019, 10:04 AM

Drummond

05-01-2019, 10:05 AM

I recently had it out with 3 other posters here because they called me a liberal and I took umbrage and then they went off the rails. Isn't it strange how people can label people simply because they don't agree with them on every point. Being pro laws forcing vaccinations before kids can go to school isn't being a liberal LOL

Believe me, I can relate to that !! I've been libelled here, myself, in times past. Not good. Not acceptable. Ever.

So long as people retain their own minds, don't allow themselves to be manipulated into changing their values, I'm happy. But you see, I KNOW what the unscrupulous can do, what they can achieve, if given the power to do it. I've seen it.

Blind faith in what authorities assure you is necessary for 'The Greater Good' is definitely one way it can be managed.

Anyway, thanks for your recent postings. I'm encouraged by them.

STTAB

05-01-2019, 10:05 AM

Sounds good on the face of it Abbey.

But to what extent could any future Administration succeed in presenting a case to you that shifts you into a spirit of meek abeyance, where for the touted perception of The Greater Good being 'served', all manner of authoritarian pronouncements are enforced ? And in the enforcement of them, what social precedents might be set ?

I've shown you all, in this thread, how that could work, and what is already happening where I am. This SHOULD give food for thought, be a cautionary tale to be learned from.

But I haven't seen that here. My belief: one day, Pete and Noir's ideas of the way society should be run will be blindly accepted as reflecting inviolable principles.

Maybe, on that day, the true America, the one I want to believe in, will have died a death.

There are zero situations in which I could see myself meekly and blindly accepting anything from anyone. I'm a living, breathing, THINKING person Drummond, AND I'm none too shy about having my opinion heard, or calling out those who are mindless drones. ON BOTH SIDES, because don't kid yourself Drummond there are good ideas on BOTH sides (less so from the left here recently but occasionally still) as there are bad ideas from both sides, and a person who always thinks "the right" is correct and "left is wrong" without carefully thinking out each position on its own merits is no smarter than the idiot who voted for Hillary Clinton believing she was an honest person. And that is probably why I don't make friends on message boards LOL I don't pick a side and then call everyone on the other side an idiot while defending even the dumbest of behaviors from "my side" and invariably that pisses people off. I mean even as you have done in this thread, we're having a good conversation but you still keep trying to bring it back around to "you're a liberal dupe" because in this one instance the government is actually doing what science says it ought do.

Drummond

05-01-2019, 10:07 AM

i truly do understand your fears. Europe is certainly looking like a mess, and we tend to catch up to you eventually. More later; about to see my doctor.

Best wishes, Abbey :salute:

Drummond

05-01-2019, 10:20 AM

There are zero situations in which I could see myself meekly and blindly accepting anything from anyone. I'm a living, breathing, THINKING person Drummond, AND I'm none too shy about having my opinion heard, or calling out those who are mindless drones. ON BOTH SIDES, because don't kid yourself Drummond there are good ideas on BOTH sides (less so from the left here recently but occasionally still) as there are bad ideas from both sides, and a person who always thinks "the right" is correct and "left is wrong" without carefully thinking out each position on its own merits is no smarter than the idiot who voted for Hillary Clinton believing she was an honest person. And that is probably why I don't make friends on message boards LOL I don't pick a side and then call everyone on the other side an idiot while defending even the dumbest of behaviors from "my side" and invariably that pisses people off. I mean even as you have done in this thread, we're having a good conversation but you still keep trying to bring it back around to "you're a liberal dupe" because in this one instance the government is actually doing what science says it ought do.

The danger is that a person might retain their values, but believe that there are times they can, even should be, overridden. Then, those 'exceptions' cease to be quite so exceptional. Then, one day, they're not exceptions at all, but an accepted standard.

Consider, in your 'sometimes the Left can be right' outlook, that it's what lies behind it that's important. The Left can indeed come up with what might be 'good' ideas, BUT, what ultimate agenda is served by them ? Accepting anything the Left suggests holds dangers, can facilitate the dripfeeding effect I've long been cautious about. Give ground on one issue ... what does it lead to ? What objective is being worked towards ?

The only safe and reasonable stance is to at least critically question anything and everything those on the Left come up with, or otherwise promote as a 'good' value. Fail in that, and the Left's work is done for them.

The Right doesn't hold any monopoly on what is 'good and right'. Of course not. But at least the spirit driving it is good and honest, has no ultimately perniciously controlling agenda driving it all. Individuals can BE such, be celebrated as such, in our worldview.

But not in the Left's worldview.

Left wing politics is a tyranny. I always hold that as the beginning-point for all my thinking. I advocate that approach as a good one for everyone to adopt.

STTAB

05-01-2019, 10:51 AM

The danger is that a person might retain their values, but believe that there are times they can, even should be, overridden. Then, those 'exceptions' cease to be quite so exceptional. Then, one day, they're not exceptions at all, but an accepted standard.

Consider, in your 'sometimes the Left can be right' outlook, that it's what lies behind it that's important. The Left can indeed come up with what might be 'good' ideas, BUT, what ultimate agenda is served by them ? Accepting anything the Left suggests holds dangers, can facilitate the dripfeeding effect I've long been cautious about. Give ground on one issue ... what does it lead to ? What objective is being worked towards ?

The only safe and reasonable stance is to at least critically question anything and everything those on the Left come up with, or otherwise promote as a 'good' value. Fail in that, and the Left's work is done for them.

The Right doesn't hold any monopoly on what is 'good and right'. Of course not. But at least the spirit driving it is good and honest, has no ultimately perniciously controlling agenda driving it all. Individuals can BE such, be celebrated as such, in our worldview.

But not in the Left's worldview.

Left wing politics is a tyranny. I always hold that as the beginning-point for all my thinking. I advocate that approach as a good one for everyone to adopt.

I'm gong to fundamentally disagree with you here sir.Now , the Democrats in elected office, you're damn right they care about NOTHING other than getting power and keeping power. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, etc etc all they care about is POWER . That's largely why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in fact , it was quite clear to most voters that she wanted to be President simply to be President, whereas Trump seemed like he wanted to be President to actually help people.

That being said, that doesn't translate to ALL Democrats and or all liberals. Are you REALLY going to tell me that after all these years of posting on this board with Noir you believe he's evil or doesn't have good intentions? I refuse to believe that. I believe he truly would like to make the world a better place. I simply disagree on his views of how to get there.

On the flip side, no not all conservatives are good people who simply want to make the world a better place. John McCain, the entire Bush family, Mitt Romney and quite a few others prove this.

There are good and bad people with good and bad intentions on both sides . Hell there are some idiotic "conservatives" right on this forum. You know who they are too.

Let's get more specific and pick a good topic that illustrates the stupidity on both sides. Let's pick the minimum wage.

On one side we have people arguing that we shouldn't have a minimum wage at all, or that if we do it should be right where it's at now, and on the other we have people saying the minimum wage should be $15-25 an hour. Two extremes that have shut down any reasonable dialogue and created an untenable situation. In this country we tried not having a minimum wage and it didn't work out so well for workers, and in fact it could be - and I will argue - that the boon time for companies in this country was the 1960s when the minimum wage was worth roughly 22% MORE than it is now. Hmm US companies were actually doing better when their employees were paid more. Those are facts.

But another fact is that if you tip the scale too far the other way , say going to $15-20 an hour , those very employees you were seeking to help would be hurt. This has also been proven to be a fact. Multiple studies have shown , raise the minimum wage some and things pretty much remain the status quo as far as inflation and work hours and employement levels, the only result is the desired one lower wage employees make more money. And at the same time, muliple studies prove conclusively that large minimum wage increases result in unemployment going up, hours going down, and inflation resulting in those same lower wage workers actually seeing a DECREASE in their pay

So, I ask you Drummond, why can't EITHER side acknowledge facts that prove their preconceived opinions wrong , and so if BOTH sides do that then we come to a reasonable solution of say a $12 an hour minimum wage (which by the way is equivalent to what the minimum wage was in this country in 1968) and actually fix a damn problem?

Do you see what I'm saying Drummond? Simply saying "nope the other side is completely wrong" without a single bit of introspection will always always result in nothing being fixed.

You're a married man aren't you ? Do you operate in that manner when you and your wife fight or argue? Does she? Of course not, because a marriage where one partner always thought they were right and the other always wrong would not last very long.

BTW Drummond I know I often just come across as a belligerent dickhead who likes to argue and call names on here but the reality is I have a Doctorate in History from the University of Arkansas and I can put together a pretty cognizant thought from time to time LOL

jimnyc

05-01-2019, 12:29 PM

What a wonderful picture you paint, Kathianne. I'm sorry to see that you won't look beneath the surface, and see the potential for exploitation.

OK, then. I'll make (pointlessly, of course) two points in reply.

One is yet another regurgitation of my previous one, looked at using something of the upbeat viewpoint you yourself want to promote.

So, OK. 'We' in Wales, UK, decided that the availability of organ donation was failing to reach an optimum level. How to better that, 'for the greater good' ... ?

Our Lefties had an idea about that, one befitting their outlook when it comes to humanity. They decided that the status quo, where people were free, as they freely chose, to donate organs after death, was too limiting. The form of choice employed was too greatly under the control of the individual.

This had to be stopped.

Of course it did !

So, it was.

The Welsh Government took over. After a little public debate (remarkably little, come to think of it), they decreed that the whole system had to be completely reversed. Instead of active choice from the individual, 'Presumed Consent' to donate became the law. Under it, organ donation, organ 'grabs', were the automatic default UNLESS an individual FENDED IT OFF by officially registering personal opposition to it.

Many people just wouldn't bother, which was great news to the Left wing Administration. There'd also be cases where people weren't readily identifiable, but who provided an ideal tissue match for someone needing an organ. A kidney, a liver ? Fine. Plunder away, because a Leftie authority has the perfect justification: it's All For The Greater Good.

It's a classic example of medical need defying sheer decency. But, never mind. The Greater Good is served. So, that's fine. Lives saved ? Maybe so ! To hell with the individual. But, The Greater Good is served.

Whoopee.

Find me a Leftie who'd care a jot about desecration, Kathianne, or even who'll have a nodding acquaintance with the concept .. you'll fail. The Greater Good is all. It is DECREED. So, that's just wonderful.

Don't you agree ? The prevailing Governmental authority is happy with its Presumed Consent legislation. Many citizens would mirror that contentment. Overlook the high proportion who'd happen to be Lefties. All-importantly: The Greater Good is served.

Let me borrow a little from your own wording. Decades of crackpot thinking allowed people to think that THEIR bodies were, inviolably, THEIRS. No more, though. Upon death, they become fodder for the State. But no matter. Our Left have fixed that old, 'crackpot' thinking. The Greater Good is now served.

Isn't it wonderful ? Inspiring, even ?

I've illustrated to you, previously, that Europeans have been historically proven to have greater capacity for disease resistance, IF their immune systems have exposure to an environment in which a countering resistance to present organisms can be maintained. Shall I post a link to the post in question, or, would you just disregard my evidence again ?

In the case of virulent pandemics, plague, bird flu ... the really dangerous pathogens out there ... naturally, I'm all in favour of mass immunisations. Find me any of my wording where I've said otherwise ! Where minor maladies are concerned, though .. it's all reduced to a comparative luxury.

HOWEVER ... I will agree that even those immunisations serve a vital purpose. It may not be the one you'd think of, but trust me, the Left think it to be absolutely vital.

I'm talking about a culture of dependence. Of trust. Of insisting that blind trust towards, and satisfaction with, The Almighty Benevolent State, is so promoted and so rammed down peoples' throats that, ultimately, dependence and trust is always unwavering.

So, tell me this. Why is the British NHS so revered ? By criteria promoted on this thread, why wouldn't it be ? The NHS is the dominant healthcare system here, having no serious rivals capable of matching its scope. Why not trust it ? The Brits do !! Any politician fighting the NHS here commits political suicide.

There have been MRSA outbreaks, C-Difficile outbreaks, ditto. Mid Staffordshire Health trust presided over a regime leading to hundreds of needless deaths. A 'N.I.C.E' board regularly meets to discuss funding of new, sometime lifesaving, drug treatments to be adopted, or not, by the NHS. Many get approval. Some do not, on grounds of cost.

But, never mind. All this time, The Greater Good is served. The taxpayer can be saved from costly treatment funding, but that's arguably OK, because The Greater Good is still served.

Wallets are happier, you see.

Reverence of our NHS is near-universal ... ask Noir, if you don't believe me. No matter what their failings, respect for the NHS is limitless, unfailing.

Why ?

Because our long-crafted culture of dependence absolutely insists upon it. No matter what the failings, respect and acceptance is boundless for the NHS. People see the Greater Good imperative, and even in the midst of its sometimes catastrophic failures, STILL, people only see The Greater Good in it all.

Political correctness can literally shape minds, remove all objectivity. The rights of the individual recede to utter insignificance in the face of it all.

Try getting Noir to show a lack of support for our NHS. You'll fail. He's a Left winger, so, he'll be wedded to support for it.

But then ... people just see what they're told to see, because, after all, The Greater Good is 'served'. The power of a mantra, eh ? So, that's OK ... guaranteed.

... Yes ?

So, OK. Who's for enhanced Obamacare on this board ? Come on. Don't be shy .....

Mr. Drummond, Kind Sir and with all due respect,

I am similar to the above in thinking. I am in NO WAY even remotely being a liberal. And if you read what I wrote, in no way am I going to blindly listen to our shitty government and do as they say. The things you state to beware of, what they will do and may do and all that stuff - I think folks here almost all agree with you, I know that I do for sure.

But my thinking here isn't what you think it is, that I'm somehow taking the word of the government and letting them dictate my or our lives. My decisions are based on years and years of medical research and facts, and certainly 30000000000000000% more from independent and private sources than any government personnel or sources.

I still detest liberals. I still have 100% distrust for our government. My ONLY concerns are that of my health, my families health, and knowing that the "greater good" mentality is what makes the community strong as a whole WITHOUT government shitheads help. This is simply a good medical decision that helps me and my family, of which I was 100% going to do to help all of us anyway - and then what we just did incidentally helps the greater good. That's the way I look at it anyway. Make any better sense?

Kathianne

05-01-2019, 02:26 PM

Drummond

05-01-2019, 05:48 PM

I'm gong to fundamentally disagree with you here sir.Now , the Democrats in elected office, you're damn right they care about NOTHING other than getting power and keeping power. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, etc etc all they care about is POWER . That's largely why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in fact , it was quite clear to most voters that she wanted to be President simply to be President, whereas Trump seemed like he wanted to be President to actually help people.

With all the text being posted, and my wanting to reply to all of it, posts threaten to become 'War & Peace' sized. Nobody's going to want to wade through interminably-long essays. So, I'll keep this relatively simple and bite-sized, if I can.

Some Democrats (and on my side, Labour Party candidates) will have different motivations behind what they do. Undoubtedly most crave power. Some crave it for themselves, and see the political vehicle or ideology they profess to be loyal to, just as a means to a selfish end. But others have an ideological vision, and crave power to insist it's implemented as fully as possible.

It happens to be the nature of Socialism that it satisfies both such mindsets and behaviours. The point is that, ultimately, Socialism is a means to apply power against everyone within its orbit. Power-hungry megalomaniacs find it useful. Those caring less about personal power, but the application of ultimate power over hearts and minds, most definitely can use it. Yes, its practitioners care about the power potential. They all want uber-control over 'the masses'.

That being said, that doesn't translate to ALL Democrats and or all liberals. Are you REALLY going to tell me that after all these years of posting on this board with Noir you believe he's evil or doesn't have good intentions? I refuse to believe that. I believe he truly would like to make the world a better place. I simply disagree on his views of how to get there.

They say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Well ... consider my example of reversed organ donation, which I've talked about several times already. Socialists over here might consider a society where its people give over their dead bodies to the plunder-hungry State something beautiful, because people are being helped out of it through a process of unselfish, sacrificial dedication to the welfare of 'the masses'.

People having a concept of desecration, though, or who are individualistic enough to believe that their bodies are THEIRS, over which they should have inalienable rights ... they would regard that example of 'Socialist beauty' with horror and disgust. As an outright evil.

What is good, though ? What is utter evil ? It depends on your point of view. If Noir does support the 'Presumed Consent' law, I doubt he does so because he's evil, but, some may consider his support for such a thing as an evil.

People can do evil by being misguided, and this doesn't make them evil as such. But, the evil done doesn't cease to be evil, just because it can be explained away in 'nice' and broadly acceptable, even attractive, terms.

On the flip side, no not all conservatives are good people who simply want to make the world a better place. John McCain, the entire Bush family, Mitt Romney and quite a few others prove this.

Sorry to hear this. For myself, I've nothing against any of those individuals. I'll just have to take your word on that one.

Let's get more specific and pick a good topic that illustrates the stupidity on both sides. Let's pick the minimum wage.

On one side we have people arguing that we shouldn't have a minimum wage at all, or that if we do it should be right where it's at now, and on the other we have people saying the minimum wage should be $15-25 an hour. Two extremes that have shut down any reasonable dialogue and created an untenable situation. In this country we tried not having a minimum wage and it didn't work out so well for workers, and in fact it could be - and I will argue - that the boon time for companies in this country was the 1960s when the minimum wage was worth roughly 22% MORE than it is now. Hmm US companies were actually doing better when their employees were paid more. Those are facts.

But another fact is that if you tip the scale too far the other way , say going to $15-20 an hour , those very employees you were seeking to help would be hurt. This has also been proven to be a fact. Multiple studies have shown , raise the minimum wage some and things pretty much remain the status quo as far as inflation and work hours and employement levels, the only result is the desired one lower wage employees make more money. And at the same time, muliple studies prove conclusively that large minimum wage increases result in unemployment going up, hours going down, and inflation resulting in those same lower wage workers actually seeing a DECREASE in their pay

So, I ask you Drummond, why can't EITHER side acknowledge facts that prove their preconceived opinions wrong , and so if BOTH sides do that then we come to a reasonable solution of say a $12 an hour minimum wage (which by the way is equivalent to what the minimum wage was in this country in 1968) and actually fix a damn problem?

All of this comes down to the simple issue of getting a balance right, and those who'll take one side over the other either exercise, or fail to, enough objectivity to correctly quantify matters. Is personal pride involved ? Maybe. Objectivity, and a certain measure of flexibility in judging rights v wrongs of this would solve the problem.

Ah, but people are people, subject to their personal flaws. Being 'evil' doesn't come into it, if dogmatic blindness and immovability, DEVOID of an overriding governing agenda, isn't a factor.

But perhaps stupidity, is.

Do you see what I'm saying Drummond? Simply saying "nope the other side is completely wrong" without a single bit of introspection will always always result in nothing being fixed.

This is all well and good. I think, though, that the deciding factor is whether a covert, unstated dedication to a self-serving pernicious agenda is a part of the mix. If it is, or could be, that is the problem.

Socialist imperatives most definitely qualify for such a description !!!

You're a married man aren't you ? Do you operate in that manner when you and your wife fight or argue? Does she? Of course not, because a marriage where one partner always thought they were right and the other always wrong would not last very long.

Actually, I'm not married (... & what wife would tolerate me, I wonder .. ?). :rolleyes::rolleyes:

BTW Drummond I know I often just come across as a belligerent dickhead who likes to argue and call names on here but the reality is I have a Doctorate in History from the University of Arkansas and I can put together a pretty cognizant thought from time to time LOL

Good for you.

The very best of us is open to covert, pernicious, agenda-driven manipulation. People forever alert to that danger protect themselves in the best way against Socialist manipulation. All I ask of anyone is that such an alertness is indulged in.

Drummond

05-01-2019, 06:11 PM

Mr. Drummond, Kind Sir and with all due respect,

I am similar to the above in thinking. I am in NO WAY even remotely being a liberal. And if you read what I wrote, in no way am I going to blindly listen to our shitty government and do as they say. The things you state to beware of, what they will do and may do and all that stuff - I think folks here almost all agree with you, I know that I do for sure.

But my thinking here isn't what you think it is, that I'm somehow taking the word of the government and letting them dictate my or our lives. My decisions are based on years and years of medical research and facts, and certainly 30000000000000000% more from independent and private sources than any government personnel or sources.

I still detest liberals. I still have 100% distrust for our government. My ONLY concerns are that of my health, my families health, and knowing that the "greater good" mentality is what makes the community strong as a whole WITHOUT government shitheads help. This is simply a good medical decision that helps me and my family, of which I was 100% going to do to help all of us anyway - and then what we just did incidentally helps the greater good. That's the way I look at it anyway. Make any better sense?

Perhaps you're over-complicating this.

People can be duped into thoughts and actions. It changes nothing of what they're sure of, about themselves. But people can be conned. People, especially over much time, can have their acceptance of what is or is not 'decent' or 'meritorious' tinkered with so that its application is altered, maybe reversed entirely. The 'Greater Good' imperative is superficially a good thing, and if a proponent of an action is persuasive and skilled enough, said person may convince others that even actions outrageous from decades ago are, today, entirely 'right' ... just because The Greater Good can be said to be 'served' out of it all.

Some of the most self-righteous 'Conservatives' in my society would, today, advocate outlooks and actions seen in past generations as utterly Socialistic and even nightmarish. For example (to change the direction meant for this thread utterly !!) we had a leader of our Conservative Party, passionately advocate for the acceptability of:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10730806/David-Cameron-welcomes-first-gay-marriages.html

David Cameron welcomes first gay marriages.

Prime Minister says change to the law on same-sex marriage is in keeping with Britain's proudest traditions - but poll suggests it will cost Tories votes.

Gay marriage will make British society stronger, David Cameron has insisted as an historic change to the meaning of matrimony comes into effect.

Mr Cameron said the introduction of same-sex marriage in England and Wales - after a debate which bitterly divided his own party and pitted church against state - was a tribute to “the sort of country we are”.

Writing in PinkNews, the gay and lesbian website, he said the redefinition of marriage was in keeping with Britain’s “proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth”.

But opponents of the change said it had “ripped up” the centuries-old understanding of marriage and divided the country.

We've had even Socialists, in times past, who've considered that to be too extreme. BUT ... over decades, it's become a cause that our Socialists have taken up, fought for, campaigned for, relentlessly.

Result ... a former leader of our CONSERVATIVE Party, utterly conned into believing that same sex marriages can be a CONSERVATIVE cause to support and fight for. He would argue that it was a human rights issue, absolutely deserving of support, because human rights initiatives follow, and serve ... what ?

See if you can guess.

Yes .... it can be argued to be a cause where respect for 'human rights' is .... serving .... THE GREATER GOOD !!!

That rings a bell ... wonder why ? Anyone ?

Tag a 'Greater Good' objective to utter reversals of outlook and acceptable standard, and you can achieve all manner of changes. By being duped, by being pressured. It's a means to an end.

It's one much favoured by Socialists. Sensibilities, standards, belief-systems, corrupted and inversed to a form conforming to Socialist diktat.

See ?

Proclamations of The Greater Good are open to question and doubt. Not if Socialists had their way, of course. But, nevertheless, they are.

Sometimes The Greater Good is a good thing, not deserving of question. Sometimes, it MUST be questioned. It all comes down to what we talk about.

But Socialists require that The Greater Good is a device whereby questioning is stifled. Their goal: automatic acceptance.

Drummond

05-01-2019, 06:26 PM

Jim, I made sense with what I wrote. Drummond just can’t stand that and falls back on calling me names. Like those that stabb had issues with, Drummond wants everyone in lockstep or sees the end of civilization in his mind.

Ah, Kathianne, how greatly you misinterpret me. You've shown me a great predisposition for doing that in the past.

You'll never concede that, but nonetheless, it's true.

I'm the opposite of anyone insisting that people fall in lockstep with me. I want people to question ... I want the very opposite of people slavishly loyal to control-devices which govern opinion or action. I've been arguing that line in detail for most of my posting in this thread.

'Do this for The Greater Good' is just such a control device. I much prefer that people don't fall for it as an unquestionable imperative.

See ?

Now ... interpret that if you really must, in a manner OTHER than the one I intend.

And, no. I still don't like being libelled.

jimnyc

05-01-2019, 06:46 PM

Perhaps you're over-complicating this.

People can be duped into thoughts and actions. It changes nothing of what they're sure of, about themselves. But people can be conned. People, especially over much time, can have their acceptance of what is or is not 'decent' or 'meritorious' tinkered with so that its application is altered, maybe reversed entirely. The 'Greater Good' imperative is superficially a good thing, and if a proponent of an action is persuasive and skilled enough, said person may convince others that even actions outrageous from decades ago are, today, entirely 'right' ... just because The Greater Good can be said to be 'served' out of it all.

Some of the most self-righteous 'Conservatives' in my society would, today, advocate outlooks and actions seen in past generations as utterly Socialistic and even nightmarish. For example (to change the direction meant for this thread utterly !!) we had a leader of our Conservative Party, passionately advocate for the acceptability of:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10730806/David-Cameron-welcomes-first-gay-marriages.html

We've had even Socialists, in times past, who've considered that to be too extreme. BUT ... over decades, it's become a cause that our Socialists have taken up, fought for, campaigned for, relentlessly.

Result ... a former leader of our CONSERVATIVE Party, utterly conned into believing that same sex marriages can be a CONSERVATIVE cause to support and fight for. He would argue that it was a human rights issue, absolutely deserving of support, because human rights initiatives follow, and serve ... what ?

See if you can guess.

Yes .... it can be argued to be a cause where respect for 'human rights' is .... serving .... THE GREATER GOOD !!!

That rings a bell ... wonder why ? Anyone ?

Tag a 'Greater Good' objective to utter reversals of outlook and acceptable standard, and you can achieve all manner of changes. By being duped, by being pressured. It's a means to an end.

It's one much favoured by Socialists. Sensibilities, standards, belief-systems, corrupted and inversed to a form conforming to Socialist diktat.

See ?

Proclamations of The Greater Good are open to question and doubt. Not if Socialists had their way, of course. But, nevertheless, they are.

Sometimes The Greater Good is a good thing, not deserving of question. Sometimes, it MUST be questioned. It all comes down to what we talk about.

But Socialists require that The Greater Good is a device whereby questioning is stifled. Their goal: automatic acceptance.

I'm now confused after this reply. In no way did my post mean that anything I do, or did, is because of anyone convincing me anything about the greater good of anything. Min was a post pointing out the opposite really, that I don't trust the government, nor their sources - so I prefer and I do gather my information from my own sources and things available to educate my own self and then make a decision as to what I think is best for me and/or my family. And knowing what folks tell me about this herd immunity and other similar things, it sounds to me that perhaps that may benefit me and my decision.

But you quote me and make it sound as if I were somehow duped over this greater good thing and am making inappropriate decisions, or that I am allowing the government or anyone else to decide things for me - which simply ain't ever happening and never will. I wasn't duped, I wasn't conned & I'm surely no liberal.

Why can't it possibly be that Jim, as an individual, decided what I thought was a good medical decision based on MY OWN criteria and research? Of course I also do what I think is best for my son? And if I benefit from others doing similarly, so be it. But I'm confused as to where you read my post and get the idea that I was somehow duped or tricked or whatever into doing what I may not have otherwise done myself? That I in any way at all allowed the government to make my decision? Or that anyone approached me about herd community stuff to convince me of my stance?

I do fully understand your stance and why. No need to convince me about it - you had me from post #1 by you on this subject!! It's just that as far as this subject goes, a decision on a medical question can fairly easily be answered without government involvement. That's really all it is to me, is a medical decision. Do I need this? What does it prevent? What can happen if I get one of these diseases? How easily are they transferred from person to person? If an outbreak, how easily do they spread? Maybe I'm wrong, and that's a darn good possibility!! But for a very very small price one can have an awful lot of peace of mind. To me that's an easy decision to make and the lying bastards in congress did nothing to aid in my decision.

Drummond

05-01-2019, 07:41 PM

I'm now confused after this reply. In no way did my post mean that anything I do, or did, is because of anyone convincing me anything about the greater good of anything. Min was a post pointing out the opposite really, that I don't trust the government, nor their sources - so I prefer and I do gather my information from my own sources and things available to educate my own self and then make a decision as to what I think is best for me and/or my family. And knowing what folks tell me about this herd immunity and other similar things, it sounds to me that perhaps that may benefit me and my decision.

But you quote me and make it sound as if I were somehow duped over this greater good thing and am making inappropriate decisions, or that I am allowing the government or anyone else to decide things for me - which simply ain't ever happening and never will. I wasn't duped, I wasn't conned & I'm surely no liberal.

Why can't it possibly be that Jim, as an individual, decided what I thought was a good medical decision based on MY OWN criteria and research? Of course I also do what I think is best for my son? And if I benefit from others doing similarly, so be it. But I'm confused as to where you read my post and get the idea that I was somehow duped or tricked or whatever into doing what I may not have otherwise done myself? That I in any way at all allowed the government to make my decision? Or that anyone approached me about herd community stuff to convince me of my stance?

I do fully understand your stance and why. No need to convince me about it - you had me from post #1 by you on this subject!! It's just that as far as this subject goes, a decision on a medical question can fairly easily be answered without government involvement. That's really all it is to me, is a medical decision. Do I need this? What does it prevent? What can happen if I get one of these diseases? How easily are they transferred from person to person? If an outbreak, how easily do they spread? Maybe I'm wrong, and that's a darn good possibility!! But for a very very small price one can have an awful lot of peace of mind. To me that's an easy decision to make and the lying bastards in congress did nothing to aid in my decision.

All this comes down to a thoroughly human phenomenon that I think is eminently exploitable.

Let's say that Government comes up with, and applies (for the Greater Good) an assessment of a situation requiring a solution, and they go ahead and apply it. Let's say that both assessment, and remedy, are both right. Let's say also that, as a product of independent and objective thinking, people consider and believe in the rightness of it all.

All well and good.

Let's say that exactly the same can be said of another issue, happening after that one. Again ... all well and good.

Now, let's say that a reliable track record is built up, over time. The human response is to increasingly trust what's said, to trust the authority in its conclusions ... to question less. Trust has that effect. If you trust what you're told, if you trust in the authority itself, that trust can erode objectivity, and the process becomes increasingly automatic.

People are people, they're fallible, and trust can mislead and be exploited.

I happen to believe that the Left would exploit this for all they're worth.

Over here, great swathes of people trust what Socialists come up with, and just don't question. A speaker makes an 'enlightened' argument that holds together, one backable by imperatives and conceptions of what is or is not established as 'decent' or 'right', and there's an infinite potential there for manipulation.

We can have diehard Conservatives believe in, fight for, conditions and practices formerly held to be perverse and utterly wrong. They can do so because their association with how they can be viewed can be, and has been, tinkered with. Gay marriage, for example, is now a 'human rights' issue, and to oppose it results in the opposer being shunned as antisocial (and worse) in the eyes of the majority.

What does it amount to ? One would argue ... to fight for what, now, is seen to be The Greater Good. It 'serves' the 'Greater Good' to be infinitely tolerant and infinitely accepting.

It's truly amazing - given that authorities can have, and would want to utilise - powers that can receive blanket approval under the meritorious desire to serve The Greater Good.

It's a device capable of infinite manipulation.

That's what I'm saying.

jimnyc

05-01-2019, 07:53 PM

All this comes down to a thoroughly human phenomenon that I think is eminently exploitable.

Let's say that Government comes up with, and applies (for the Greater Good) an assessment of a situation requiring a solution, and they go ahead and apply it. Let's say that both assessment, and remedy, are both right. Let's say also that, as a product of independent and objective thinking, people consider and believe in the rightness of it all.

All well and good.

Let's say that exactly the same can be said of another issue, happening after that one. Again ... all well and good.

Now, let's say that a reliable track record is built up, over time. The human response is to increasingly trust what's said, to trust the authority in its conclusions ... to question less. Trust has that effect. If you trust what you're told, if you trust in the authority itself, that trust can erode objectivity, and the process becomes increasingly automatic.

People are people, they're fallible, and trust can mislead and be exploited.

I happen to believe that the Left would exploit this for all they're worth.

Over here, great swathes of people trust what Socialists come up with, and just don't question. A speaker makes an 'enlightened' argument that holds together, one backable by imperatives and conceptions of what is or is not established as 'decent' or 'right', and there's an infinite potential there for manipulation.

We can have diehard Conservatives believe in, fight for, conditions and practices formerly held to be perverse and utterly wrong. They can do so because their association with how they can be viewed can be, and has been, tinkered with. Gay marriage, for example, is now a 'human rights' issue, and to oppose it results in the opposer being shunned as antisocial (and worse) in the eyes of the majority.

What does it amount to ? One would argue ... to fight for what, now, is seen to be The Greater Good. It 'serves' the 'Greater Good' to be infinitely tolerant and infinitely accepting.

It's truly amazing - given that authorities can have, and would want to utilise - powers that can receive blanket approval under the meritorious desire to serve The Greater Good.

It's a device capable of infinite manipulation.

That's what I'm saying.

I can agree with that, and HAVE seen the government use various lame reasons to get the masses to believe them and/or have to do something. Whether the government or any other source when it comes to stuff like this - "trust, but verify". And I don't even know about the trust part, depends on the scenario and those involved. But inherently with the government I tend to question almost everything and try to verify for myself.

Drummond

05-01-2019, 09:24 PM

I can agree with that, and HAVE seen the government use various lame reasons to get the masses to believe them and/or have to do something. Whether the government or any other source when it comes to stuff like this - "trust, but verify". And I don't even know about the trust part, depends on the scenario and those involved. But inherently with the government I tend to question almost everything and try to verify for myself.

Very well said, Jim, and thanks. I really couldn't ask for more.

STTAB

05-02-2019, 08:21 AM

A so called conservative who ignores science is no better than a liberal who ignores science.

Drummond

05-02-2019, 10:59 AM

A so called conservative who ignores science is no better than a liberal who ignores science.

That's fair enough.

Taken in its purest form, science deals with absolutes, and with fact. However ... its understanding can be subject to human fallibility. After all, ALL we understand, perceive (- whatever -) gets filtered by the human brain. We have finite intelligence. Some human beings are extremely biased in their thinking, and let theory rule them to a possibly disproportionate degree.

I could offer all manner of examples of this from past times. From 'scientists', whose consensus once was that the earth was flat, to 'scientists' who've made various medical and nutritional blunders, then ultimately had to radically rethink things.

For how long was it, that scientific consensus had it that smoking was harmless, for example ? Or, that asbestos was a harmless substance ? How exaggerated - at the beginning - was scientific belief in the ease of transmission of AIDS ?

I firmly believe that at least a proportion of airborne and contact -'friendly' pathogens in our environment would be features of our day-to-day environment that, if only our immune systems had the chance to, they'd adopt a natural resistance to. Ah, but, along comes scientific thought, telling us of the great, even vital, value of an environment kept as clean and sanitised as possible.

Hospitals are meant to buy into that in a very big way, but that didn't stop the crisis that UK hospitals once had with MRSA outbreaks being rife among them.

Antibiotics were considered scientifically sound, and faith in them - SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED FAITH - was absolute. But, the medical profession's understanding of antibiotic use was far from perfect ... and consequently, badly flawed. We see the result, an evolving one, today.

I don't claim to have any monopoly on scientific truth, far from it. But my point is that, regardless of qualifications and progress made, NOBODY HAS THAT.

Besides ... such things can be exploited. UK (Socialist) politicians certainly have, and did, and are doing, by passing a law requiring that 'Presumed Consent' imperative. Scientifically, and simply within those terms, you could argue it was and is a sound thing to do. In human terms, though, it has horrific potential.

But, politicians have intervened, and dictated that to us. In so doing, their arrogant presumption is that we must trust them, and see things their way. That is a 'given' and seen as mandatory.

To hell with the individual ... if it contravenes political diktat. It's the Socialist way.

Our society has crossed that boundary. If yours hasn't yet, the day may come when it does. Inordinate trust will facilitate just such a change ... very much for the worse.

STTAB

05-02-2019, 11:19 AM

That's fair enough.

Taken in its purest form, science deals with absolutes, and with fact. However ... its understanding can be subject to human fallibility. After all, ALL we understand, perceive (- whatever -) gets filtered by the human brain. We have finite intelligence. Some human beings are extremely biased in their thinking, and let theory rule them to a possibly disproportionate degree.

I could offer all manner of examples of this from past times. From 'scientists', whose consensus once was that the earth was flat, to 'scientists' who've made various medical and nutritional blunders, then ultimately had to radically rethink things.

For how long was it, that scientific consensus had it that smoking was harmless, for example ? Or, that asbestos was a harmless substance ? How exaggerated - at the beginning - was scientific belief in the ease of transmission of AIDS ?

I firmly believe that at least a proportion of airborne and contact -'friendly' pathogens in our environment would be features of our day-to-day environment that, if only our immune systems had the chance to, they'd adopt a natural resistance to. Ah, but, along comes scientific thought, telling us of the great, even vital, value of an environment kept as clean and sanitised as possible.

Hospitals are meant to buy into that in a very big way, but that didn't stop the crisis that UK hospitals once had with MRSA outbreaks being rife among them.

Antibiotics were considered scientifically sound, and faith in them - SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED FAITH - was absolute. But, the medical profession's understanding of antibiotic use was far from perfect ... and consequently, badly flawed. We see the result, an evolving one, today.

I don't claim to have any monopoly on scientific truth, far from it. But my point is that, regardless of qualifications and progress made, NOBODY HAS THAT.

Besides ... such things can be exploited. UK (Socialist) politicians certainly have, and did, and are doing, by passing a law requiring that 'Presumed Consent' imperative. Scientifically, and simply within those terms, you could argue it was and is a sound thing to do. In human terms, though, it has horrific potential.

But, politicians have intervened, and dictated that to us. In so doing, their arrogant presumption is that we must trust them, and see things their way. That is a 'given' and seen as mandatory.

To hell with the individual ... if it contravenes political diktat. It's the Socialist way.

Our society has crossed that boundary. If yours hasn't yet, the day may come when it does. Inordinate trust will facilitate just such a change ... very much for the worse.

Man, you just don't stop with the "inordinate trust" stuff regardless of how many times you're told we don't have inordinate trust , certainly not in our government.

All the science is there, anyone can look at the studies and see that yes there is a SLIGHT risk to a person when they take a vaccines. But it's a small risk. There is however a LARGE risk to society if there isn't widespread vaccine use. Especially in a country like ours where millions of people from other countries are coming in and out of it every day, people who have God knows what if our country in't utilizing herd vaccination. We're not a fairly closed off society that has natural protections against such things.

Drummond

05-02-2019, 11:33 AM

Man, you just don't stop with the "inordinate trust" stuff regardless of how many times you're told we don't have inordinate trust , certainly not in our government.

That's nice to know .. if, in fact, I do.

However ....

All the science is there, anyone can look at the studies and see that yes there is a SLIGHT risk to a person when they take a vaccines. But it's a small risk. There is however a LARGE risk to society if there isn't widespread vaccine use. Especially in a country like ours where millions of people from other countries are coming in and out of it every day, people who have God knows what if our country in't utilizing herd vaccination. We're not a fairly closed off society that has natural protections against such things.

.... is that necessarily true ?

I need to dash. I've a bit more to say, but I'll need to return back to this in several hours from now.

Abbey Marie

05-02-2019, 12:25 PM

A Carnival cruise ship was just quarantined because of a measles outbreak.

Kathianne

05-02-2019, 12:35 PM

A Carnival cruise ship was just quarantined because of a measles outbreak.

Us big government types say, make them walk the plank! LOL!

Abbey Marie

05-02-2019, 01:41 PM

Us big government types say, make them walk the plank! LOL!

:laugh2:

Abbey Marie

05-02-2019, 04:08 PM

They are also contacting anyone who traveled through Terminal C at Newark Airport. Someone with Measles was there on April 16th.

Drummond

05-02-2019, 06:18 PM

Man, you just don't stop with the "inordinate trust" stuff regardless of how many times you're told we don't have inordinate trust , certainly not in our government.

All the science is there, anyone can look at the studies and see that yes there is a SLIGHT risk to a person when they take a vaccines. But it's a small risk. There is however a LARGE risk to society if there isn't widespread vaccine use. Especially in a country like ours where millions of people from other countries are coming in and out of it every day, people who have God knows what if our country in't utilizing herd vaccination. We're not a fairly closed off society that has natural protections against such things.

... OK, I'm back.

An observation, especially as I've had several hours to reflect on all of this: I'm struck by the sheer intensity of feeling this subject seems to cause. Why such a frenzy of concern ? Measles - when you really get down to it - isn't the major issue that a really serious disease would be ... it isn't associated with high mortality rates such as a mutated flu virus could cause, or, God forbid, something akin to Bubonic plague !!

Measles isn't 'nice', and in an ideal world, would be eradicated for good. But it's not the end of the world if it isn't.

Check this out:

https://www.oye.news/news/health/measles-mild-infection/

Today when we talk of measles, we talk of a killer disease that could potentially wipe out the human race. Those who choose not to get the MMR vaccine are, in essence, putting the world’s survival at risk. In February of 2015, the CDC classified 125 measles cases at Orange County, California’s Disney Theme Park as an “outbreak.”

But what was the actual end result of the “outbreak?” The CDC connected 125 total measles cases from Disney Theme Park, 100 of them were considered “patients.” But these “patients,” all survived. And by “survived,” I mean they weren’t injured and there were no deaths. Sound familiar? This isn’t much different than the way we experience colds, sans the “outbreak” and “patient” statistics.

But what if we started vaccinating for colds? Many people might think that to be strange, I mean, because colds just aren’t a big deal. And if you are one of those people who would find a cold vaccine absurd, how do you think the people of 1959 would have found a measles vaccine?

When we think of the measles today, we think of a killer disease. The media paints a doom and gloom scenario every time the illness is mentioned.

A family doctor’s approach to the management of measles is essentially a personal and individual matter, based on the personal experiences of the doctor and the individual character and background of the child and the family. In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious.

I'm reminded of the early reactions to AIDS, when knowledge of it first became widespread in the world. In case you don't know ... the British media at the time reacted with incredulity when seeing on their TV screens examples of American interviews with AIDS sufferers where everybody in the studio wore face masks. We thought that what we viewed was extreme, an over-reaction.

Were we right ?

Ditto, in its way, on measles. The US media looks like it's whipped up a frenzy about it. Deservedly so, or, actually .. not ?

On the subject of how to view Government pronouncements on the prevalence of measles ... well .....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/23/how-the-u-s-went-from-eliminating-measles-to-a-measles-outbreak-at-disneyland/?utm_term=.0bb56e9ce99b

In 2000, the United States declared that measles had been eliminated. But the country experienced a record number of measles cases last year, while an outbreak this month that began at Disneyland has been linked to dozens of cases in California and other states.

This has raised obvious concerns, both because of the overall anti-vaccination movement in this country and because it’s not considered a good thing for a virus to suddenly surge back into circulation. So, how did we get here? How did we travel from elimination to a record number of cases and a new, dangerous outbreak in just 15 years? Let us take a walk through the recent history of measles and the United States.

ELIMINATION

First, it is important to know that “elimination” does not really mean “eradication.” When the United States said that measles had been eliminated in the country, this did not mean there would be no other cases within the nation’s borders; rather, it meant that it was no longer endemic. In other words, any measles cases that occurred would come from people traveling to the country. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines measles elimination as 12 months or more without “continuous disease transmission” in a geographic area.)

After the elimination declaration in 2000, between 37 and 220 people reported having measles each year in the United States - until last year.

WHAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR?

The number of measles cases in the country skyrocketed, nearly tripling the highest number seen in the preceding 13 years. As noted above, there were no more than 220 cases in a given year between 2001 and 2013. In 2014, there were 644 cases stemming from nearly two dozen outbreaks.

The jump was dramatic, with more cases just last year than there were in the five preceding years combined.

There are peaks and troughs when it comes to the numbers of measles 'victims'. But these have been happening for a considerable time. Very evidently, especially more recently, its importation from other countries is a major factor. You immunise. You embark on programs of vaccinations. But it never really goes away.

... And, life goes on. Yep ... really.

You are better able to judge than I am how true (or otherwise) it is that your Government of the day pushes a media onslaught demanding vaccinations, hyping up the 'seriousness' of the scenarios faced. Does such an effort encourage a dependence culture ?

Is it MEANT to ?

As I've said a number of times, I've never been immunised against anything. I've been, to my knowledge, exposed to measles outbreaks going on around me, a handful of times in my life, and not once has that had any impact whatever on my health. Even if it had ... it wouldn't give me any great cause for concern, beyond a certain aggravation that I'd fallen 'prey' to it.

I really don't see why there'd be a need to regard this any differently to that.

Drummond

05-02-2019, 06:26 PM

They are also contacting anyone who traveled through Terminal C at Newark Airport. Someone with Measles was there on April 16th.

Personally, I'd advocate the same degree of vigilance and alarm were a Leftie to have been similarly rumoured to have been present ...

... but that's just me .... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

STTAB

05-03-2019, 08:12 AM

... OK, I'm back.

An observation, especially as I've had several hours to reflect on all of this: I'm struck by the sheer intensity of feeling this subject seems to cause. Why such a frenzy of concern ? Measles - when you really get down to it - isn't the major issue that a really serious disease would be ... it isn't associated with high mortality rates such as a mutated flu virus could cause, or, God forbid, something akin to Bubonic plague !!

Measles isn't 'nice', and in an ideal world, would be eradicated for good. But it's not the end of the world if it isn't.

Check this out:

https://www.oye.news/news/health/measles-mild-infection/

I'm reminded of the early reactions to AIDS, when knowledge of it first became widespread in the world. In case you don't know ... the British media at the time reacted with incredulity when seeing on their TV screens examples of American interviews with AIDS sufferers where everybody in the studio wore face masks. We thought that what we viewed was extreme, an over-reaction.

Were we right ?

Ditto, in its way, on measles. The US media looks like it's whipped up a frenzy about it. Deservedly so, or, actually .. not ?

On the subject of how to view Government pronouncements on the prevalence of measles ... well .....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/23/how-the-u-s-went-from-eliminating-measles-to-a-measles-outbreak-at-disneyland/?utm_term=.0bb56e9ce99b

There are peaks and troughs when it comes to the numbers of measles 'victims'. But these have been happening for a considerable time. Very evidently, especially more recently, its importation from other countries is a major factor. You immunise. You embark on programs of vaccinations. But it never really goes away.

... And, life goes on. Yep ... really.

You are better able to judge than I am how true (or otherwise) it is that your Government of the day pushes a media onslaught demanding vaccinations, hyping up the 'seriousness' of the scenarios faced. Does such an effort encourage a dependence culture ?

Is it MEANT to ?

As I've said a number of times, I've never been immunised against anything. I've been, to my knowledge, exposed to measles outbreaks going on around me, a handful of times in my life, and not once has that had any impact whatever on my health. Even if it had ... it wouldn't give me any great cause for concern, beyond a certain aggravation that I'd fallen 'prey' to it.

I really don't see why there'd be a need to regard this any differently to that.

Again, because SCIENCE

Science proves to us that once diseases like Measles are out there virtually unchecked they can and will naturally mutate. And okay, you could deal with getting measles, how about polio, or small pox? I don't think you would just say "oh well I got small pox"

And beyond that, it not about YOU, or about ME , it's about everyone. I am a 48 year old male in above average health for my age. I'm well within accepted limits when it comes to weight, cholesterol levels , all of that, and I have the means to afford the very best medical care available. If I were to contract Measles, I'd survive. 100% . But what about all the children out there, who's young bodies are not sufficiently prepared to fight such a disease, or the old people ? Or the less than healthy? Those are the people vaccinations protect Drummond.

This is what we're saying Drummond. People like you won't think beyond there own "hey I'd be okay if I got measles" and so the government must then come forward and say "no no you must do what is best for EVERYONE" and that means getting your damn vaccinations. Not doing so is very selfish imo

Drummond

05-03-2019, 09:34 AM

Again, because SCIENCE

Science proves to us that once diseases like Measles are out there virtually unchecked they can and will naturally mutate. And okay, you could deal with getting measles, how about polio, or small pox? I don't think you would just say "oh well I got small pox"

And beyond that, it not about YOU, or about ME , it's about everyone. I am a 48 year old male in above average health for my age. I'm well within accepted limits when it comes to weight, cholesterol levels , all of that, and I have the means to afford the very best medical care available. If I were to contract Measles, I'd survive. 100% . But what about all the children out there, who's young bodies are not sufficiently prepared to fight such a disease, or the old people ? Or the less than healthy? Those are the people vaccinations protect Drummond.

This is what we're saying Drummond. People like you won't think beyond there own "hey I'd be okay if I got measles" and so the government must then come forward and say "no no you must do what is best for EVERYONE" and that means getting your damn vaccinations. Not doing so is very selfish imo

This is why I concluded, a while back, that debate on this was probably a waste of time.

You make good points .. I concede that, happily so. But I'd reply to this by pointing out that polio and smallpox are far rarer (to the extent they even exist, these days ?) than measles is. That's despite all the vaccination programs we've seen, or have been, or are being, planned.

A word on 'spin'. Did you note from my other post that 'ELIMINATION' turns out to not mean quite what it appears to mean ? Anyone would be inclined (at minimum) to think that the use of this word must equal 'ERADICATION'. But ... 'amazingly' ... not so. A Government declared measles 'eliminated', but that turned out to fall short of any guarantee that measles, as a problem, had 'ceased to be'.

I have to ask myself, why such deceptiveness ? Maybe to keep alertness on the subject of uber-control measures fully stimulated, to make sure that concern about it remains such that people fall into line when further mass vaccination programs are implemented ? An effort to create and maintain the perceived worth of dependence upon the authorities ?

Well, anyway: I still stick to a central argument from earlier, namely, that because so much is done to sanitise our environment, people fail to acquire and maintain optimum immunity levels to disease that they'd otherwise have. OK .... YES .... I get that this'd be scant protection about the really serious diseases humanity has experienced, such as plague !! But then, the serious ones don't pose the threat they did in past times. You don't nip out to buy a newspaper and think you'll need to check for telltale signs of bubonic plague a couple of days later !

Measles is different. In the scale of things, it's definitely a minor malady, when you make the proper comparison.

You make the point yourself that diseases mutate. I think that's an important consideration. Flu doesn't kill, except rarely. But, bird flu ? Consider: people can, and do, get flu shots. That didn't stop the bird flu mutated variant from appearing, though, did it, and start killing people !! If a disease is going to mutate, immunisation programs do NOT wipe out that possibility.

Immunisations don't offer blanket protection against mutated strains of a disease. If you're looking for an effective immunisation agent, it has to successfully interlock with the disease it's meant to treat, just as you can't jam two totally incompatible pieces of a jigsaw together and expect anything useful to come of it.

Never mind, though. Governments will still whip up near-frenzy on healthcare issues, then sit back and watch the dependence culture they hope and work to engineer, as fully take hold as possible.

Happy days !

STTAB

05-03-2019, 10:15 AM

This is why I concluded, a while back, that debate on this was probably a waste of time.

You make good points .. I concede that, happily so. But I'd reply to this by pointing out that polio and smallpox are far rarer (to the extent they even exist, these days ?) than measles is. That's despite all the vaccination programs we've seen, or have been, or are being, planned.

A word on 'spin'. Did you note from my other post that 'ELIMINATION' turns out to not mean quite what it appears to mean ? Anyone would be inclined (at minimum) to think that the use of this word must equal 'ERADICATION'. But ... 'amazingly' ... not so. A Government declared measles 'eliminated', but that turned out to fall short of any guarantee that measles, as a problem, had 'ceased to be'.

I have to ask myself, why such deceptiveness ? Maybe to keep alertness on the subject of uber-control measures fully stimulated, to make sure that concern about it remains such that people fall into line when further mass vaccination programs are implemented ? An effort to create and maintain the perceived worth of dependence upon the authorities ?

Well, anyway: I still stick to a central argument from earlier, namely, that because so much is done to sanitise our environment, people fail to acquire and maintain optimum immunity levels to disease that they'd otherwise have. OK .... YES .... I get that this'd be scant protection about the really serious diseases humanity has experienced, such as plague !! But then, the serious ones don't pose the threat they did in past times. You don't nip out to buy a newspaper and think you'll need to check for telltale signs of bubonic plague a couple of days later !

Measles is different. In the scale of things, it's definitely a minor malady, when you make the proper comparison.

You make the point yourself that diseases mutate. I think that's an important consideration. Flu doesn't kill, except rarely. But, bird flu ? Consider: people can, and do, get flu shots. That didn't stop the bird flu mutated variant from appearing, though, did it, and start killing people !! If a disease is going to mutate, immunisation programs do NOT wipe out that possibility.

Immunisations don't offer blanket protection against mutated strains of a disease. If you're looking for an effective immunisation agent, it has to successfully interlock with the disease it's meant to treat, just as you can't jam two totally incompatible pieces of a jigsaw together and expect anything useful to come of it.

Never mind, though. Governments will still whip up near-frenzy on healthcare issues, then sit back and watch the dependence culture they hope and work to engineer, as fully take hold as possible.

Happy days !

Drummond you make some fair points and for the most part this has been a good conversation, if you could just lower the level of snarky a little.

Allow me to rebut your point about diseases not actually being eliminated. Well, no one has said they have been. Phrases like "virtually eliminated" are used instead, especially here in the US because those diseases have been rendered pretty inert here, but of course ith a myriad of people coming in from all around the world on any given day with no realistic method of checking every single entrant and rejecting their entry if they carry a disease it would be totally irresponsible to claim "measles doesn't exist in the US"

What they are actually saying is that if 90% of a population is innoculated against a particular lliness, than that illness is effectively eliminated in that population because probably only half of the remaining 10% would contract the disease even if there were an outbreak. Half is probably over estimating things, but let's go with it, let's say 1/2 of people who have not been vaccinated against measles will get measles if they are exposed to it.

Okay so let's take England. Population 56M give or take. Now let's say there were no measles vaccinations and an outbreak occurred , given our 50% estimate from earlier we would see roughly 28M get measles. The mortality rate for measles today is 2 per 1 million. Very low, but that is for industrialized nations and is factoring in for healthy people and such. Anyway, at 2 per 1 million in a major outbreak of measles sure only 28 people would die, but at what cost? What would 28M seeking treatment for measles do to the health care system in England? Would the mortality rate go up because many people wouldn't be able to get adequate treatment, for a variety of reasons? You bet it would . Hospitals and doctors would be overwhelmed, medicine would be in short supply. And what would the main effect of that be? Why the obvious of course, as demand rose so would prices. How many people would simply be priced out of receiving treatment adequate to prevent serious consequences?

Now you multiply THAT times however many illnesses there are that we have readily available vaccines for and it quickly becomes obvious that vaccines are good for everyone. Even though they marginally do pose a slight risk for each person who gets them.

Kathianne

05-03-2019, 11:03 AM

Just because:

https://www.popsci.com/measles-other-outbreaks

Measles is an early warning sign for outbreaks of more serious diseasesWe never achieved the vaccination levels necessary to prevent outbreaks.

By Sara Chodosh April 29, 2019

...

Many countries give a combined vaccine called MMR, for measles, mumps, rubella. If measles vaccine coverage isn’t high enough, it could in theory be sufficient to prevent major mumps and rubella cases—you need 95 percent of the population vaccinated to guard against measles, but only about 85 to 90 for mumps and rubella. Globally, we’ve held steady at about 85 percent for both MMR and the DTAP vaccine, which protects against diphtheria and also requires 85 percent coverage for herd immunity. (Pertussis and tetanus, the other two viruses in the DTAP shot, can exist in the environment, not just the human body, making herd immunity less relevant).

Should those diseases come back, we may be worse prepared in some ways than before. For a long time, the older generations in our society grew up in the pre-vaccine era, which meant that the overwhelming majority of them were exposed to these viruses. Now we have much less circulation of viruses, but also not sufficiently high vaccine coverage to prevent transmission altogether, and the combination is worrisome. “I’m concerned that there are progressively more countries which have had many years of insufficient vaccine implementation,” Kretsinger says. “It’s hard to predict what will be next.”

If we really want to stamp out measles, along with the other vaccine-preventable maladies, Kretsinger says what we need is political will and for countries to have a sense of ownership of the problem. It’s been so long now since measles was a visible childhood killer that we’ve lost a lot of the fear that originally drove people to get vaccinated.

Without that motivation, many developed nations have prioritized other health issues. Coupled with a backlash against vaccinations, this shift in focus has given us the current vaccine stagnation. As a 2011 paper on the potential for measles eradication points out, “recent progress in reducing measles mortality may have reduced the perception of threat.” But the threat is very real. According to the same paper, “measles has been a disease of high burden historically, and as recently as 2000, an estimated 733,000 individuals, mainly children, died from complications of measles.”

What happens next is within our control; for most people in the United States, these vaccines are just around the corner. “If the case fatality were 50 percent, you can be sure measles would be eradicated quickly,” Kretsinger says. “There are some places where that fear still exists, because measles was recently one of the childhood killers.” Perhaps a little fear would do us some good.

Drummond

05-03-2019, 07:11 PM

Drummond you make some fair points and for the most part this has been a good conversation, if you could just lower the level of snarky a little.

H'm.

I wasn't aware I WAS being notably 'snarky', STTAB. And, it's interesting: I'd only, myself, consider criticising anyone's posting style after some very considerable provocation ... if even then. I'm reminded of one ex-contributor here from years ago, whose regular posting style was considerably worse than mine (those who've been here long enough will know who I'm talking about !) .. somebody I crossed swords with on a very regular basis. You think my style merits comment ? Then, I promise you, you'd have been outraged by his !!

The sources of support he received when even at his 'worst' might've surprised you, too; as much as it baffled me, at the time.

Anyway, enough on that. I'll take your comment 'under advisement'. Thank you.

Allow me to rebut your point about diseases not actually being eliminated. Well, no one has said they have been. Phrases like "virtually eliminated" are used instead, especially here in the US ..

No. Sorry: no. Not according to the sources I've seen.

I'll post two of them. The first source constitutes a debate-article on what was truly meant by that very claim.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/are-public-health-authorities-the-authors-of-fake-measles-news/

Dozens and now hundreds of times a day media outlets are reporting with great drama that after measles was ‘eliminated’ in the United States in 2000 it is making a comeback.

During March 2000, CDC convened a consultation of measles experts to evaluate data on the elimination of endemic measles from the United States. The data indicated that, during 1997–1999, measles incidence has remained low (<0.5 cases per 1,000,000 population) and that most states and 99% of counties reported no measles cases. In addition, measles surveillance was sensitive enough to consistently detect imported cases, isolated cases, and small outbreaks. Evidence of high population immunity included coverage of >90% with the first dose of measles vaccine in children aged 19–35 months since 1996 and 98% coverage among children entering school. In 48 states and the District of Columbia, a second dose of measles vaccine is required for school entry. A national serosurvey indicated that 93% of persons aged >6 years have antibody to measles. Because of these findings, the experts concluded that measles is no longer endemic in the United States. From there, the CDC began their marketing campaign that measles had been eliminated in 2000.

From all this ... and please, read the article in its entirety ... it becomes clear that (a) the claim that measles had been eliminated was made, but falsely so, and that (b) this was the subject of controversy as to why the true position wasn't more accurately, and clearly, disseminated.

https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/nioa-dim041819.php

WHAT: In 2000, measles was declared to be eliminated in the United States, when no sustained transmission of the virus was seen in this country for more than 12 months.

I fail to see how this can be any clearer. With respect, then, your rebuttal point, on examination, doesn't hold water.

The obvious question to me is, WHY do your authorities do this ? Is it to maximise the contrast between what they claim, and what then proves true, so as to galvanise people that much more into complying with them ?

... those diseases have been rendered pretty inert here, but of course with a myriad of people coming in from all around the world on any given day with no realistic method of checking every single entrant and rejecting their entry if they carry a disease it would be totally irresponsible to claim "measles doesn't exist in the US"

... and I agree, both with the point and the conclusion.

This still leaves the question of what actual, quantifiable threat, it really is. I still say that bubonic plague is in an entirely different class of morbidity, and illustrates what a REAL threat looks like, in a way that measles could never do.

Okay so let's take England. Population 56M give or take. Now let's say there were no measles vaccinations and an outbreak occurred , given our 50% estimate from earlier we would see roughly 28M get measles. The mortality rate for measles today is 2 per 1 million. Very low, but that is for industrialized nations and is factoring in for healthy people and such. Anyway, at 2 per 1 million in a major outbreak of measles sure only 28 people would die, but at what cost? What would 28M seeking treatment for measles do to the health care system in England? Would the mortality rate go up because many people wouldn't be able to get adequate treatment, for a variety of reasons? You bet it would . Hospitals and doctors would be overwhelmed, medicine would be in short supply. And what would the main effect of that be? Why the obvious of course, as demand rose so would prices. How many people would simply be priced out of receiving treatment adequate to prevent serious consequences?

An excellent argument. Thanks for it.

[Nitpicking point: England's population is well in excess of 60 million.]

A couple of points, though. It occurs to me that if there was no 'public awareness' generated (artificially, purposely so, or otherwise) about measles, the stampede of people seeking treatment, as you described it, wouldn't happen. So, no such crisis would be seen. Let's also say that your '28 deaths' estimate was perfectly accurate. STTAB ... our NHS runs a regime where, at specific times of failing, many more than 28 deaths occur (I mentioned the Mid Staffs catastrophe before). Our NHS regularly rules out lifesaving treatments on grounds of cost, and I'm sure that their policy-making itself kills far more than 28 people in a single year. By (unstated) design.

Conclusion ? If those 28 deaths truly mattered to the NHS, or our authorities, why do the others happen, and why do they, at times, become officially tolerated ? It can only be because publicising the 'need' for measles vaccination (as part of the MMR vaccine program) has a POLITICAL objective tied into it.

Now you multiply THAT times however many illnesses there are that we have readily available vaccines for and it quickly becomes obvious that vaccines are good for everyone. Even though they marginally do pose a slight risk for each person who gets them.

.... but, I've never really argued otherwise. My point has been that an alternative approach to this also has its merits, that of naturally occurring, boosted immunity, coming from an environment conducive to it !

STTAB

05-06-2019, 08:47 AM

H'm.

.... but, I've never really argued otherwise. My point has been that an alternative approach to this also has its merits, that of naturally occurring, boosted immunity, coming from an environment conducive to it !

Just to address this part.

The reason we do more is to protect those who can't protect themselves. Either due to being children, or being the elderly, or being physically unable to do so, or yes due to stupidity. There are people who through no fault of their own simply can't fight off a disease , mainly children and the elderly, people who yes measles could be deadly.

Now, I suppose you could say "well survival of the fittest" but that isn't how our society operates . That's just the way it is.

Drummond

05-06-2019, 11:38 AM

Just to address this part.

The reason we do more is to protect those who can't protect themselves. Either due to being children, or being the elderly, or being physically unable to do so, or yes due to stupidity. There are people who through no fault of their own simply can't fight off a disease , mainly children and the elderly, people who yes measles could be deadly.

Now, I suppose you could say "well survival of the fittest" but that isn't how our society operates . That's just the way it is.

I think I'm going to end arguing (debating ?) on this thread ... I think you're only taking from it what you're choosing to .. cherrypicking your interpretation of its direction.

Find me any wording of mine where I've said that vaccinations / immunisations shouldn't happen. Find me any statement of mine where I call for them to be outlawed. In fact, show me where I've said in any previous posts that 'survival of the fittest' is the one 'proper' policy to be followed, or should be. I challenge you to do any or (preferably) all of this, STTAB. I'll wait patiently for you to do that. Because, for your last post to correctly conclude the entirety of my true position, it must surely be that I also made these statements.

I note that you've ignored my proofs of what your authorities really said about measles being eliminated. You were wrong in what you'd asserted beforehand. I legitimately asked WHY your authorities would go so far in their statements on that.

I've questioned why authorities push so hard to promote vaccination programs ... not their RIGHT to, but I question precisely what their true motives are in doing so. I particularly question whether, in psychological terms, in terms of 'attitude management', their efforts have a power-building motivation behind them. And where, if that's so, it will lead.

I also question why there isn't greater emphasis on recognising the worth of an individual's own immune system's capabilities, and acting accordingly.

Is this clear now (or am I being 'snarky' for asking ?).

This debate is a waste of time. I'm now sure of that. You cherrypick your choice of assumption(s), you ignore what successfully defies what you assert. There's no point to my adding anything further to this thread, so far as I can see.

jimnyc

05-06-2019, 12:06 PM

Here is just a little example from my home state. And while I am likely safe, and most I know - the outbreak "could" potentially harm many many vulnerable people. How would one like to bring in an ailing parent to a hospital for necessary treatment, and leave with them having measles? Or your baby leaving the docs office with the disease? Imagine a horrid scenario with a family member getting cancer, like my Mom, God bless her soul. And while in the hospital getting chemo or related treatment - and gets measles and passes as a result of something like that?

It always seems like a thing of the past, but when in the USA you have the anti-vaxxers doing a number, and the vaccination rate goes down, and friends of friends take the lead - then it's very possible to see "pockets" like this of folks getting the disease. It IS controllable to a major major extent, that's a fact of science and numbers. I also don't care for "religious loopholes". If that keeps them from getting the shot, I am OK with that, as it shouldn't be forced. But no excuses when it comes to schools and other places with many people, especially children. So they have a choice not to get the vaccines, and schools and other places have the right to control health matters, as to who gets in and what not.

---

Here’s what could happen if measles continues to spread in N.J.

The country is experiencing the worst year for measles in a quarter century, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with 704 reported cases. And New Jersey is right in the middle of an outbreak.

The state has 14 confirmed cases, with a suspected case reported last week in Middlesex County. Though New Jersey hasn’t been hit nearly as hard as New York City and Rockland County, New York, where hundreds have been infected, experts remain concerned if we fail to limit the disease’s spread. Just how bad could it get here?

While it’s unlikely New Jersey would ever see hundreds or thousands of cases at once, the state could see localized epidemics with “pockets of people with low vaccination rates getting many infections," Dr. David Cennimo, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said via text message.

Failing to get a handle on measles could strain the state’s medical system and divert health care personnel.

Cennimo said the state is already seeing a “disruption in medicine because of concern for measles.” Treating a measles patient is often tedious and cumbersome, he said.

“Measles is airborne, so people need to stay in special negative-pressure rooms. … These rooms aren’t plentiful,” Cennimo said in an email. “You cannot have a patient walking into a waiting room with measles without a mask on because they can infect everyone.”

Measles is so contagious that 90% of susceptible people exposed to an infected person will become infected, according to the CDC. If outbreaks continue, experts worry about measles patients walking among the public or in hospitals, potentially spreading the disease to vulnerable populations, like babies who’ve yet to receive the vaccine. Those with weakened immune systems, like cancer patients undergoing treatment, would also be at-risk.

Medical personnel may have to ramp up protocols for dealing with patients reporting vague symptoms like a rash or fever. They may have to meet potentially infected patients in the parking lot with masks, diverting staff from other serious health matters.

“All of this is cumbersome and, if it delays care, potentially dangerous,” Cennimo said. “It is difficult for your average primary care doctor or pediatrician to do all of this in a busy office. The measles rash is not very specific and can be confused with other viral rashes.”

He added, “This can really slow down the flow in an (emergency department)."

Prolonged measles outbreaks could also come at a significant cost, according to New Jersey Assemblyman Herb Conaway, D-Burlington, who is one of the sponsors of a bill seeking to eliminate a loophole that allows thousands of parents to cite religious beliefs as a reason to opt out of vaccinating their children.

“We know that the failure to vaccinate leads to enormous preventable health care costs ... lost work, not going to school, the cost of hospitalization and outpatient care. In an aggregate, those costs are enormous," Conaway said.

In fact, a study looking at Washington state, which has also been hit particularly hard by measles in the past several weeks — primarily due to people who were not vaccinated — looked at just how costly dealing with measles outbreaks can be.

The study, published last month in the medical journal JAMA, said that “responding to a single case of measles can be as high as $142,000.” This includes tracking cases, laboratory testing, quarantining patients, compensating health care providers, public outreach and other measures needed to prevent further spreading of the disease.

The study estimates that in 2011, the total cost of outbreaks in the U.S. ranged from $2.7 million to $5.3 million. In that year, 220 cases of measles were reported, according to the CDC.

Though there isn’t a single reason for the recent resurgence of measles, health experts maintain that the anti-vaccination movement has proven to be a problem, and one that needs to be addressed as the spreading of misinformation and propaganda continues to impact vaccination rates. A 93% to 95% immunization rate is needed within a community to prevent measles from spreading among the population, according to the World Health Organization.

“If we continue to have pockets of unimmunized children, we will continue to see outbreaks," said Dr. Glenn Fennelly, chair of pediatrics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School.

New York City’s measles outbreak has been primarily affecting ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn, where vaccination rates tend to be lower and anti-vaccination sentiments common. The outbreak grew so bad that New York City officials earlier this month declared it a public health emergency and ordered mandatory vaccinations.

New Jersey’s outbreak, while less severe, has also been largely concentrated in ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Lakewood, Ocean County (as has the outbreak in Rockland County, New York).

“We have more and more people who are choosing not to vaccinate themselves or their children, and that is putting not only themselves at risk but everyone else at risk, particularly the young and those who are medically vulnerable,” Conaway told NJ Advance Media.

Rest - https://www.nj.com/healthfit/2019/04/heres-what-could-happen-if-measles-continues-to-spread-in-nj.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_content=nj_facebook_njcom&utm_campaign=njcom_sf&utm_medium=social

STTAB

05-06-2019, 12:15 PM

I think I'm going to end arguing (debating ?) on this thread ... I think you're only taking from it what you're choosing to .. cherrypicking your interpretation of its direction.

Find me any wording of mine where I've said that vaccinations / immunisations shouldn't happen. Find me any statement of mine where I call for them to be outlawed. In fact, show me where I've said in any previous posts that 'survival of the fittest' is the one 'proper' policy to be followed, or should be. I challenge you to do any or (preferably) all of this, STTAB. I'll wait patiently for you to do that. Because, for your last post to correctly conclude the entirety of my true position, it must surely be that I also made these statements.

I note that you've ignored my proofs of what your authorities really said about measles being eliminated. You were wrong in what you'd asserted beforehand. I legitimately asked WHY your authorities would go so far in their statements on that.

I've questioned why authorities push so hard to promote vaccination programs ... not their RIGHT to, but I question precisely what their true motives are in doing so. I particularly question whether, in psychological terms, in terms of 'attitude management', their efforts have a power-building motivation behind them. And where, if that's so, it will lead.

I also question why there isn't greater emphasis on recognising the worth of an individual's own immune system's capabilities, and acting accordingly.

Is this clear now (or am I being 'snarky' for asking ?).

This debate is a waste of time. I'm now sure of that. You cherrypick your choice of assumption(s), you ignore what successfully defies what you assert. There's no point to my adding anything further to this thread, so far as I can see.

I ignored your question of why our politicians lie because I have no explanation. Well, that's not really true. I know why they lie, they lie because we the people let them get away with it. Amazing that it is illegal for us to lie to Congress, but they can get up and tell all the lies they want, and do.

But this strays into the category of my well known mantra that most American are stupid, in fact we are the dumbest country in the world.

jimnyc

05-06-2019, 12:19 PM

I distrust our government as far as I can throw my truck. I don't trust even a lot of medicine and always read read and do some more reading to educate myself. I would NEVER do anything the government tells me to do, unless I agree 100% on my own. For every reason, Mr. Drummond, that you may state as to why you don't trust them or the vaccines and want education first - is the same reason I feel such a way. But my own reading and education tells me that its best for me and my family. Very little to lose, if at all, and a ton to gain. But not based on what someone told me.

If that somehow leads to me being wrong, that someone convinced me wrongly, that I am doing so because the govt tricked me, or solely because of "the greater good" or any of the issues you speak of - you would be wrong. While I agree with you 100% for your hesitation and your arguments, I have been there before because of the need for them for my child and restrictions. And if I thought negatively even .00001%, he would be home schooled. But that's not the case here. He got his vaccinations by my choice no differently than he would receive a tetanus shot if he stepped on a rusty nail.

What is the problem in front of me? What is it that medicine is offering? What are ALL of my options. Understand them, educate myself and make an informed decision. But none of it was based on the Govt telling me, nor anyone for that fact, and not for the greater good.

Is it not possible that many in this thread are simply educating themselves and making the best medical decisions for themselves? And acknowledging how the herd immunity works, and taking that with it.

For me, if they said "don't get it, and it's best for the greater good, but your son will be sick". Or take this drug for a vaccination, and your son will remain healthy, but this option will not help others in the slightest. I would go for the better option for me or my family, regardless of who it helps out there, as that really has no part in my decision making.

If after all of that, I am looked at differently than yourself, because of the greater good as you continue to point out, or the Govt telling us something wrong or anything else.... I see myself identically to yourself, 'cept I decided to make sure my son did get them.

STTAB

05-06-2019, 12:25 PM

I think I'm going to end arguing (debating ?) on this thread ... I think you're only taking from it what you're choosing to .. cherrypicking your interpretation of its direction.

Find me any wording of mine where I've said that vaccinations / immunisations shouldn't happen. Find me any statement of mine where I call for them to be outlawed. In fact, show me where I've said in any previous posts that 'survival of the fittest' is the one 'proper' policy to be followed, or should be. I challenge you to do any or (preferably) all of this, STTAB. I'll wait patiently for you to do that. Because, for your last post to correctly conclude the entirety of my true position, it must surely be that I also made these statements.

I note that you've ignored my proofs of what your authorities really said about measles being eliminated. You were wrong in what you'd asserted beforehand. I legitimately asked WHY your authorities would go so far in their statements on that.

I've questioned why authorities push so hard to promote vaccination programs ... not their RIGHT to, but I question precisely what their true motives are in doing so. I particularly question whether, in psychological terms, in terms of 'attitude management', their efforts have a power-building motivation behind them. And where, if that's so, it will lead.

I also question why there isn't greater emphasis on recognising the worth of an individual's own immune system's capabilities, and acting accordingly.

Is this clear now (or am I being 'snarky' for asking ?).

This debate is a waste of time. I'm now sure of that. You cherrypick your choice of assumption(s), you ignore what successfully defies what you assert. There's no point to my adding anything further to this thread, so far as I can see.

I fail to understand your animosity here Drummond. Yes, I "cherry pick" because you might make 20 points in one post, but I only feel like addressing one or two. That's just my posting style. I"m usually just too lazy to go in and snip a post apart addressing each point. So I just address the ones that are most important to me. Occasonally I might find a post that I address multiple points in, but not often. It's not personal, and it isn't because I am ignoring the points you've made. I've already said you make several good points in the thread, AND if you my history as a poster you would know that I wouldn't participate in a thread that only had a single view point. I see no value in a thread where it wooed be, for example, just me and Jimmy and Abbey, and Kath all agreeing that mandatory vaccinations are good with no dissenting opinion. Talk about boring.

And yes, you are correct, Being against mandatory vaccinations doesn't mean you don't believe vaccinations works, I get that, but that kinda makes the point. There are LOTS of people out there who do NOT believe vaccinations work, or they falsely believe they are more dangerous than beneficial at all or they believe their sky god frowns upon modern medicine.

STTAB

05-06-2019, 12:35 PM

Drummond

05-06-2019, 01:48 PM

I fail to understand your animosity here Drummond. Yes, I "cherry pick" because you might make 20 points in one post, but I only feel like addressing one or two. That's just my posting style. I"m usually just too lazy to go in and snip a post apart addressing each point. So I just address the ones that are most important to me. Occasonally I might find a post that I address multiple points in, but not often. It's not personal, and it isn't because I am ignoring the points you've made. I've already said you make several good points in the thread, AND if you my history as a poster you would know that I wouldn't participate in a thread that only had a single view point. I see no value in a thread where it wooed be, for example, just me and Jimmy and Abbey, and Kath all agreeing that mandatory vaccinations are good with no dissenting opinion. Talk about boring.

And yes, you are correct, Being against mandatory vaccinations doesn't mean you don't believe vaccinations works, I get that, but that kinda makes the point. There are LOTS of people out there who do NOT believe vaccinations work, or they falsely believe they are more dangerous than beneficial at all or they believe their sky god frowns upon modern medicine.

Well, if my dissenting opinion adds a bit of excitement, STTAB, I'm delighted for you.

ARE you claiming to have overlooked my proof that your statement on the 'elimination' of measles was just down to not wanting to get bogged down with multiple issues ? Is that really so ? Well ... maybe we think differently. When somebody conclusively proves me wrong on something, I consider it a matter of duty to at least acknowledge it. You didn't, though.

A reminder -- these are your words ...

Allow me to rebut your point about diseases not actually being eliminated. Well, no one has said they have been. Phrases like "virtually eliminated" are used instead, especially here in the US ..

I offered proof of the very opposite. Indeed, one of them spoke of, I quote:

From there, the CDC began their marketing campaign that measles had been eliminated in 2000.

A MARKETING CAMPAIGN, no less !! I ask: why a 'campaign', for God's sake, UNLESS the point was to make people have faith in authorities' mass vaccination efforts ... and this, based on an untruth !!

To me, that's a central point. This example proves that outright faith in such programs is misplaced, or at least, it cannot be automatic. Evidently, though, your CDC would hope to achieve just such faith, as unfounded as it would be.

I still ask: WHY ?

So, I think my argument now transcends debate. My case is proven. Automatic trust in mass vaccinations IS a mistake. It can't be otherwise. That's not to say that they don't have their value, and can do considerable good, therefore, CAN be supported. Just that you can't rely on that always being the correct thing to do.

However ... and, certainly if your Left had its way ... automatic trust would be what they'd want. A move towards making vaccinations compulsory would suit their agenda completely. Set that precedent, especially in law ... and you enshrine everyone's acceptance of mandatory diktat. It's a precedent from which any number of outrages becomes not only possible, but no longer open to challenge. Get a body of people to start questioning any diktat, and the response would be, such diktats are provably permissible, to the point of being set in stone. Laws are made for the benefit of society, therefore, do not question our passing of them, because if you ever do, our serving of 'The Greater Good' shows that you're being antisocial if you do so.

See my point ?

Go down the 'I think vaccinations should be compulsory' route, and you open up the likelihood of all I describe above. Set an authoritative precedent, and it'll be seized upon ... as the new 'norm'.

I guarantee it.

The example I gave of 'Presumed Consent' in Welsh law, on organ donation, sets a precedent. Result .. it looks like it'll be applied to all UK countries in the coming years. The Welsh Left have set the precedent of State compulsion as the accepted social emphasis. Wales is now a working model for it. So, it'll be built upon by others, and a domino effect will become unstoppable ...

... and all because the general Public chose to accept, meekly, the principle of authoritative compulsion in matters of 'The Greater Good'.

STTAB

05-06-2019, 02:24 PM

Well, if my dissenting opinion adds a bit of excitement, STTAB, I'm delighted for you.

ARE you claiming to have overlooked my proof that your statement on the 'elimination' of measles was just down to not wanting to get bogged down with multiple issues ? Is that really so ? Well ... maybe we think differently. When somebody conclusively proves me wrong on something, I consider it a matter of duty to at least acknowledge it. You didn't, though.

All well and good except that I didn't say that measles had been eliminated, and to my knowledge no one has. The phrase is "virtually eliminated" and even your own stats show this is true, and I've acknowledged that in a country like ours guaranteeing that anything is eliminated is a fool's errand.

You are bouncing around a bit, in one post you acknowledge that vaccines work but simply reject the notion of mandating them and in the next post you are seemingly disputing the effectiveness of vaccines.

I can respect the former, but arguing that vaccines don't work is silly, ALL of the science tells us they do. Not the liberal science that tells us man made climate change is real, but REAL science backed up by cold hard facts. @90+% vaccination you will NOT see a measles outbreak period. Sure you you will see a case or two, but even if the entirety of the 10% of the population that did not get vaccinated contracted measles it would not reach epidemic proportions.

All of the science also shows us that the danger from vaccines is real but so minute as to barely earn a mention, let alone the anti vaccine hysteria we've seen in this country over the last 5-10 years.

Drummond

05-06-2019, 03:21 PM

All well and good except that I didn't say that measles had been eliminated, and to my knowledge no one has. The phrase is "virtually eliminated"

Just repeating an untruth, STTAB, doesn't mean it eventually becomes true.

Yes. You claimed that the term 'virtually eliminated' was the one that had been used, and you denied that it had been simply the word 'eliminated'. I've already shown you that you're wrong, and cited two examples of the claim that 'eliminated', not 'virtually eliminated', WAS what had been claimed.

How many times do I need to post the illustrations of this being true, before you take notice of them ? Or are the two I've already provided not enough to convince you ? How many would be, before you concede the point ?

Evidently, debating with you IS a waste of time, if you're going to disregard any evidence I present to you that you're in error.

You are bouncing around a bit, in one post you acknowledge that vaccines work but simply reject the notion of mandating them and in the next post you are seemingly disputing the effectiveness of vaccines.

This misrepresents what I've said. I don't 'simply' reject the notion of mandating them, but give a reason for it. Please, now, note: I reject the notion of mandating their application, not on the basis you're citing, but on the basis I actually HAVE stipulated ... namely, political opportunism, and the setting of precedents that can make it socially impossible to resist future such diktats.

If you're going to just ignore the argument I offer, then substitute it with your own version, then clearly, I'm wasting my time here.

My advice: just admit you're wrong and be done with it. If you have to resort to sheer misrepresentation to try and make your case stick, you waste my time, and that of everybody else's here.

I'm not arguing further.

jimnyc

05-08-2019, 05:33 PM

Worried About Measles? WashPost Reminds You to Blame Columbus

It seems there are a bunch of knuckleheads around who refuse one of the many blessings of modern Western Civilization. Anti-vaxxers don’t believe in vaccinating their kids against diseases like measles, so diseases like measles are cropping up -- decades after they’d been more or less eradicated by … vaccines.

Some anti-vaxxers have religious objections, some are paranoid lefties who reject “big Pharma” and some are just irresponsible. But rather than wade into an inconvenient debate, The Washington Post wants to remind you that, like all Bad Things™, contagious diseases were brought to America by Columbus.

It’s “The Columbian Exchange”: Christopher Columbus brought Christianity, “coffee, horses, turnips, grapes, wine,” to the New World, according to the Post’s Michael S. Rosenwald, and in return it gave Europe tobacco and potatoes.

But Columbus also brought infectious disease-causing microbes that “decimated indigenous communities — an overlooked aspect, historians and other experts say, of the European conquest of the New World.”

It’s unclear who overlooks this. Discovery and Conquest has become Conquest and Grievance on school silibi, and The Bad Things™ Europeans brought are mostly what gets taught to kids now.

Rosenwald puts the narrative succinctly:

The New World before Columbus: no typhoid, no flu, no smallpox, no measles.
The New World after Columbus: epidemics of death.

Natives were also gentle stewards of nature whose communal lifestyle was sustained by respectful, common-sense hunting, organic kitchen gardening and amicable trade in colorful beads and comfortable footwear, among other Good Things ™… but I digress.

“For Native Americans, the problem was a lesson in basic virology, Rosenwald writes. “Because these microbes were as new to society as horses and coffee, nobody had built any immunity to them. Without immunity, wide swaths of people were quickly infected and killed.”

What Rosenwald doesn’t say is that it was a lesson for Europeans too. They were as clueless as the Indians -- and would remain so until until the late 19th Century. And until Europeans began developing immunity, wide swathes of them had been quickly infected and killed. Unless North and South America could be kept hermetically sealed from all outsiders, Asians as well as Europeans, the result was inevitable.

But Columbus is a convenient villain for modern lefties -- whether his villainy was intentional or not. And so Rosenwald can’t resist working in a more comprehensive Bad Things™ shot at the what the old navigator wrought:.

“Indigenous peoples suffered from white brutality, alcoholism, the killing and driving off of game, and the expropriation of farmland, but all these together are insufficient to explain the degree of their defeat,” wrote the late Alfred W. Crosby, a University of Texas historian considered the preeminent expert on the Columbian Exchange. “The crucial factor was not people, plants, or animals, but germs.”

Or maybe firearms or, ya know, the wheel. Regardless, since you never know when you might run into a poxy 600-year-old Italian navigator, go get your kids vaccinated post haste.

Rest - https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/matt-philbin/2019/05/08/worried-about-measles-wash-post-reminds-you-blame-columbus

STTAB

05-09-2019, 10:32 AM

Just repeating an untruth, STTAB, doesn't mean it eventually becomes true.

Yes. You claimed that the term 'virtually eliminated' was the one that had been used, and you denied that it had been simply the word 'eliminated'. I've already shown you that you're wrong, and cited two examples of the claim that 'eliminated', not 'virtually eliminated', WAS what had been claimed.

How many times do I need to post the illustrations of this being true, before you take notice of them ? Or are the two I've already provided not enough to convince you ? How many would be, before you concede the point ?

Evidently, debating with you IS a waste of time, if you're going to disregard any evidence I present to you that you're in error.

This misrepresents what I've said. I don't 'simply' reject the notion of mandating them, but give a reason for it. Please, now, note: I reject the notion of mandating their application, not on the basis you're citing, but on the basis I actually HAVE stipulated ... namely, political opportunism, and the setting of precedents that can make it socially impossible to resist future such diktats.

If you're going to just ignore the argument I offer, then substitute it with your own version, then clearly, I'm wasting my time here.

My advice: just admit you're wrong and be done with it. If you have to resort to sheer misrepresentation to try and make your case stick, you waste my time, and that of everybody else's here.

I'm not arguing further.

I ignore your examples, because you are wrong. Those people are not claiming that individual cases of measles have been eliminated int he US, they are saying Measles OUTBREAKS have been eliminated in the US, and that is 100% true, or well it was until recently because of the drop in vaccination levels coupled with the increase in illegal immigration bringing more diseases into the country, and a couple other factors.

See universal mandated vaccines were never meant to eliminate individual cases of Measles, they were meant to prevent OUTBREAKS of measles, and they are 100% effective at that when 90% of a population is vaccinated.

Drummond

05-09-2019, 11:24 AM

I ignore your examples, because you are wrong. Those people are not claiming that individual cases of measles have been eliminated int he US, they are saying Measles OUTBREAKS have been eliminated in the US, and that is 100% true, or well it was until recently because of the drop in vaccination levels coupled with the increase in illegal immigration bringing more diseases into the country, and a couple other factors.

See universal mandated vaccines were never meant to eliminate individual cases of Measles, they were meant to prevent OUTBREAKS of measles, and they are 100% effective at that when 90% of a population is vaccinated.

You're nothing if not persistent, STTAB ... I have to give you that.

I also note that you're re-positioning the goalposts in this debate to suit yourself. What you're addressing now is not the point you've tried to argue before. You originally argued that 'eliminated' was not the entirety of the term that had been used in the US about measles outbreaks, but that instead, your people had stuck to the phrase 'virtually eliminated'. I've proved you wrong about that.

As for your diversion, now ....

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/are-public-health-authorities-the-authors-of-fake-measles-news/

During March 2000, CDC convened a consultation of measles experts to evaluate data on the elimination of endemic measles from the United States. The data indicated that, during 1997–1999, measles incidence has remained low (<0.5 cases per 1,000,000 population) and that most states and 99% of counties reported no measles cases. In addition, measles surveillance was sensitive enough to consistently detect imported cases, isolated cases, and small outbreaks. Evidence of high population immunity included coverage of >90% with the first dose of measles vaccine in children aged 19–35 months since 1996 and 98% coverage among children entering school. In 48 states and the District of Columbia, a second dose of measles vaccine is required for school entry. A national serosurvey indicated that 93% of persons aged >6 years have antibody to measles. Because of these findings, the experts concluded that measles is no longer endemic in the United States. From there, the CDC began their marketing campaign that measles had been eliminated in 2000.

Here's what I think the truth actually is, STTAB: I think that, in terms of pure fact, the point you're making is apparently a correct one. Your authorities wanted to declare measles 'eliminated' (a nice, comforting soundbyte ?), and even embarked on a 'marketing campaign' to do just that, when in fact what they actually meant was that, indeed, in terms of its incidence, it had been VIRTUALLY eliminated, because, after all, measles itself still existed within your borders, and very rarely, someone still contracted it.

None of this alters the truth of what your authorities ACTUALLY tried to claim ... and they, as my examples proved, did not set out to convince people that it had been VIRTUALLY eliminated. They claimed that it HAD been.

What was true, and what was SAID, were two different things. The evidence is perfectly clear, no matter how you try to argue this. Originally you claimed that authorities used the term 'virtually eliminated'. Factually true or not, this is NOT what authorities CLAIMED, and as I've shown, you were wrong about that.

If anything, STTAB ... your case helps to substantiate my own. Automatic trust in what you're told is not the way to go, meaning, that being open to questioning is what's truly called for. Indeed ... can you reasonably avoid it ??

--- I rest my case !!

[Nice try, though :rolleyes:....]

STTAB

05-09-2019, 11:40 AM

You're nothing if not persistent, STTAB ... I have to give you that.

I also note that you're re-positioning the goalposts in this debate to suit yourself. What you're addressing now is not the point you've tried to argue before. You originally argued that 'eliminated' was not the entirety of the term that had been used in the US about measles outbreaks, but that instead, your people had stuck to the phrase 'virtually eliminated'. I've proved you wrong about that.

As for your diversion, now ....

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/are-public-health-authorities-the-authors-of-fake-measles-news/

Here's what I think the truth actually is, STTAB: I think that, in terms of pure fact, the point you're making is apparently a correct one. Your authorities wanted to declare measles 'eliminated' (a nice, comforting soundbyte ?), and even embarked on a 'marketing campaign' to do just that, when in fact what they actually meant was that, indeed, in terms of its incidence, it had been VIRTUALLY eliminated, because, after all, measles itself still existed within your borders, and very rarely, someone still contracted it.

None of this alters the truth of what your authorities ACTUALLY tried to claim ... and they, as my examples proved, did not set out to convince people that it had been VIRTUALLY eliminated. They claimed that it HAD been.

What was true, and what was SAID, were two different things. The evidence is perfectly clear, no matter how you try to argue this. Originally you claimed that authorities used the term 'virtually eliminated'. Factually true or not, this is NOT what authorities CLAIMED, and as I've shown, you were wrong about that.

If anything, STTAB ... your case helps to substantiate my own. Automatic trust in what you're told is not the way to go, meaning, that being open to questioning is what's truly called for. Indeed ... can you reasonably avoid it ??

--- I rest my case !!

[Nice try, though :rolleyes:....]

I am tired of arguing semantics with you Drummond. You yourself have conceded that the government simply meant that the dangers of a measles outbreak had been virtually eliminated, rather than saying there were zero cases of measles in this country, all while claiming that the government was telling people there were no measles in this country.

And I will reiterate, being pro mandatory vaccination does NOT mean we put blind automatic trust in our government. It simply means that in this one particular instance the government is right, probably by accident.

Let me ask you, are in favor of DUI laws that are based on a blood alcohol content level?

Drummond

05-09-2019, 12:42 PM

I am tired of arguing semantics with you Drummond. You yourself have conceded that the government simply meant that the dangers of a measles outbreak had been virtually eliminated, rather than saying there were zero cases of measles in this country, all while claiming that the government was telling people there were no measles in this country.

And I will reiterate, being pro mandatory vaccination does NOT mean we put blind automatic trust in our government. It simply means that in this one particular instance the government is right, probably by accident.

Let me ask you, are in favor of DUI laws that are based on a blood alcohol content level?

I'm not at all sure 'semantics' quite covers it. You made a case on the basis of saying that nobody had argued that measles had been eliminated. You said that 'virtually eliminated' was the term used, and in that, you were wrong. There's no point in arguing this, because my point is proven.

As to what they MEANT ... well, there could be the question of what the intent was behind their 'measles is eliminated' claim. What you'd like to dismiss as semantics could really be an intention to mislead through the over-emphasis of a soundbyte-term.

As for your second paragraph .. I'm glad to hear it, because it's all too obvious that trust in your Government - any Government - absolutely cannot be any automatic process.

However, that creates potential for another problem, surely ? With a lack of good reason for trust established, how far CAN they be trusted ? What if the basis for an immunisation program, wanted by your authorities, could itself be questioned ? My point is that, with an inability to automatically trust, comes the need to consider that untrustworthiness may be a feature of other matters embarked on ... as part of a 'campaign', or, not.

This is more than semantics, STTAB. Mistrust breeds mistrust, and it could be well founded.

On your last point, my answer must be 'YES' ...

... unless I get reason to reconsider, of course. My mind is open to that, given sufficient reason.

STTAB

05-10-2019, 08:48 AM

I'm not at all sure 'semantics' quite covers it. You made a case on the basis of saying that nobody had argued that measles had been eliminated. You said that 'virtually eliminated' was the term used, and in that, you were wrong. There's no point in arguing this, because my point is proven.

As to what they MEANT ... well, there could be the question of what the intent was behind their 'measles is eliminated' claim. What you'd like to dismiss as semantics could really be an intention to mislead through the over-emphasis of a soundbyte-term.

As for your second paragraph .. I'm glad to hear it, because it's all too obvious that trust in your Government - any Government - absolutely cannot be any automatic process.

However, that creates potential for another problem, surely ? With a lack of good reason for trust established, how far CAN they be trusted ? What if the basis for an immunisation program, wanted by your authorities, could itself be questioned ? My point is that, with an inability to automatically trust, comes the need to consider that untrustworthiness may be a feature of other matters embarked on ... as part of a 'campaign', or, not.

This is more than semantics, STTAB. Mistrust breeds mistrust, and it could be well founded.

On your last point, my answer must be 'YES' ...

... unless I get reason to reconsider, of course. My mind is open to that, given sufficient reason.

The answer to your question "how far can the government be trusted?" Is sadly not at all.

In fact the opposite is true, you are better off assuming that they are wrong absent any information to the contrary.

In this particular case we have plenty of independent data to conclude that mandatory vaccinations are a good thing in the overall.

Drummond

05-10-2019, 10:48 AM

The answer to your question "how far can the government be trusted?" Is sadly not at all.

In fact the opposite is true, you are better off assuming that they are wrong absent any information to the contrary.

In this particular case we have plenty of independent data to conclude that mandatory vaccinations are a good thing in the overall.

MANDATORY vaccinations ?

Do tell.

To conclude: you don't trust your Government 'at all'. But, the precedent of said Government coming up with MANDATES that people would need to obey, this from people you do NOT trust, is fine with you ?

Setting the precedent of deference to diktats from those you say you don't trust ... does that make any sense at all ? Seems rather masochistic, at absolute minimum ....

STTAB

05-10-2019, 10:56 AM

MANDATORY vaccinations ?

Do tell.

To conclude: you don't trust your Government 'at all'. But, the precedent of said Government coming up with MANDATES that people would need to obey, this from people you do NOT trust, is fine with you ?

Setting the precedent of deference to diktats from those you say you don't trust ... does that make any sense at all ? Seems rather masochistic, at absolute minimum ....

What are you talking about?

I don't trust the government, that doesn't mean in this one particular instance they aren't doing something right.

Drummond

05-11-2019, 10:57 AM

What are you talking about?

I don't trust the government, that doesn't mean in this one particular instance they aren't doing something right.

STTAB .... really ... !!! This is getting too easy.

You 'don't trust the government'. But in this instance, you do.

OK, that could be a 'one off', with your argument perhaps holding water in many instances (- theoretically -), even if not for this one.

But here's the problem: you trust the Government to compel such vaccinations, to make them MANDATORY. To dictate to people that this must happen. More .. you trust the Government enough to set the legal, and socially 'acceptable' precedent to - when they choose to - dictate their rule over peoples' lives.

For a Government you profess not to trust, or to not want to trust, that's decidedly strange, isn't it ? Why would you happily see a Government dictate to you, seize the power to do so, enshrine it in law, concede the precedent of doing that, if you don't even trust them !!!

ARE you a masochist ?

Or ... could it be that your mindset is such that you defer to the principle of a centralised authority dictating your life to you, whenever they feel like it ?

There's a brand of politics that covets such power, and would use it in just that way.

Its name is .... SOCIALISM.

Think about it.

jimnyc

05-11-2019, 11:03 AM

Drummond

05-11-2019, 11:43 AM

Although the distrust of govt. from me is full there - we can really say that they ARE mandated to an extent. While folks CAN turn them down and they have that RIGHT - it's just that they will be "auto-banning" themselves if you will, from half of the world.

It's similar to the argument of those who refuse to supposedly get a drivers license or photo ID - which is NOT mandatory - but then watch half of your privileges/rights or whatever you call it, disappear. Pretty much can't do anything without it. So not mandatory, it's been made to the point that it HAS to be done to get through with a normal society.

I think it's similar with the vaccines. Not mandatory, but try getting into a school without them. Or almost all sports activities where people are grouped together - and many other things.

So mandatory, but by societies doing, whether folks like that or not. Don't get that ID, don't get the vaccines - that IS your right if that's the path one chooses to go. But there are consequences with many decisions in life, and this is one of them too.

All fine. But, be all that as it may, STTAB makes it clear that he's supportive of mandatory vaccinations. This surely means what it says ? Mandatory vaccination programs don't allow for choice .. they don't permit it. STTAB claims to be distrustful of Governments, and yet, he wants to see a precedent set where they can dictate to you, compel you to do what they dictate.

I think my position on vaccinations is clear ? IF, repeat IF, there's very good reason to have them, then let there be a preparatory effort to educate people on the need for them. But actual mass compulsion sets a dangerous precedent. An UNTRUSTWORTHY Government is bound to use that precedent for its own ends. It's a slippery slope, isn't it ? Even if done indirectly, where to offer resistance to the effort of compulsion results in a 'pushing back' by authorities to see to it that you're disadvantaged if you don't fall in line with them.

Have a psychology gain acceptance in society where such tactics, and such a display of authoritarianism, gains wide acceptance ... it gives a potential green light for any manner of future abuses.

Abbey Marie

05-11-2019, 04:14 PM

12033

Gunny

05-11-2019, 04:28 PM

All fine. But, be all that as it may, STTAB makes it clear that he's supportive of mandatory vaccinations. This surely means what it says ? Mandatory vaccination programs don't allow for choice .. they don't permit it. STTAB claims to be distrustful of Governments, and yet, he wants to see a precedent set where they can dictate to you, compel you to do what they dictate.

I think my position on vaccinations is clear ? IF, repeat IF, there's very good reason to have them, then let there be a preparatory effort to educate people on the need for them. But actual mass compulsion sets a dangerous precedent. An UNTRUSTWORTHY Government is bound to use that precedent for its own ends. It's a slippery slope, isn't it ? Even if done indirectly, where to offer resistance to the effort of compulsion results in a 'pushing back' by authorities to see to it that you're disadvantaged if you don't fall in line with them.

Have a psychology gain acceptance in society where such tactics, and such a display of authoritarianism, gains wide acceptance ... it gives a potential green light for any manner of future abuses.I am going to jump in where I left off so if I'm a day late and a dollar short, so be it. Drummond Kathianne. I think both make good points. Where I fall on the side of vaccinating is this:

On a level of ideals, I agree with what drummond is saying and don't consider it wrong except that ideals are ideals. His hard-line stance does not allow for humans to participate. And in and of itself, his ideals would force people to provide for themselves in mass numbers.

Like it or not, in reality, we all belong to societies/social structures where we are dependent on cooperation to achieve any success. There is a common good in society that supercedes the individual when the individual presents a threat to the collective. Even though most of us are do for yourself, conservative-types, we ALL still rely on the government/society whether or not we like it. Yes, there is a danger of morons like the loony left taking it to extremes and just generally screwing up the most common sense things, but id ioes nto in any way effect the danger presented to the society as a whole.

Each case should be taken on its own merit based on the effect it has on the society as a whole. Our laws are full of BS rules that step all over individual Rights and I disagree with probably most of them. When the rule actually is beneficial to the whole though, it should be accepted as such.

Drummond

05-11-2019, 06:45 PM

12033

What 'plague' are you referring to, Abbey ? It's only MEASLES we're talking about.

Besides, a healthy immune system can resist even contracting it, without recourse to any form of immunisation. My own has, on multiple occasions.

Drummond

05-11-2019, 06:57 PM

I am going to jump in where I left off so if I'm a day late and a dollar short, so be it. @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) @Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8). I think both make good points. Where I fall on the side of vaccinating is this:

On a level of ideals, I agree with what drummond is saying and don't consider it wrong except that ideals are ideals. His hard-line stance does not allow for humans to participate. And in and of itself, his ideals would force people to provide for themselves in mass numbers.

Like it or not, in reality, we all belong to societies/social structures where we are dependent on cooperation to achieve any success. There is a common good in society that supercedes the individual when the individual presents a threat to the collective. Even though most of us are do for yourself, conservative-types, we ALL still rely on the government/society whether or not we like it. Yes, there is a danger of morons like the loony left taking it to extremes and just generally screwing up the most common sense things, but id ioes nto in any way effect the danger presented to the society as a whole.

Each case should be taken on its own merit based on the effect it has on the society as a whole. Our laws are full of BS rules that step all over individual Rights and I disagree with probably most of them. When the rule actually is beneficial to the whole though, it should be accepted as such.

Note your section of text I've highlighted, Gunny. Can you show me where I've said any such thing ?

I've argued in favour of immunisation programs, (1) in cases of national emergency, or, failing that, (2) as a recourse to medical aid being available for those who want it.

But I've argued against STTAB's line that such immunisations must be mandatory. He simultaneously distrusts Government, but at the same time wants to empower them to dictate actions to people as they choose to apply them, believing that a social climate where this takes place, and is accepted, is reasonable.

I see no consistency in that stance.

I'd like clarification from you, Gunny, on your own position ... because I'm getting from it that you've at least a measure of support to offer on STTAB's point of view, concerning permitted compulsion in certain, limited circumstances (perhaps more than just emergencies). Am I correctly interpreting your post ?

Gunny

05-11-2019, 07:46 PM

Note your section of text I've highlighted, Gunny. Can you show me where I've said any such thing ?

I've argued in favour of immunisation programs, (1) in cases of national emergency, or, failing that, (2) as a recourse to medical aid being available for those who want it.

But I've argued against STTAB's line that such immunisations must be mandatory. He simultaneously distrusts Government, but at the same time wants to empower them to dictate actions to people as they choose to apply them, believing that a social climate where this takes place, and is accepted, is reasonable.

I see no consistency in that stance.

I'd like clarification from you, Gunny, on your own position ... because I'm getting from it that you've at least a measure of support to offer on STTAB's point of view, concerning permitted compulsion in certain, limited circumstances (perhaps more than just emergencies). Am I correctly interpreting your post ?You do not have to say it. The parameters you present require it.

Name one ideal Man has ever had that he' has ever gotten right. Although bulletproof on paper, guaranteed success and brilliant ideal and all that, it goes completely to crap the very second a person becomes involved in making it happen. That's historical fact, minus the idealism.

Then, we have to interpret what you call an "emergency". I would consider this an "emergency". Despite who should be doing what or is claiming this or that, solve the problem. THEN point fingers.

I don't know whose argument besides Kathianne's I am supporting. As previously stated, I jumped back into the thread after leaving off 2 weeks ago. I considered it a good argument and no one's going for blood. I believe I explained early on I have ZERO issue with mandatory immunizations as part of one's responsibility to the community/family. I also have zero problem with it because I was a military brat 20 years then served 21 and never even gave it a thought. I thought everyone did it and since it makes perfect sense to get the immunizations, I never had reason to question it.

In the US, those who choose to not adhere t the law that is based on the common good, they have recourse. They can home school. Private school (that's a guess). The freedom of choice is there, such that it is.

On the other hand, if you attend public schools you get your shots like the rest of the herd. I believe you used the term "herd" early on in the thread? Ever seen 2000 Marines and Sailors confined to the space of a ship for 1-3-6-9-12-or-more months at a time? No different than a classroom full of children in the winter with the heat on. And it is a herd for sure.

Now suppose I have Marines that can't get the shot(s) for whatever reason. Should their lives be endangered by some snot-ass know-it-ass who just "doesn't wanna"?

I can see taking a stance on something that might matter some day, but this topic isn't one of them. I go get my damned immunizations every year like a good boy, mostly to protect me from whatever strain of the plague the grandchildren may have, and out of respect for all of them by not bringing some bullsh*t into the house.

Kathianne

05-11-2019, 07:57 PM

You do not have to say it. The parameters you present require it.

Name one ideal Man has ever had that he' has ever gotten right. Although bulletproof on paper, guaranteed success and brilliant ideal and all that, it goes completely to crap the very second a person becomes involved in making it happen. That's historical fact, minus the idealism.

Then, we have to interpret what you call an "emergency". I would consider this an "emergency". Despite who should be doing what or is claiming this or that, solve the problem. THEN point fingers.

I don't know whose argument besides Kathianne's I am supporting. As previously stated, I jumped back into the thread after leaving off 2 weeks ago. I considered it a good argument and no one's going for blood. I believe I explained early on I have ZERO issue with mandatory immunizations as part of one's responsibility to the community/family. I also have zero problem with it because I was a military brat 20 years then served 21 and never even gave it a thought. I thought everyone did it and since it makes perfect sense to get the immunizations, I never had reason to question it.

In the US, those who choose to not adhere t the law that is based on the common good, they have recourse. They can home school. Private school (that's a guess). The freedom of choice is there, such that it is.

On the other hand, if you attend public schools you get your shots like the rest of the herd. I believe you used the term "herd" early on in the thread? Ever seen 2000 Marines and Sailors confined to the space of a ship for 1-3-6-9-12-or-more months at a time? No different than a classroom full of children in the winter with the heat on. And it is a herd for sure.

Now suppose I have Marines that can't get the shot(s) for whatever reason. Should their lives be endangered by some snot-ass know-it-ass who just "doesn't wanna"?

I can see taking a stance on something that might matter some day, but this topic isn't one of them. I go get my damned immunizations every year like a good boy, mostly to protect me from whatever strain of the plague the grandchildren may have, and out of respect for all of them by not bringing some bullsh*t into the house.

I don't know about TX or any other private school states. In the past couple of weeks have been in 4 Catholic school offices: Sign in all, "Every child must have proof of current immunizations to enroll or remain at the school. We protect all of our children. We make no exceptions."

Don't have that sort of sign in my public school office, though the law is clear-as you say, too many 'exceptions' nowadays.

Gunny

05-11-2019, 08:51 PM

I don't know about TX or any other private school states. In the past couple of weeks have been in 4 Catholic school offices: Sign in all, "Every child must have proof of current immunizations to enroll or remain at the school. We protect all of our children. We make no exceptions."

Don't have that sort of sign in my public school office, though the law is clear-as you say, too many 'exceptions' nowadays.Our laws are strict. We're too close to the border for them not to be. I do not believe you can get into any "public" (for the purposes of this to include "private" schools) without your shots, or the aforementioned exceptions.

Not sure how it is in AZ, but here, a job application is like an inquisition because of illegals. They're pretty much the same about shots. You have to have them.

What is the word I'm looking for? "Shot numb"? :laugh: I guess I've had so many and never questioned them beyond to ask maybe which one it is, that the paltry amount of shots you need for school isn't registering with me :laugh: We'd get 3-4 at a time in each arm, simultaneously. Got to get 3 shots for school?:rolleyes:

Practicality dictates mandatory immunizations, minus the exceptions of course. In this for instance, I think the being part of a responsible society trumps personal choice.

Kathianne

05-12-2019, 04:01 AM

Our laws are strict. We're too close to the border for them not to be. I do not believe you can get into any "public" (for the purposes of this to include "private" schools) without your shots, or the aforementioned exceptions.

Not sure how it is in AZ, but here, a job application is like an inquisition because of illegals. They're pretty much the same about shots. You have to have them.

What is the word I'm looking for? "Shot numb"? :laugh: I guess I've had so many and never questioned them beyond to ask maybe which one it is, that the paltry amount of shots you need for school isn't registering with me :laugh: We'd get 3-4 at a time in each arm, simultaneously. Got to get 3 shots for school?:rolleyes:

Practicality dictates mandatory immunizations, minus the exceptions of course. In this for instance, I think the being part of a responsible society trumps personal choice.

From the AZ education immunization website: https://education.azgovernor.gov/edu/arizona-school-immunization-requirements

Immunization Exemption Forms

Medical Exemption Form (http://azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/immunization/school-childcare/medical-exemption-form.pdf) [Español (http://azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/immunization/school-childcare/medical-exemption-form-espanol.pdf)] - Must be completed by the child's physician or nurse practitioner.
Religious Beliefs Exemption Form (http://azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/immunization/school-childcare/religious-belief-exemption.pdf) [Español (http://azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/immunization/school-childcare/religious-belief-exemption-espanol.pdf)] - Must be completed by the parent or guardian of a child attending childcare or preschool programs. The initials of the parent/guardian and the date are required next to each vaccine preventable disease description, in addition to the signature and date at the bottom of the form.
Personal Beliefs Exemption Form (http://azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/immunization/school-childcare/personal-belief-exemption.pdf) [Español (http://azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/immunization/school-childcare/personal-belief-exemption-espanol.pdf)] - Must be completed by the parent or guardian of a student attending Kindergarten through 12th grade. Personal Beliefs exemptions are not applicable in childcare or preschool programs. The initials of the parent/guardian and the date are required next to each vaccine preventable disease description, in addition to the signature and date at the bottom of the form.

It's the 3rd that has encompassed all the problems. The first reason is obvious, there are a few that cannot be immunized for health reasons.

The second is a small problem, but was a reasonable accommodation for Christian Scientists back when I presume.

It's the 3rd that is for anti-vaxers, the real issue with numbers.

Kathianne

05-12-2019, 04:07 AM

From the AZ education immunization website: https://education.azgovernor.gov/edu/arizona-school-immunization-requirements

It's the 3rd that has encompassed all the problems. The first reason is obvious, there are a few that cannot be immunized for health reasons.

The second is a small problem, but was a reasonable accommodation for Christian Scientists back when I presume.

It's the 3rd that is for anti-vaxers, the real issue with numbers.

Texas seems to have the same, though have a sort of restrictions on the 'religious/conscience' exemptions:

https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/exemptions.aspx

Gunny

05-12-2019, 09:51 AM

Texas seems to have the same, though have a sort of restrictions on the 'religious/conscience' exemptions:

https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/exemptions.aspxCall me cynical, lazy or whatever, but I'm getting shots before I'm going through any of that exemption paper drill. I'm not overly fond of needles but I AM allergic to paperwork :)

I don't agree with the reasoning for "religious/personal exemption". It places the individual's personal desires above the health and welfare of the community. That is not logical nor practical. And I DO take the Rights of the individual very seriously. However, some common sense, which is not so common anymore, and just simple courtesy are required.

What really bugs me about this? Where are all these "I take my stand for my Rights" people when real, meaningful Constitutional Rights are being trampled? You know, something worth fighting for?

Drummond

05-12-2019, 11:49 AM

You do not have to say it. The parameters you present require it.

There it is. I said no such thing as what you'd claimed for me. QED.

I think contexts are getting just a little muddled in all this.

I've highlighted STTAB's lack of consistency, from his overall argument. Namely ... don't trust Government, except ... when you DO ... and then, trust one (in total defiance of a claim not to) to such an extent that you'll accept seeing powers seized which facilitate total dictation to the general public. Given that the reason to take that action can be said to 'hang together', so, that power is taken, applied, nobody is allowed to choose otherwise, in the face of an authority's insistence upon it, one you 'don't trust' ....

Untrustworthy people are people who are entitled to dictate to you, remove your freedom of choice ? They're entitled to set that precedent, create and implement laws, making such diktats you can only defy by breaking those laws ?

... Then, we have to interpret what you call an "emergency". I would consider this an "emergency". Despite who should be doing what or is claiming this or that, solve the problem. THEN point fingers.

The answer to this seems obvious to me. States of emergency apply to situations that are emergencies ! Such as, if national security is seriously compromised. Or, where a SERIOUS health emergency exists, threatening life &/or limb.

I seriously doubt that measles qualifies ! Bird flu could (in my view, it does). An ebola outbreak would. But ... measles ?

I'm of the view that a Government taking on powers, and insisting on their mandatory implementation, for something as relatively mild as MEASLES, for God's sake (!!) must be one exercising power for the sake of it. It's an over-reaction. A sledgehammer to crack a nut. I automatically question the motivation of the action taken.

What concerns me is that I think I'm observing what I'd fear, namely, the automatic acceptance of Governments taking on dictatorial powers just because THEY say they want to. It's a means to an end, and maybe the automatic acceptance of that IS already a precedent people accept ?

If so ... you will see a steady erosion of democratic accountability in everyday life. Almost worse, you won't even recognise what's happening. And ... STTAB's illustrated inconsistencies will be reflected by attitudes adopted everywhere.

In the US, those who choose to not adhere t the law that is based on the common good, they have recourse. They can home school. Private school (that's a guess). The freedom of choice is there, such that it is.

There's the common good, yes. And then, there's the Nanny State, which exists to create a culture of dependence.

In such a culture .. who questions authority ?

On the other hand, if you attend public schools you get your shots like the rest of the herd. I believe you used the term "herd" early on in the thread? Ever seen 2000 Marines and Sailors confined to the space of a ship for 1-3-6-9-12-or-more months at a time? No different than a classroom full of children in the winter with the heat on. And it is a herd for sure.

Your military equivalence, there, reinforces the National Security aspect, which applies where there really is a need to defend society's best interests. That's a little different to guarding against the 'horrific' prospect of actually risking getting measles !!!

I say that there is a difference. Or would you be prepared to send armadas of warships as a countering action to people back home catching bad colds ? Does the one really equate to the other ?

I wasn't the first person who used the 'herd' term, and when it was first mentioned, I questioned its use.

Now suppose I have Marines that can't get the shot(s) for whatever reason. Should their lives be endangered by some snot-ass know-it-ass who just "doesn't wanna"?

This is MEASLES we're talking about !

I can see taking a stance on something that might matter some day, but this topic isn't one of them. I go get my damned immunizations every year like a good boy, mostly to protect me from whatever strain of the plague the grandchildren may have, and out of respect for all of them by not bringing some bullsh*t into the house.

.... and I'm sure that choice played a part in all of that.

I've never had an immunisation shot of any kind, ever. But still, I've led a healthy life. I've been exposed, to my certain knowledge, to measles and meningitis outbreaks (my mother died of meningitis), but, my immune system coped easily (if, in fact, it even needed to). I don't say that such shots are a waste of time, or that recourse to them shouldn't exist. But I do believe that such hysteria exists (which is totally exploitable) on this, where it shouldn't.

Gunny

05-12-2019, 01:01 PM

There it is. I said no such thing as what you'd claimed for me. QED.

I think contexts are getting just a little muddled in all this.

I've highlighted STTAB's lack of consistency, from his overall argument. Namely ... don't trust Government, except ... when you DO ... and then, trust one (in total defiance of a claim not to) to such an extent that you'll accept seeing powers seized which facilitate total dictation to the general public. Given that the reason to take that action can be said to 'hang together', so, that power is taken, applied, nobody is allowed to choose otherwise, in the face of an authority's insistence upon it, one you 'don't trust' ....

Untrustworthy people are people who are entitled to dictate to you, remove your freedom of choice ? They're entitled to set that precedent, create and implement laws, making such diktats you can only defy by breaking those laws ?

The answer to this seems obvious to me. States of emergency apply to situations that are emergencies ! Such as, if national security is seriously compromised. Or, where a SERIOUS health emergency exists, threatening life &/or limb.

I seriously doubt that measles qualifies ! Bird flu could (in my view, it does). An ebola outbreak would. But ... measles ?

I'm of the view that a Government taking on powers, and insisting on their mandatory implementation, for something as relatively mild as MEASLES, for God's sake (!!) must be one exercising power for the sake of it. It's an over-reaction. A sledgehammer to crack a nut. I automatically question the motivation of the action taken.

What concerns me is that I think I'm observing what I'd fear, namely, the automatic acceptance of Governments taking on dictatorial powers just because THEY say they want to. It's a means to an end, and maybe the automatic acceptance of that IS already a precedent people accept ?

If so ... you will see a steady erosion of democratic accountability in everyday life. Almost worse, you won't even recognise what's happening. And ... STTAB's illustrated inconsistencies will be reflected by attitudes adopted everywhere.

There's the common good, yes. And then, there's the Nanny State, which exists to create a culture of dependence.

In such a culture .. who questions authority ?

Your military equivalence, there, reinforces the National Security aspect, which applies where there really is a need to defend society's best interests. That's a little different to guarding against the 'horrific' prospect of actually risking getting measles !!!

I say that there is a difference. Or would you be prepared to send armadas of warships as a countering action to people back home catching bad colds ? Does the one really equate to the other ?

I wasn't the first person who used the 'herd' term, and when it was first mentioned, I questioned its use.

This is MEASLES we're talking about !

.... and I'm sure that choice played a part in all of that.

I've never had an immunisation shot of any kind, ever. But still, I've led a healthy life. I've been exposed, to my certain knowledge, to measles and meningitis outbreaks (my mother died of meningitis), but, my immune system coped easily (if, in fact, it even needed to). I don't say that such shots are a waste of time, or that recourse to them shouldn't exist. But I do believe that such hysteria exists (which is totally exploitable) on this, where it shouldn't.I will re-state: I answered for me. I did not read from where I left off to where I picked back up. The topic doesn't seem to warrant it as it is still the same topic. I have no idea what Staab has posted. I will assume he is speaking for himself. This sin't a gang thing.

Nor do I see it as anything to take personally to point of being defensive.

There is no real inconsistency in not trusting the government and believing it is a responsibility to one's community/family to not needlessly endanger others. I trust the government to do what is best for the government. It is in the government's best interest that we be healthy, military or otherwise. Military immunizations are to protect from where one is going, not where one lives. Local immunizations protect against local issues. In either case, the government can't collect tax dollars or votes from dead people.

As is pointed out in the other thread of the same topic, measles is the leading killer for a preventable disease. That is enough right there to end any argument or question.

I survived two strains of the measles and the chickenpox as a child. I don't see that as a valid argument in regard to everyone else. I have grandchildren 2, 7, and 11. They haven't had either and you can carry infectious diseases without contracting them yourself. So, I get my shots for THEM, not me. Likewise, they get theirs.

Matter of fact, I've never heard of the European measles but I'm going to find out of I need a shot and get it if I do.

If you, drummond, don't want to get an immunization and have the Right not to, then feel free to exercise your Right in any manner you see fit. No one here has said not to. I feel the same way about taxes as you do measles shots but I still have to pay them because I don't have the Right not to.

My reasoning is clear and understandable. I also understand yours quite clearly. IMO, it is off. So we disagree. I'll live presumably but we know I WON'T die fromt he measles :poke:

Kathianne

05-12-2019, 08:01 PM

Drummond

05-13-2019, 12:40 AM

It looks like Mr. Drummond may have a relative or at the least a kindred spirit in TX! https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/12/texas-legislator-accuses-scientist-sorcery-measles-outbreaks-continue-rise/

Posts like that one are just plain tiresome.

So, let's clear the air. Yes ?

I've been labouring under a misapprehension on this whole subject of measles. A lot of my thinking, thus far, has had this consideration as its core: measles is 'NO BIG DEAL'. Because, to me, it really isn't.

I've always thought that if I ever did contract measles (I never have), OK, it'd have potential to be altogether nastier than a common cold, but nonetheless, it would be an illness you just 'get through', and shrug off, just as you would with a cold, or a bout of flu. Nothing more.

On another thread, I belatedly relayed my understanding of measles, which I now see varies substantially from yours. In my society ... measles deaths come pretty close to being seen as a feature of history; that's to say, in modern Britain, it's virtually guaranteed to be a NON-fatal disease. That's long been my understanding about it. Here in jolly ol' Blighty, the only real likelihood of dying from measles comes from already suffering from other illnesses at the time you contract it. If you don't, then, certainly these days, it doesn't endanger your life.

Even then, given the presence of other illness on the part of someone contracting measles, deaths in the UK from it are extremely rare.

I've now, belatedly, understood that for Americans it's a more serious illness, so, NOW, I begin to get why it worries your people ! Until now, I seriously wondered if all the angst about it might've been artificially generated by your authorities, amounting to nothing more than a form of hype, and the product of some kind of worked-towards agenda.

MY reality, is not YOUR reality, it seems. [I]Measles is not regarded as a killer disease here !! I'm utterly baffled as to why the US has to regard it differently.

What makes your reality different from mine ? I'm honestly asking.

Would you, or anybody else, care to explain it to me (& without barbs, please !). WHY is measles a greater threat to your people, than to mine ??

STTAB

05-13-2019, 07:52 AM

Call me cynical, lazy or whatever, but I'm getting shots before I'm going through any of that exemption paper drill. I'm not overly fond of needles but I AM allergic to paperwork :)

I don't agree with the reasoning for "religious/personal exemption". It places the individual's personal desires above the health and welfare of the community. That is not logical nor practical. And I DO take the Rights of the individual very seriously. However, some common sense, which is not so common anymore, and just simple courtesy are required.

What really bugs me about this? Where are all these "I take my stand for my Rights" people when real, meaningful Constitutional Rights are being trampled? You know, something worth fighting for?

That's not being lazy that is a direct result of military service, where you have to fill out three forms just to use the latrine (or head for you naval guys)

STTAB

05-13-2019, 08:08 AM

Posts like that one are just plain tiresome.

So, let's clear the air. Yes ?

I've been labouring under a misapprehension on this whole subject of measles. A lot of my thinking, thus far, has had this consideration as its core: measles is 'NO BIG DEAL'. Because, to me, it really isn't.

I've always thought that if I ever did contract measles (I never have), OK, it'd have potential to be altogether nastier than a common cold, but nonetheless, it would be an illness you just 'get through', and shrug off, just as you would with a cold, or a bout of flu. Nothing more.

On another thread, I belatedly relayed my understanding of measles, which I now see varies substantially from yours. In my society ... measles deaths come pretty close to being seen as a feature of history; that's to say, in modern Britain, it's virtually guaranteed to be a NON-fatal disease. That's long been my understanding about it. Here in jolly ol' Blighty, the only real likelihood of dying from measles comes from already suffering from other illnesses at the time you contract it. If you don't, then, certainly these days, it doesn't endanger your life.

Even then, given the presence of other illness on the part of someone contracting measles, deaths in the UK from it are extremely rare.

I've now, belatedly, understood that for Americans it's a more serious illness, so, NOW, I begin to get why it worries your people ! Until now, I seriously wondered if all the angst about it might've been artificially generated by your authorities, amounting to nothing more than a form of hype, and the product of some kind of worked-towards agenda.

MY reality, is not YOUR reality, it seems. [I]Measles is not regarded as a killer disease here !! I'm utterly baffled as to why the US has to regard it differently.

What makes your reality different from mine ? I'm honestly asking.

Would you, or anybody else, care to explain it to me (& without barbs, please !). WHY is measles a greater threat to your people, than to mine ??

To put it simply , because we have FAR more people than England and a lot of those people are here from shall we say less than ideal places, where they have contracted God knows what and brought it here.

We have far more people , so it follows that we also have far more people who would not survive a Measles outbreak. Just simple math. And as I said earlier in the thread if you stretch medical resources too thin then you see people who could marginally survive with minor medical care dying of measles because they couldn't get that minor medical care.

If as we discussed earlier 2% of the population died when exposed to Measles , that would be 600K deaths in the US without even considering the impact of stretched resources if we had a Measles outbreak.

Drummond

05-13-2019, 10:33 AM

To put it simply , because we have FAR more people than England and a lot of those people are here from shall we say less than ideal places, where they have contracted God knows what and brought it here.

We have far more people , so it follows that we also have far more people who would not survive a Measles outbreak. Just simple math. And as I said earlier in the thread if you stretch medical resources too thin then you see people who could marginally survive with minor medical care dying of measles because they couldn't get that minor medical care.

If as we discussed earlier 2% of the population died when exposed to Measles , that would be 600K deaths in the US without even considering the impact of stretched resources if we had a Measles outbreak.

No, STTAB.

I'm going to do you the favour (it's probably true, anyway) of assuming that you haven't seen the statistics I posted on another thread about this. So, let me introduce you to them now.

See:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-deaths-by-age-group-from-1980-to-2013-ons-data/measles-notifications-and-deaths-in-england-and-wales-1940-to-2013

Study the table this link takes you to. I promise you that you can trust the figures it shows you.

You say that you've far more people in the US than we have in the UK. True ! We've got around 65 million these days.

What's your population ? Around 300 million, 'give or take' ? That's approximately five times the number we have here. So, multiply each statistic by five, to reach a decent comparison ... yes ?

OK, then.

From the period 2010 to 2016 (the latest year reported on) we had precisely FOUR deaths in the UK from measles. Not '4K' of deaths, or anything remotely like it. Not even a tally of deaths reaching double figures ! So, tell me ... between 2010 and 2016, did you only have five times that number, i.e TWENTY deaths ? Or, was it more ? Just, in that period, how many more ?

Of those presumed TWENTY deaths, were all of them cases where an underlying, and serious, additional health issue was suffered by those who died ? Because in the UK's cases, that was true of ALL of them.

To quote from my post, and the link:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?66447-More-spread-of-measles-yikes!&p=932872#post932872

Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992. In 2006, there was 1 measles death in a 13-year-old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in an unvaccinated child with a congenital immunodeficiency, whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin. In 2013, 1 death was reported in a 25-year-old man following acute pneumonia as a complication of measles. In 2016, one death was reported in a 10-month-old infant who suffered complications due to a secondary infection.

All other measles deaths since 1992 shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.

I'll give you this much: my stats don't quite go up to the present day. I wish they did. Still .. I've no reason to think there's been any great change.

So, STTAB, do you see that there's more to this than the argument you offer ? Somehow, America manages to be far worse off than we are. Given that you've had a major outbreak, affecting far more people ... still, WHY aren't Americans coping well ? Why do you fear measles as a disease carrying lethal potential, for anyone other than already-seriously sick people ?

There's seemingly something that makes Americans more susceptible to this virus than we are, over here. WHAT is it ??

Can you explain that, STTAB ?

Until now, I assumed that you were the victim of authoritarian-concocted hype, & / or choosing to panic about, basically, 'nothing', and my argument was built on that. I was clearly wrong. MY reality is not YOUR reality.

And, note this: we've never had compulsory vaccination here. Never. Sure, it's 'heavily advised', and Government tries to meet ambitious targets of percentages for its take-up. Sure, there's TALK of MAYBE introducing mandatory compulsion, backed by law. But you can't explain our modern-day lack of mortality from measles, here, as a product of Government compulsion to comply with vaccinations.

I've never thought of measles as a 'killer' disease. I've never had to.

I'm asking why such a difference between our countries. That is the point.

================================================== ====

P.S .... Sorry !! I've just taken another look at the table I sent you. It says that the 2016 death (the only one recorded that year) was, I quote. 'Known not to be measles infection'. So .. revise my UK total DOWNWARDS. It's not FOUR. It's just THREE.

Sorry about that.

Kathianne

12-05-2019, 11:18 PM

It's been awhile:

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/worldwide-measles-deaths-surge-reversing-years-progress-67489710?fbclid=IwAR07l2XYuJ4BAPxC2EenaBK1rCCiwSHX d_5oq5wzUwIslKeFmaH52BnlI1I

ABC NEWS December 5, 2019
Worldwide measles deaths surge, reversing years of progress

More than 140,000 people around the world died of measles (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/low-vaccination-rate-deadly-medical-mistake-led-samoa/story?id=67317110) last year, most of them children under the age of 5, according to a report (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6848a2.htm?s_cid=mm6848a2_w) published by the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Thursday.

This year is shaping up to be even worse, as deadly outbreaks continued to sweep the globe in 2019. As of mid-November, the number of measles (https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/measles) cases countries reported to WHO was three times higher than the number of cases reported at this time last year.

...

Samoa's story is one sliver of a larger narrative about a measles spike following more than a decade of progress toward eliminating the disease. In 2000, there were roughly 28,000,000 estimated measles cases worldwide. By 2017, that number had fallen to fewer than 8,000,000 cases.

Last year, progress ground to a halt.

2018 saw nearly 10,000,000 estimated cases of the infectious disease spread around the world.

"In other words, we're backsliding," warned Dr. Kate O'Brien, director of immunization, vaccines and biologicals at WHO.

"There's been an increase in both the cases and the deaths that have occurred from measles," she said.

In 2018, Albania, Czechia, Greece and the United Kingdom, lost their coveted measles elimination status, meaning they've had continuous measles transmissions for more than a year after previously declaring the disease eliminated. The United States, which this year logged the highest number of measles cases in more than two decades, barely clung to its own status. Outbreaks in Brooklyn and New York State that lasted for nearly 12 months threatened to end nearly 20 years (https://www.cdc.gov/measles/elimination.html) of having the elimination designation.

...

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-06-2019, 05:54 AM

It's been awhile:

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/worldwide-measles-deaths-surge-reversing-years-progress-67489710?fbclid=IwAR07l2XYuJ4BAPxC2EenaBK1rCCiwSHX d_5oq5wzUwIslKeFmaH52BnlI1I

Read the article. Where was the part about how most of the infectious disease, measles for one, is increasing in USA due to the much promoted/sponsored/aided by dem party, illegal immigration into our country. O that is right that part was censored..
Did not make it into the article.
Any person that trusts our government blindly is going to end up damaged in their lifetime by being so gullible..
Our government, its bureaucracy is a firmly entrenched beast--that is primarily a liberal dem party apparatus.
Not trusting it is a must for a sane person.
Measles is a serious disease and one should take precaution --but-- while screaming about vaccination --why isnt our same "screaming about vaccination government", concerned about the illegals bringing most of it into our nation? hmmmmmm.....
My son and daughter are vaccinated. As am I and my wife.
They let millions in spreading a disease without a whimper about it but yet scream bloody murder if an American citizen does not want to be vaccinated-- some kind of hypocrisy, some kind of massive discrepancy.
Which is more dangerous to we citizens, more dangerous to us as a constitutionally based Representative Republic?--Tyr

Kathianne

12-06-2019, 08:33 AM

Read the article. Where was the part about how most of the infectious disease, measles for one, is increasing in USA due to the much promoted/sponsored/aided by dem party, illegal immigration into our country. O that is right that part was censored..
Did not make it into the article.
Any person that trusts our government blindly is going to end up damaged in their lifetime by being so gullible..
Our government, its bureaucracy is a firmly entrenched beast--that is primarily a liberal dem party apparatus.
Not trusting it is a must for a sane person.
Measles is a serious disease and one should take precaution --but-- while screaming about vaccination --why isnt our same "screaming about vaccination government", concerned about the illegals bringing most of it into our nation? hmmmmmm.....
My son and daughter are vaccinated. As am I and my wife.
They let millions in spreading a disease without a whimper about it but yet scream bloody murder if an American citizen does not want to be vaccinated-- some kind of hypocrisy, some kind of massive discrepancy.
Which is more dangerous to we citizens, more dangerous to us as a constitutionally based Representative Republic?--Tyr
Actually this article was more on the Worldwide problem, which includes migration patterns of the non vaccinated, whether through availability of vaccine or those choosing not to.

STTAB

12-06-2019, 12:54 PM

I find it amazing that my child can't bring a peanut butter sandwich to school, but yours could bring Measles if you have some objection to vaccines.

Kathianne

05-28-2020, 01:36 AM

Over here in jolly ol' Blighty ... our ever-mighty NHS introduced, quite a few years ago now, the 'MMR' vaccine. 'MMR' stood for 'Mumps, Measles, Rubella'. The aim, as the name suggests, was to pack immunisations for all these three illnesses into one single shot.

The Almighty State then did its best to indoctrinate people into accepting that the MMR vaccine should be compulsory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2088426.stm

This article pre-empts what I was going to suggest in this post .. that it'd only be a matter of time before people in the US were robbed of individual choice on the matter ! Seems that you already are .. ?

Well ... there was a lot of debate over here as to whether the jab was responsible for some autism 'outbreaks' (I see that was a concern in the US as well). Many parents refused to allow the MMR vaccination in fear of that. I for one don't blame them !

My point is this: introduce a culture of accepted compulsion into issues such as this, and it can lead, even if only theoretically, to enforced catastrophes. The medical world is ever-evolving its knowledge, and a treatment thought through ignorance to be entirely safe might ultimately prove, years later, NOT to be. Add State-backed compulsion to the mix, and you've a situation where, if individual choice had only been possible, some kids might've been saved from having their lives blighted ... 'By Order'.

I say: yes, educate. Yes, encourage treatments, always have them available and backed by the fullest known data on them. But ... compulsion ? Definitely not. Sometimes mass treatment programmes can be a good thing, but I can't believe they always, unfailingly, are. ALWAYS permit individual choice - never trample on that.

The moment you do ... you invite the culture where it can keep happening, en masse. Whether you like it, or not.

Ah, the good old days, just over a year ago. :laugh2: