Uh-oh. Those evil scientists are up to no good again, blindly making discoveries and creating inventions without any thought to the long-term consequences. Dynamite, nerve gas, the atom bomb, the hydrogen bomb…what’s next? What new horror will they unleash on humanity?
Scientists are close to coming up with a vaccine against Chlamydia. The bastards.
Notice the trend? Develop better hygiene to end childbed fever, anesthetics to dull the pain of childbirth, cures for venereal diseases, the recent vaccine against human papilloma virus, and now this. It’s like they don’t think women deserve to suffer. You know this will only lead to licentiousness, rampant freedom, and orgies. Come on, fellow scientists, think. Do you really believe this kind of behavior will make the world a better place?
Just you wait. Someone will try to stop them.
Fortunately the HPV vaccine episode appears to be showing a little activism can stymie those who want women to suffer.
Yeah, damn those evil scientists. Next thing you know, they’ll develop vaccines or cures for HIV and herpes. And you can imagine how much worse off we will be when those diseases are consigned to the dust bins of history.
*sigh* Ads for herbal remedy crap on the page.
In the United States, About 14,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer disease each year and more than 3,900 women die in the USA each year from this disease.
The millions of dollars spent on PAP smears, colposcopies. The untold human misery in uterine removal and sterility. The horror of watching your mother, sister, or daughter needlessly die. …Oh screw that, little Jeanie might have sex if she gets the shot, so let them suffer and die.
I thought the people would laugh at stupid dangerous backward morons like this in the 21st century.
Sadly, I can already hear Jerry Falwell blathering on about this sinful acheivement. God help us all … or Joe Pesci help us all. Take your pick.
Yeah, I’m waiting for something demented to appear on Worlds’NutsDaily
A world with more orgies WOULD be a better place! :D
“International vaccine company Sanofi-Pasteur has awarded QUT a funding boost of more than $300,000 to continue its research into Chlamydia and work towards developing a vaccine specifically targeting adolescent women.”
Wow that’s a lot of money!
Exxon’s CEO Lee Raymond didn’t even make that much in two whole days while he was working.
Arg, you guys!!! Don’t you know that God has a plan to make women’s bajingos burny when they’re bad, and it really embarasses Him when you thwart his best-laid plans with a simple vaccine?! I mean, seriously, what kind of pathetic make-believe sky-daddy can’t even smack a bitch up for being teh slutz0rs just because she got some shot full of deviltry in her arm? A really pathetic one, that’s what kind. Now, knock it off!
I think we can beat this thing like we did that gol-durned ERA thing that would have encouraged women to leave their husbands, become lesbians and practice witchcraft!
Why would women deserve any rights? The Babble tell us
very clearly how we should treat the “lower” sex.
Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
I really like the last part……..
Rats! What am I going to do with all these “I went to the Caribbean and all I got was a case of chlamydia” t-shirts?!
A world with more orgies WOULD be a better place! :D
Posted by: Aaron Kinney
So long as people weren’t compelled to join in, then… Yes, it would. (with no smiley at the end of the sentance)
Too bad scientists never get invited to those kind of parties.
Curing things? Yes. Though the religious fundamentalists may object to diseases being put asunder from humans by humans.
Making love not war? That also seems to have a lot going for it. So the religious fundamentalists are likely to disapprove of that too.
I’m all in favor of vaccines for unpleasant diseases – but unless they pose an epidemic risk, I don’t see why people should be forced to take them if they want to attend public school, no matter what their reasons are.
Too bad scientists never get invited to those kind of parties.
Posted by: Zarquon
You’d be suprised.
So, which diseases would you say should or should not be required to vaccinate against?
I’m very sorry to tell you this, PZ, but your daughter has…WHAT???
I couldn’t use the word sex as a hotlink. WTF?
By the way, PZ, I’m sorry I had to bring your daughter into this joke, but I just couldn’t resist. If you follow the link, I’m sure you’ll understand, and maybe have a good laugh.
I was wondering the same thing.
phat
Those that can be spread easily from person to person through the normal contact you’d expect at school and that have serious consequences: measles, Whooping cough, etc. Chylamydia? No. The flu? Not unless a serious superstrain pops up, which I expect one will, eventually. HIV? No.
Is it just me noticing it more, or does it seem like there’s a lot of good science coming out of Australia these days, at least in medicine?
Stop! This will cause people to use intercourse for pleasure instead of intense self-denial! Pastor Ted Haggard didn’t once have any pleasure while making his children with his wife! And that’s the way it should be!
>>You know this will only lead to licentiousness, rampant freedom, and orgies. Come on, fellow scientists, think. Do you really believe this kind of behavior will make the world a better place?
Hmmm. I wonder where the Christian outrage was when someone proposed a 16-hour erection pill?
Why not just make us wear Scarlet Letters? It’s cheaper than medical research for women’s health issues.
Spot the common fallacy:
“I don’t believe in violence, so I won’t pay the part of my taxes that goes to funding the military. In return, I don’t expect the army to defend #12 Freedom Street if somebody invades us – just defend the people at #10 and #14 who paid. My property, my choice.”
“I’m not worried about fire, so I’m going to let the grass grow long and pile up dry wood and paint tins all over the place. In return, I don’t expect the fire brigade to come to #12 Freedom Street if there is a fire – just look out for #10 and #14. My property, my choice.”
“I’m not worried about disease, so I’m not going to get vaccinated. If I catch something, that’s my own problem. My body, my choice.”
The nature of contagious disease is that it’s contagious. People who get vaccinated protect not only themselves, but others in their community; people who don’t vaccinate expose others to risk, while freeloading on the ‘herd immunity’ provided by the vaccinated. The idea that individuals should be free to make decisions for themselves only holds up when they are only hurting themselves; vaccination is not such a case.
Dr. Finger was the fundy attached to the CDC committee reviewing the HPV vaccine. He was a liaison between Focus on the Family & the committee. His comments, cited in WIKI, regarding an HIV vaccine:
In an interview with Michael Specter for the March 13, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, Dr. Finger stated that, should an HIV vaccine become available, ACIP would have to carefully consider its effects on sexual activity. “‘We would have to look at that closely,” he said. “With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.'”
Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Finger
Katha Pollitt is right – for these people, it truly is a choice between Virginity or Death.
Given that around 1.5 million teenage women in the USA contract chlamydia every year, you might want to re-evaluate your expectations; presumably they’re catching it somehow.
We can tut-tut over whether schoolkids should be having sex, but since nobody’s found an effective way to discourage it that’s not a terribly relevant question. And pretty much by definition, children are not yet at the age where we should be exposing them to the full punishment for all their bad decisions.
Is it just me noticing it more, or does it seem like there’s a lot of good science coming out of Australia these days, at least in medicine?
*entire nation reels from backhanded compliment*
There’s always been a lot of good science coming out of Australia. But medical science is more prominent because it seem to capture the imagination of international news outlets.
Diseases aren’t punishments for making bad choices, you idiot.
And this reasoning:
is wrongheaded at best. There are precious few decisions we can make in life that have absolutely no capacity to hurt anyone. By your reasoning, refusing to take courses in first aid would qualify as “harming others”.
Interesting factoid from Oz…most koalas in the wild have chlamydia, and that is affecting their viability as a species. Wonder if there is any research link? Also, wonder if this new vaccine works cross-species (and no, no man-on-koala hanky-panky meant, even though they are teh cute!)
I have to agree with Geoffrey.
Why should the level of communicablilty be the deciding factor?
If they ever come up with and HIV vaccine wouldn’t you want everyone to get it?
It’s a numbers game pure and simple. The more that get the vaccine the less chance the disease will spread.
“There are precious few decisions we can make in life that have absolutely no capacity to hurt anyone. By your reasoning, refusing to take courses in first aid would
qualify as “harming others”.”
Two differences I can think of:
Omission vs Commission:
Failure to learn first aid is an act of omission, while spreading an infectious disease – even if it is initiated by the passive failure to get a vaccine – is an act of commission.
Specific Responsibility vs Random Bystander:
It is common for school teachers to be required to have minimal first aid training, since they are in a position of responsibility in that professional role. Not getting car insurance is an act of omission, but is a failure to provide compensation (the ability to compensate) for damage one is responsible for, versus injuries witnessed as a mere bystander.
Colugo, I’ve seen you around here before, and you seemed fairly reasonable, but this is just plain stupid.
Not receiving a vaccine for a disease is not equivalent to spreading that disease. Not receiving the vaccine is also an act of omission, not an act of commission. The distinction is ultimately not very useful because any act can be restated as a non-act and vice versa.
Furthermore, I don’t know of anyone who can be said to be entitled to a teaching position, whereas students are indeed entitled to a public education in our system. Refusing to provide that entitlement is something that should be done only when certain standards are met – and people’s failure to help create a state that you perceive as desirable does not constitute meeting such a standard.
I know this may seem outrageous to some of you, but just because you think an outcome is highly desirable, even if it really is objectively highly desirable, that doesn’t mean that you’re justified in using force and coersion to create that outcome. Shocking!
This gets me every time there is a public argument that relates in some way to human reproduction. In a preponderance of instances, those who are telling us what Father God is trying desperately to get through to us is that is vitally important what we do with our pee-pees. Given that our pee-pees give us pleasure of sorts depending upon their actual use at any given moment, and given that the entire gist of religion is of a higher nature, not concerned with things of the earth or fleshly concerns, why do religious apologists fixate so intensely on what others do with their genitals?
It seems to me that some people are so deeply committed to their anticipated life to come after they die that any good thing in this life becomes trite, foolish or, even worse, an grotesque and deformed caricature of the World a ‘Comin.
I suppose it would be bland and redundant to suggest that there are more important things with which to be concerned?
You really don’t understand why communicability is an issue? You don’t see why a child who’s HIV positive should not be forced out of school or cause other children’s parents to pull them from school, while a child who has a hypothetical slow-acting form of Ebola ought to be kept out of school by all means necessary, including fire?
Wanting people to do something and forcing them to do it are two very different things.
Kids are required to get measles, mumps and other vaccines if they want to attend public school or most daycare centers.
If vast numbers of people just decided to not get their children immunized you would see a jump in the numbers of kids getting those diseases.
It’s a matter of scale. The more that get it the more effective it is.
Aren’t diseases like measles and mumps 1) easily transferrable through normal, everyday contact and 2) likely to lead to serious consequences if they’re contracted, such as sterility, death, or at the very least serious illness?
Aren’t they also particularly likely to strike young children?
Yup. But they can be contracted by adults too.
But look… it’s a global epidemic with lots of horrible symptoms.
Chlamydia may also cause reactive arthritis, especially in young men. (Some forms of reactive arthritis formerly were known as Reiter’s syndrome. The latter term has fallen out of favor owing to revelations about Hans Reiter’s Nazi past and in particular his active participation in horrific human experiments in concentration camps.) About 15,000 men develop reactive arthritis due to chlamydia infection each year in the USA, and about 5,000 are permanently affected by it.
As many as half of all infants born to mothers with chlamydia will be born with the disease. Chlamydia can affect infants by causing spontaneous abortion; premature birth; conjunctivitis, which may lead to blindness; and pneumonia.
Isn’t that true of the flu also?
Also, why is it acceptable, in your model, to voluntarily present a risk to others of placing them in a state of suffering, as long as they aren’t too likely to die from it?
Also, the hypothetical case of HIV-positive students being forced out of schools has fuck-all to do with the “vaccination as a criterion for admission” issue.
Fine argument Sir. Sex is indeed deeply abnormal. And every month is not every day.
The troll makes as much sense as usual.
How about a strict liability model? The nutters can refuse vaccination for themselves and their children, as long as they accept liability for ALL the consequences to themselves, their children and all those they possibly infected. These family decisions would be publicly available knowledge, on which medical and life insurance companies, mortgage companies and potential employers could base their own criteria and decisions.
*seconds dkew’s suggestion*
Not normally, no. If that changes in the future, I will rethink my position on requiring vaccinations for the flu.
Wrong. “Not willing to coerce people” is not equivalent to “state is acceptable”.
Are you really asking me why it shouldn’t be illegal to leave one’s home if you have a head cold?
It has a great deal to do with the issue. There are no grounds for keeping a HIV-positive child out of public schools because the risk of transmission from everyday contact is so extremely low. If HIV could be easily transmitted, there would be excellent reasons for denying such children public educations.
I agree with Caledonian. Ease of communicability should very much be the deciding factor.
dkew: a nice idea, but I doubt it’s practical.
How about a strict liability model? The nutters can refuse vaccination for themselves and their children, as long as they accept liability for ALL the consequences to themselves, their children and all those they possibly infected. These family decisions would be publicly available knowledge, on which medical and life insurance companies, mortgage companies and potential employers could base their own criteria and decisions.
hmm, the immediate question that pops to mind is:
How much is a human life worth?
If you go on a strict liability based model, and those who “opt out” get infected with a contagious disease, end up infecting somebody’s kid, and the kid dies…
well, I think you can see where the difficulty lies.
I find it remarkable that people who get behind the idea that people have the right to do with their bodies what they see fit on topics like abortion simultaneously believe that individuals ought to be compelled to do with their bodies what serves their perceptions of the general good on topics like mandatory vaccination.
For that matter, what makes you think parents *aren’t* liable if they let their children transmit serious diseases to other kids? America has an incredibly high rate of litigation – what’s keeping parents from filing lawsuits?
You all have it wrong. Vaccinations are so passé. I’ve heard it on good authority that the DI and Jerry Falwell’s church are in collusion developing a Christian Chastity belt (the real purpose of the DI’s new science lab). It’s said to perserve the virginity of women/girls from the age of 11 on by having the capacity to adapt to the growing woman’s body. And in an ecumenical move, Falwell is expecting to appeal for the blessing of Pope Benedict. What more can we ask for?
America has an incredibly high rate of litigation – what’s keeping parents from filing lawsuits?
nothing, but that doesn’t bring their kids back, either.
Moreover, lots of folks could give a shit if they find themselves legally liable for their potential actions, so long as they are still free to act as they choose. Should others suffer because a liability model allows abuse, even if it provides for punishment after the fact?
this debate starts to sound like the half pound of prevention being worth a pound of cure argument.
You people who think that society ought to intervene to put things the way you’d want them: what precisely do you consider off-limits?
Parents of deaf children who refuse to have cochlear implants put it? Parents who want to teach their children obscure languages? Parents who raise their children in profoundly different cultures? Parents who have political/social/religious beliefs that you don’t like?
Should the children of neo-Nazi members be taken away from the state? What about people who use reproductive technologies instead of adopting? Should people who adopt be forced to randomly select a child instead of accepting only children of a certain age/sex/racial background?
Have you actually considered the implications of your preferences?
Should be ban all trampolines? Sure, plenty of people can possess them responsibly, but someone’s not going to put up proper fencing – and even among those who do, sooner or later some child will hurt or kill themselves. We’d better pre-empt this tragedy by invoking state authority to protect people from themselves!
You people who think that society ought to intervene to put things the way you’d want them: what precisely do you consider off-limits?
nothing.
everything.
there is no easy answer, as you damn well know. Flexibility is paramount, but also unrealistic given how politics works.
It’s always boils down to a balance between freedom and security, just as with most other issues that must be decided for a variable populace.
No solution will be perfect, but there in the end always is some balance reached between the current perceived needs of freedom vs. security on any given issue.
like you say, looking at the flu virus, it can mutate between a minor annoyance and life threatening. Would a blanket policy of any kind really be a perfect solution?
what about the policy that conceivably causes the least harm to most people over the long term? Is that acceptable?
In my mind, ideally, it would always boil down to not just the absolute level of communicability (unless it was effectively “0”), but what the impacts of infection would be on someone who was a legitimate target of infection.
obviously, if the only available means of transmission would be of a sexual nature, then yes, that limits the means of transmission, but not the potential ubiquity of it.
potentially, anybody could still get a sexually transmitted disease. It becomes more likely as sexual activity increases, so one might consider required vaccinations after a certain point of maturity, for example.
that would also be combined with a knowledge of the impacts (both immediate and potential) of the disease under consideration.
while I personally don’t like to include the following into consideration, there is also the potential impact economically if any given disease were to spread, and these considerations are certainly considered legitimate for most governing bodies. I can understand the argument of indirect impact based on economics, even if the idea seems distasteful.
I consider “seat belt laws” to be extreme examples of this. while there is NO immediate direct impact on another’s life or freedoms if you don’t wear a seatbelt, the impacts on the economy of the state due to treating uninsured injury cases resulting from not wearing a seatbelt, and general increases in medical costs, were and are considered to have sufficient indirect impacts to warrant the proposal and passage of such laws, in many states.
I simply don’t think the issues are even philosophically, let alone practically, as simple as you are trying to paint them here, Cale.
But some answers are easier than others – and some kind to spout rhetoric like “balance between X and Y” to obscure the reality that they can’t actually defend the positions they espouse and really aren’t interested in doing so in the first place.
You don’t “balance” two contradictory concepts. You set up a hierarchy, dictating which takes precedence in which situations. Empiricism and theory are both important in determining the structure of that hierarchy.
The value of a human life? Zillions if you’re rich or famous, peanuts if you’re not, squat if you’re a dark furriner.
I didn’t mean that extreme libertarian proposal seriously, except in the sense that the financial institutions would have to make hard calculations, and just maybe some of the nutters would see reason when no one would cover their gambles. It wouldn’t work well for those with no assets, prospects, brains or conscience. So the public health model stands.
Drat – that should be “some like”.
Don’t even get me started on seatbelt laws.
Caledonian, did I misread what you wrote above or do you really believe that parents opting out of vaccinating their kids doesn’t put a severe strain on herd immunity?
If indeed that’s what you wrote, you truly know nothing of infectious disease.
Universal vaccination against the flu is an extremely good idea; influenza kills tens of thousands annually (mostly infants and the elderly) and novel strains that become pandemic are catastrophic (surely I don’t need to remind you of the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919. Influenza is very, very contagious through casual contact.
Admittedly, mandating immunization against infectious diseases that are not spread by casual contact (HPV, chlamydia) is perhaps heavy-handed (though as a pediatrician, I’m not too bugged; the folks that most want to opt out are those who also don’t want their children learning about Teh Sexx and fill my waiting room with teenagers who need some very adult-type help). Having said that, arguing against mandatory flu immunizations is right up there with the “vaccines cause autism” crowd.
No one is forcing them to vaccinate their children, they just can no longer send their children to public schools. They can always send their spawnlings to private school.
I don’t see what your problem is with that, Caledonian.
Also with Caledonian here just about 100%.
Here’s the thing about communicability. Some of you guys are saying, well maybe schoolkids “shouldn’t” be having sex, but they are.
But having sex isn’t a compulsory part of going to public school. Breathing the same air, touching the same objects, those sorts of things necessarily happen when students share the same space. That means that diseases that are transmissible in such ways should be vaccinated against compulsorily. How could you justify forcing someone to be vaccinated in order to attend public school when their presence at such school in unvaccinated state couldn’t possibly cause anyone harm? They might infect someone in an outside situation, but so might someone who was homeschooled and thus immune (sorry…) to the requirement to begin with.
I’m all for requiring vaccination against highly communicable diseases, and I would want to be vaccinated against chlamydia myself, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s appropriate to force every high school kid to get the vaccine.
I don’t know about misreading, but misunderstanding: almost certainly. ‘Severe’ strain also depends on the number of people who opt out. But more to the point, making decisions collectively is almost always worse than making them individually, and the likelihood of correct decisions drops as the group involved gets larger.
Considering the consequences of some past medical screwups, I am of the position that medical intervention should never be imposed on people who don’t wish it unless there’s a compelling interest, and I mean truly compelling, for society to do so. Aside from negating choice and freedom, imposing things through force tends to lead to more net harm than letting individuals choose their own courses, if only because risk aversion tends to be impaired when you’re used to forcing your will through.
And regarding mandatory flu immunizations: go screw yourself. No one in my immediate family has ever had any form of the flu. Until a truly lethal strain comes around, one that we have a risk of getting, we’re neither at risk of the flu nor likely to spread it to others. I am most certainly not going to accept a cost without benefit to myself just to satisfy your control needs. If people don’t want to get the flu, they can get themselves immunized with my blessing – they can receive both the possible benefit and the possible price. When some superflu that kills 20% of the people who get it and spreads like wildfire comes around, we can consider breaking out the mandatory immunizations – also with my blessing. Until then, you can shove it right up.
So we’ve established that:
a) you don’t know shit about herd immunity;
b) you don’t know shit about influenza;
c) your sense of social responsibility is right up there with Jeffery Skilling; and
d) your grasp of statistics is also pretty shaky.
That was very enlightening, Caledonian. Thank you.
But more to the point, making decisions collectively is almost always worse than making them individually
Huh, what?
You just argued that dictatorships are better than democracy.
Given his Lysenko-like grasp of medicine, why are you surprised, Graculus?
“Don’t even get me started on seatbelt laws.”
Drivers: Drivers wearing seatbelts are more able to retain control of the vehicle, and hence reduce risk of injury and death to others. Preadult passengers: Refer to principles regarding the endangerment of minors and dependents. Adult passengers: Assumption of responsibility by driver, similar to safety procedures on the part of someone who is responsible for an aircraft or laboratory. (For example, ensuring that lab workers wear gloves and safety goggles and secure compressed gas tanks.) Also, bodies and body parts traveling at high speed upon impact can injure others (including even those outside the vehicle if bodies break through the windshield).
Clearly, we’re philosophically on different points on the libertarian-collectivist continuum. Science (and naturalism, and application of reason, empiricism, and logic) can help inform, but it cannot settle this one for us.
Just like science (and naturalism et al.) cannot settle some other philosophical, ethical, and moral issues, such as the “appropriate” disposal of the dead and human-animal hybrids/chimeras.
And to allude to that endless thread on whether a scientist can be a theist, or mystic, or whatever, and truly “get” science: While some of us can engage in science as a professional activity, none of us can wholly embody “science” – because science is incapable of resolving all questions in all domains of human experience.
Neither system is inherently good. An enlightened dictatorship is better than even an enlightened democracy – but it’s far, far rarer. Democracy as a general category is prone to the worst sorts of demagoguery and lowest-common-denominatorism that are rare in dictatorships, but dictatorships are prone to corruption – and at worst, by imposing a single set of decisions upon individuals, puts severe limits on the ability for choices to be made with awareness and knowledge of specific circumstances.
Practically speaking, it doesn’t matter much whether the overwhelming power is a single in control of the masses, or the masses as a whole. Fascism and collectivism have similiar consequences despite purportedly being at the extremes of a particular political spectrum.
And regarding herd immunity: I know perfectly well what it is, thank you, and I also note that it doesn’t justify mandatory immunizations in many if not most cases. I am somewhat confused as to why you’re implying gross ignorance of certain facts because someone’s challenging the assertions you are incorrectly claiming proceed from those facts.
No, that’s just a politic lie – I know precisely why you’re doing that. And it’s a large part of why I don’t want people like you making decisions for everyone. Or, indeed, anyone.
Very likely. Your provided reasons are an excellent argument for why wearing a seatbelt is a good idea – they are not adequate to justify the imposition of seatbelt wearing.
Wrong. This is a point that not enough people grasp. If it can be said that there is a correct stance on this issue, those are precisely the things that we must use to identify and implement it. If there isn’t, then it doesn’t matter what’s implemented in the first place, and neither my feelings or thoughts on this matter nor yours are of any importance.
You caught me! Caledonian, you li’l rascal, you found me out. I’m busy being some kind of Communist, trying to prevent epidemics and keep kids out of the hospital. If I were a freedom-loving guy like you, who gives not a shit about his effect on his neighbor and can make the claim that no member of his family has ever had the flu *with a straight face*, why then, I’d be all for keeping kids away from those nasty, autism-causing vaccines and laffin’ my butt off about outbreaks of pertussis and mumps that keep poppin’ up in the good ol’, freedom-lovin’ U.S.A.!
Oh, well. I must be true to my Stalinist control-freak nature and try to prevent infections. Maybe one day I’ll be as enlightened as you, and realize that prevention of epidemics doesn’t justify the inconvenience of parents who want to enroll their kids in public schools. Fire up the SUV!
Fascism and collectivism have similiar consequences despite purportedly being at the extremes of a particular political spectrum.
Fascism is a form of collectivism.
And you have begged the question… why can’t non-vaccinated children go to private schools if their parents are unwilling to meet the admission requirements for public schools?
Fascism a form of collectivism? Ferdinand Porsche is looking down from Industrialist Heaven and laughing. How many corporations were nationalized by Hitler or Mussolini? Those guys loved Big Business, and were loved by it.
It comes down to one very simple fact.
When you talk about public health concepts, you almost have to use legislation to change behavior.
Want to cut smoking rates? Tax cigs or pass no smoking laws.
Want to make motorcycle riding safer? Require turn signals, lights, spedometers, etc. Require helmet use.
And seatbelts actually protect others as well. Being belted in makes it easier to maintain or regain control of your vehicle.
Want to maintain herd immunity? Require vaccination. If you don’t like it, move somewhere where you don’t have to interact with other people.
Fascism a form of collectivism?
Yes.
Check your definition of collectivism.
Then your definition of fascism.
Then your definition of “corporation”.
Then your definition of “private property”.
Then your definition of “private sector”.
The Nazis were so “collectivist” that they encouraged the activities of privately-owned (or stockholder-owned, if that’s your definition of “collectivism”) outfits like Porsche AG, IG Farben, Krupp, Erma, and Daimler-Benz without once trying to nationalize them; the Italian fascists loved them some Fiat; Chile’s fascist government loved not only domestic private industry but foreign ones as well; every pistol on Franco’s officers’ belts was produced by private firms (most of which still exist): can’t tell you ’bout Portugal, though.
It’s a funny kind of collectivism that is so corporate-friendly.
1) You don’t know what ‘begging the question’ means.
2) You’re missing the point that society is not free to establish arbitrary admissions requirements. Such requirements must be justified.
And I most certainly can make the claim that no one in my family has had the flu with a straight face, because it’s true. Mild and transient colds are the worst we’ve dealt with in my lifetime – none of us have ever come down with “the flu” as we generally recognize it. Weird genetics, cleanliness, or luck, I can’t say which are responsible, but the result is clear. I suppose it’s not technically accurate to claim that none of us have ever been infected with any influenza virus – but it’s a bit like saying that we all have massive E. coli infections raging constantly.
It’s a funny kind of collectivism that is so corporate-friendly.
Corporations are collectives.
In many people, mild and transient cold is how influenzavirus presents itself. Mighty glad no one in your family was very ill; sorry about those to whom you passed the virus on. We all pass that virus on, unless we’re vaccinated. The seventy-year-old at the bus stop who catches that virus from the mildly ill person who sneezes goes on to develop a raging viral pneumonia and shuffles off this mortal coil. That’s the nature of influenza, and will always be so, unless the transmission is halted by increasing (yes, you guessed it) herd immunity.
Well, Graculus, if you’re broadening your definition of “collective” to include any enterprise involving a group of people who work toward a common goal, then I guess corporations are collectives. Of course, by that definition, any form of government is “collectivist”, because all government involves group goals and group input.
Um, no. On several levels.
1) People who get sick despite being vaccinated (which I’m told is relatively common with all the types of flu) are just as capable of passing it on as sick people who weren’t vaccinated.
2) To my awareness, we didn’t pass on any influenza to anyone.
You’re arguing a bad example – this is a case of how herd immunity *doesn’t* work very well. I suggest you pick any one of the large number of diseases where herd immunity is highly effective to make your case.
“If it can be said that there is a correct stance on this issue, those are precisely the things that we must use to identify and implement it.”
Those are necessary (because they help inform decisions) but they are not sufficient. Here is what is missing: values.
“If there isn’t, then it doesn’t matter what’s implemented in the first place.”
I must respectfully disagree. It does matter – even if there is there is no objectively “correct” stance.
Again, I refer to values. Values are neither wholly derivable from science, naturalism, reason, empiricism, and logic (all of which I will simply refer to as “science”) nor are they completely arbitrary.
Some will say “OK, values are derived from our evolved moral sense.” Partly, but to understand what values are, we must consider Tinbergen’s four causes. Hence, values will always have individual experiential and culturally constructed dimensions. That is not same as them being arbitrary. Nor are values wholly decidable by “science.”
Side issue:
“Those guys loved Big Business, and were loved by it.”
Big business had no compunction against doing business with communists either. For example, Ford had business dealings with the Soviet Union. (Avoiding the semantic issues of “true” communism vs Soviet “state capitalism,” or historical asides like Lenin’s NEP.)
Anarchy.
Wrong. Values are either incoherent, or they have objective qualities that act upon survival rates, and thus scientific thought can reveal how they arise and perpetuate themselves.
Wrong. They are one or the other.
No, I’m not.
And capitalist corporations are not “a group of people working towards a common goal”, most of the people employed therein couldn’t give an airborne rodent’s posterior.
Man. I think STD vaccines are a great idea. And it’s completely idiotic to assume that people will get the chlamydia vaccine and immediately go out and have sex. I mean, just because I get a flu shot doesn’t mean I’m going to go around licking doorknobs.
This’ll be quick–
1) Getting sick despite being vaccinated happens because the innoculum of the disease (the quantity that a vaccinated person is exposed to) overwhelms the vaccinated person’s immunity. This happens because herd immunity was *never established* or because it has *broken down*. Herd immunity to the flu isn’t highly effective only because the flu vaccine isn’t mandatory–almost no communities in the US have significan herd immunity to the flu until very late in the flu season, when most people have had the illness, after the epidemic has passed.
2) Of course you’re unaware of passing on influenza to anyone. I may not love your sense of social responsibility, but I don’t believe that you would actively spread the flu, nor would any member of your family. Influenza is spread via casual contact. It doesn’t need to be prolonged contact. You may have spread it (assuming you had it, which, statistically, is the most likely occurrence) to cashiers at grocery stores, to library patrons, and to people at the pharmacy. You didn’t meet any of these people, and you couldn’t be expected to be aware of their coming into contact with pathogens that you shed–again, you wouldn’t knowingly infect anyone.
Wanna hear about pertussis?
Caledonian:
If you consult just about any dictionary, you’ll find that the word ‘punishment’ can be used simply to signify a harsh/taxing treatment or situation. For instance, this cricket report: “The other opening bowler Faizan Sayeed bore the brunt of the response but Nathanial also took some punishment.”
Unless you are attempting to claim that diseases such as chlamydia aren’t harsh and unpleasant, then yes, they can indeed be described as ‘punishment’. I certainly don’t view them as punishment in the moral sense of the word, but that is not the only usage.
Wrong. If I break my leg, having somebody around with no first-aid training is still better than not having them (although obviously training would be better. If I’m vulnerable to infection, OTOH, they are a risk to me. It’s the difference between “neutral” and “negative”.
Indeed, and we force people to pay their taxes for defence against other countries; defence against communicable disease is a similar issue.
The near-impossibility of proving culpability?
You are aware that people can have flu without showing symptoms, right?
Graculus–
People employed by corporations work toward a common goal, or they fail to obtain their paychecks. They don’t have to believe in what their employer is doing; they just have to show up for work and perform some tasks, or else they get fired. (My situation is not dissimilar, except that I gussy it up with notions of “service” and “humanitariianism”–but a corporation still issues my paycheck, whether I like it or not, and I invite you to guess which one of those is the case.)
Caledonian–
Even anarchists have to work together to reach large goals. There are even anarchist factories (in Mondragon, Spain, for example)–collectives, in the truest sense.
They don’t have to believe in what their employer is doing;
Then they don’t have a common goal, do they?
All this talk about freedom versus coercion, fascism, collectivism, blah, blah, blah is rather pointless being as how the actual issue is about mandatory vaccination programs WHICH HAVE OPT OUT PROVISIONS. If some crazy fundies refuse to get their kids vaccinated, nobody is gonna come kick their door in and haul them off for it.
Rest assured, if the parents refuse to have their kids vaccinated against a lethal disease and one of their kids catches it and dies, the parents likely won’t face any consequences what so ever. They’ll just mumble something about “god’s will” and go right back to fucking up their remaining kids lives.
Or we had it for such a brief time and we restricted our behavior accordingly so that we never came into contact with grocery store clerks, library patrons, people at the pharmacy, etc. during any period in which we were likely to be infectious. Result: we almost certainly didn’t transfer our colds, much less the flu, to anyone.
And “most likely” doesn’t translate so well to individual cases, particularly when there’s actual evidence about those cases that trumps mere statistical guesswork.
Yes, they do. They aren’t actively sabotaging the company; their actions are helping the company reach its goals. Their desires in the matter aren’t all that relevant, as long as they keep showing up for work and performing their assigned tasks. The paychecks keep coming; their goal is to keep the paychecks coming. That involves maintaining the corporation.
No one is forcing unvaccinated kids to go to public schools either. This is a non-issue.
“Values are either incoherent, or they have objective qualities that act upon survival rates, and thus scientific thought can reveal how they arise and perpetuate themselves.”
That implies that “correct” values are the “fittest” ones.
The “fitness” of a particular value is informative, but cannot be conclusive in regard to its correctness. The belief that there is a direct relationship between a value’s fitness and its “correctness” is itself a value. Furthermore, such an assertion is an example of the Naturalistic Fallacy.
In addition, the “fittest” values are not necessarily those that most enhance survival rates. (Example: Sentiments regarding speed limits.
They aren’t actively sabotaging the company; their actions are helping the company reach its goals.
The point is that they don’t share those goals *and* it doesn’t matter. The employee as individual does not exist. That is why it is collectivist (and authoritarian).
I’m not even going to bother.
Caledonian, what can I say? Your family isn’t like everybody else’s; you all know the very minute you become contagious, and you isolate yourselves accordingly. Probably some novel genetic feature that your kids will pass on.
The rest of the world catches a virus and has a latency period during which they’re contagious, but have minimal-to-no symptoms. Because they haven’t gotten a flu shot, or because they got it early in the season and have been exposed to their forty-seven ill neighbors who didn’t get the flu shot, they’ve got influenza. Damn shame that no significant herd immunity existed to protect them, but they’ll be all right. Unless they’re premie babies. Or have immune deficiencies. Or are on long-term steroids. Or are very elderly. But those people don’t signify; and they will die happy, knowing that they had the right to refuse immunization against the disease which has killed them.
Good night, all. This has been very illuminating.
Or they get the shot, then get one of the umpteen different strains of flu for which the shot doesn’t provide immunity.
There’s a reason no one bothers vaccinating against the common cold. Vaccinating against the flu is only slightly more effective. Doing so universally would cause more harm than good – not that oblivious busybodies like yourself are likely to care.
Your right, it is amazing what advances some people will fight with their crazy reasons.
While y’all are hashing out the moral implications of vaccination, I’ve got 2 words for ya:
Typhoid Mary.
If memory serves, she had to be institutionalized for the common good, because she was an outrageous carrier of disease.
Oh, & she showed no symptoms whatsoever.
Ummm…cures for venereal diseases? Don’t those evolve?
Caledonian, you have so far managed to avoid addressing my point.
There is nothing forcing anyone to send their unvaccinated child to public school.
Ummm…cures for venereal diseases? Don’t those evolve?
Smallpox has ceased to evolve. ;-)
Which objective qualities (revealed by scientific thought) of values should we privilege? OK, not their fitness. Their effect on survival rates? Or on the common welfare? On enhancing pleasure and reducing pain? On promoting human freedom?
Any choice of which objective qualities of values to privilege (that is, to most value) is itself based on values.
But some answers are easier than others – and some kind to spout rhetoric like “balance between X and Y” to obscure the reality that they can’t actually defend the positions they espouse and really aren’t interested in doing so in the first place.
bs.
You don’t “balance” two contradictory concepts. You set up a hierarchy, dictating which takes precedence in which situations.
and setting up a heirarchy necessarily implies balancing the relative values of potentially competing concepts. or would you rank freedom and security as heirarchical rather than competing concepts, philosophically speaking?
I can see this will be another one of those pointless debates, and I’ve said everything i felt relevant.
enjoy.
That seems exactly right to me, Colugo. No scientific fact or logical construct is prescriptive by itself.
The only reason I can see to deny that is if one wants to make statements like this: “Your provided reasons are an excellent argument for why wearing a seatbelt is a good idea – they are not adequate to justify the imposition of seatbelt wearing” and want to make it seem like it means anything.
Graculus:
Smallpox has ceased to evolve. ;-)
Hehehehe. Yeah, I guess that’s a kissing cousin, ain’t it?
Vaccinating against the flu is only slightly more effective. Doing so universally would cause more harm than good
these are quantitative assertions, so doesn’t one need to calculate rather than generalize about universals? The calculations aren’t arcane: here’s an introduction (via a link in the wikipedia article on ‘herd immunity’).
Qualitatively speaking, one has to consider that one’s body can be a vector without volition and despite your conscious values. This is something that people can reasonably seek to minimize systematically, now that we’re aware of it in a way that, e.g Plato wasn’t (to draw from Cal’s era of discourse).
A methodological (and psychological) issue: when vaccinations do immunize a herd, it’s hard to persuade that there actually was a threat or that any good was done – or that the expense/risk is justified. I’ll defer to the epidemiologists among us to explain any monitoring of covert epidemics and exposures.
Vaccinating against the flu is only slightly more effective. Doing so universally would cause more harm than good
these are quantitative assertions, so doesn’t one need to calculate rather than generalize about universals? The calculations aren’t arcane: here’s an introduction (via a link in the wikipedia article on ‘herd immunity’).
Qualitatively speaking, one has to consider that one’s body can be a vector without volition and despite your conscious values. This is something that people can reasonably seek to minimize systematically, now that we’re aware of it in a way that, e.g Plato wasn’t (to draw from Cal’s era of discourse).
A methodological (and psychological) issue: when vaccinations do immunize a herd, it’s hard to persuade that there actually was a threat or that any good was done – or that the expense/risk is justified. I’ll defer to the epidemiologists among us to explain any monitoring of covert epidemics and exposures.
Beyond the exciting question of whether our interest in herd immunity trumps libertarian values, in the context of vaccination programs which aren’t, if you push, actually mandatory, I’d raise the question of how far libertarian analysis really applies, here. After all it’s not whether people have the choice of vaccinating themselves or not; it’s parents choosing to not have their kids vaccinated — and not, here, out of non-standard health concerns, but out of religious-inspired ideas about the vaccine encouraging sex. In the meantime a Christian (or other) girl who doesn’t plan on having sex in high school still has no particular reason to not get the vaccine, and will be protected in the event of, say, rape, so is this a choice we should allow parents to make for their children? And given the limitations kids have on making free choices against their parents will on such matters, I can see a strong case for “any reasonable and informed kid would take the vaccine, so we’re going to *give* the vaccine, end of story.”
— there’s some influence from Dawkins in that last formulation —
Slippery slope? Maybe, but then total parental control is a slope of its own.
“Man. I think STD vaccines are a great idea. And it’s completely idiotic to assume that people will get the chlamydia vaccine and immediately go out and have sex. I mean, just because I get a flu shot doesn’t mean I’m going to go around licking doorknobs.”
There’s a chlamydia/knob-licking joke in there somewhere.
HAVE YOU ALL SEEN THE ATHEIST UPROAR ON YOUTUBE BECAUSE THE ACCOUNT NICKGISBURNE WAS DELETED FOR POSTING A VIDEO SHOWING QUOTES FROM THE QURAN THAT SHOWED IT IN A BAD LIGHT. THE VIDEO WAS JUST QUOTES FROM THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE QUARAN. SEVERAL VIDEOS FROM OTHER ATHEISTS HAVE BEEN POSTED PROTESTING AGAINST THIS.
SEE NICKGISBURNES VIDEO TELLING EVERYONE HIS ACCOUNT WAS DELETED.
THERE IS 20 VIDEO RESPONSES AND TONS OF COMMENTS. THIS IS SHOCKING YOUTUBE CENSORSHIP BECAUSE OF PERSONAL OPINION.
Terrible communicable disease, Vaccine developed, system and technology in place to vaccinate the population. Preacher says this vaccine is against the will of god. Herd immunity seriously compromised because the good people of the flock believe. Massive outbreak of deadly disease spreads like wildfire. Caledonian and DocAmazing both contract disease and pass on. What will I read for entertainment?
As Richard Dawkins said, “Even the bad achievements of science WORK.”
While I can estimate (classical) liberal and libertarian values, this is wrong by observation.
Regions with democracy (liberal value, btw) and free markets (liberal and libertarian value, btw) have raised living standards faster than any other systems. And anarchy has worked even worse than communism or fascism. Nature, at least, does not make the naive mistake of conforming to any one political or cultural view.
The modern society puts constraints on freedom, by its very being, and I can not fault that. In some cases it is for good reasons. We have laws, police and common health systems. Common vaccination programs are not dissimilar from common sewers – if people craps on the streets it is a sanitary hazard, more severe than if people craps on threads like this.
Saying that, I’m again confounded by what looks like a provincial view on these threads. I believe there are countries where some important vaccinations are mandatory, and if a person ‘opt out’ they get fined for needlessly endangering society but not forced to vaccinate. If it is so, I can not fault that stance either. At least it is another option to discuss.
While I can estimate (classical) liberal and libertarian values, this is wrong by observation.
Regions with democracy (liberal value, btw) and free markets (liberal and libertarian value, btw) have raised living standards faster than any other systems. And anarchy has worked even worse than communism or fascism. Nature, at least, does not make the naive mistake of conforming to any one political or cultural view.
The modern society puts constraints on freedom, by its very being, and I can not fault that. In some cases it is for good reasons. We have laws, police and common health systems. Common vaccination programs are not dissimilar from common sewers – if people craps on the streets it is a sanitary hazard, more severe than if people craps on threads like this.
Saying that, I’m again confounded by what looks like a provincial view on these threads. I believe there are countries where some important vaccinations are mandatory, and if a person ‘opt out’ they get fined for needlessly endangering society but not forced to vaccinate. If it is so, I can not fault that stance either. At least it is another option to discuss.
The spam filter refused key words. Sigh!
Anyway, this is the continuation of the previous comment:
In much the same vein as before, while I can estimate utilitarian values, this is problematic.
Murder and other forms of aggression can be of survival values in some animals, as can empathy or altruism, but that does not make out all of the social moral content we attribute. Murder, i_n_c_e_s_t, p_e_d_o_p_h_i_l_i_a, et cetera can be seen as wrong or a taboo without either apparent incoherency nor affecting survival rates in our society.
It is also a conflict between these values, like aggression and altruism, that a basic utilitarian model does not seem to easily resolve by difficulties in observation. A general value model must handle that too.
I value common vaccination programs, and I believe most value systems do too. I can even think that the utilitarian value system concludes that enforced flu vaccinations are a sane option. Why not?
The spam filter refused key words. Sigh!
Anyway, this is the continuation of the previous comment:
In much the same vein as before, while I can estimate utilitarian values, this is problematic.
Murder and other forms of aggression can be of survival values in some animals, as can empathy or altruism, but that does not make out all of the social moral content we attribute. Murder, i_n_c_e_s_t, p_e_d_o_p_h_i_l_i_a, et cetera can be seen as wrong or a taboo without either apparent incoherency nor affecting survival rates in our society.
It is also a conflict between these values, like aggression and altruism, that a basic utilitarian model does not seem to easily resolve by difficulties in observation. A general value model must handle that too.
I value common vaccination programs, and I believe most value systems do too. I can even think that the utilitarian value system concludes that enforced flu vaccinations are a sane option. Why not?
Wow … me head is a-whirling
Really torn on these issues.. liberal me wants to say “hey big gov butt-out … too weak a case!” However the father in me wants to say “yeah … go for it! helps ensure protection for my kids.. and others!”
Normally I’m on the side of liberal (gov butt-out) … but I think kids need special protections from their society. So many parents are so messed up (like the fundies and others on the other extreme) it is wrong of us NOT to intervene and take control when we can give kids a fighting chance without totally destroying all personal freedom and opinions.
This may be a weak instance of need…and the safety issues etc still need consideration.. but I’ll leave that to the scientists. My gut feeling is.. go for it .. the mandatory vaccinations horse left the barn years ago!!
HAVE YOU ALL SEEN THE ATHEIST UPROAR…”
Here is the Gisburne Quran video:
For this I was banned?
This is going to sound a bit harsh to a believer, but this is what I have worked out over the number of decades I have had on this planet. Theists actually want people to suffer. Yes, I said it would sound harsh and it does. They want them to suffer because in their worldview, whatever they decide is sin, must be punished. If science provides women with protection against cervical cancer, then women who may have “transgressed sexually” – (read as any woman who has had sex with anyone other than a husband) – deserves to suffer and/or die.
If science is capable of relieving suffering and pain, pretty soon we won’t be able to ascertain who has “sinned”, as pain and suffering are evidence of sin. If we can’t ascertain who has sinned, how can we offer to “save them from sin?” Religion, which feeds and expands on the concepts of sin and suffering, would go out of business.
I suggest you check snopes on that legend.
Re Gisburne’s video, I like this comment:
I encourage everyone to actually read the Qur’an in a translation that is appropriate to the language they speak, then they can judge for themselves. The problem with your video was the music it was set against (which lends a certain mood of angst), the speed of the quotations (too fast), and your concentration on the verses of punishment. Make a similar video quoting only the verses of reward.
Go for it Gisburne! Make a video about the nice food and the virgins and the bowel-free existence one is promised in paradise. Be sure to mention these stupidities:
“They relieve themselves by perspiring through their skins, and its fragrance will be that of musk, and all stomachs will have become lean.” (ibn Hibbaan)
“… and they shall have therein purified mates having no menses, urine, stools, etc.” (Quran 2:25)
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/10/
llewelly:
I suggest you check snopes on that legend.
Hello? She actually existed? She was an outrageous carrier, showed no symptoms?
Where did I propagate the ‘legend’?
Snopes says:
… the truth is this cook was responsible for only thirty-three cases of typhoid fever and only three deaths. She was a villain (albeit a passive one), but not the heartless dealer of death we now remember her as. And she might not even have been all that deliberately villainous.
Now, did anyone in this thread actually _claim_ that she deliberately infected thousands of people? Anyone? Bueller? No, the only claim made was “she had to be institutionalized for the common good, because she was an outrageous carrier of disease.” Which the article bears out.
Islamic heaven sounds boring anyway. in SubGenius Heaven, you get 72 porn stars instead…
Regions with democracy (liberal value, btw) and free markets (liberal and libertarian value, btw) have raised living standards faster than any other systems.
On the economic growth/democracy front: China vs. India. Discuss! Also cf. Singapore, and Taiwan and South Korea until recently. Or Hong Kong.
“Regions with democracy (liberal value, btw) and free markets (liberal and libertarian value, btw) have raised living standards faster than any other systems.”
True.
Pakistan vs India, North Korea vs South Korea, Vietnam (pre 90s) vs Thailand, Ethiopia vs Kenya, Zimbabwe vs South Africa, East Germany vs West Germany.
In the case of North vs South Korea, although these countries represent one people a height difference has emerged because of extremely low living standards in the North.
The degree of liberalization (internal market, trade, political and civil) varies in different sectors. Some, like post-Mao China and Pinochet’s Chile, have attempted a combination of market liberalization and dictatorship. Arguably, this combination is not indefinitely viable.
Also, see Amartya Sen, Paul Krugman, Jagdish Bhagwati, Hernando de Soto, RJ Rummel, Peter Ackerman, Mark Palmer.
Paul Krugman on globalization, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/42201.html
If you thought anyone was accused of propagating a legend, I apologize. This is due to my poor word choice. I intended to provide a reference for the claim that infectious diseases can be transmitted unintentionally.
Good morning! Just wanted to see if this thread was still going on.
Just to clear up any misconceptions Caledonian might have left behind (has he left behind anything else?) there aren’t “umpteen” different strains of influenza running around at any given time. There are three basic types of influenzavirus, if I remember correctly, and the type we worry about is influenza A. Its specific strains differ in which specific hemagglutinin and neuraminidase components it carries. Rarely is more than one strain of Influenza A being passed around in the population; almost never are there more than two or three. “Umpteen”, just doesn’t enter into it.
The virus mutates, so different strains (hemagglutinin-neuraminidase combinations) arise every year or so, which is why there’s a new flu shot every year. Novel combinations (ones that haven’t been seen in a lifetime) raise the spectre of very lethal pandemics–that’s why avian flu has been such an issue. Herd immunity plays a role here, as the mass of people can be expected to have had minor variations of the flu that’s going around, so they have some immunity and don’t suffer (in the main) lethal symptoms (except for the aforementioned premie babies, immune-suppressed and elderly people sacrificed on Caledonian’s altar of libertarianism).
Of course , you could have gotten all of that from a couple of Google hits, so I apologize for boring you. Still, Ign’int Cal is badly in need of information on infectious disease, so consider this my gift to him. We oblivious busybody pediatricians so rarely get to help out like this.
Thanks, Mike.
I am beginning to see why doctrinaire libertarians do not win elections.
(Heck, if there’s a vaccine which lets me screw without consequences, aren’t my parents doing me a great disservice by refusing to let me take it? I deserve to have options in my life, and if I don’t, then my parents are basically being Big Guv’mint.)
This HPV vaccine is being discussed everywhere, but why is the obvious being overlooked?
The vaccine prevents cervical cancer in vaccinated females who are exposed to HPV. Such exposure could occur in the female’s FIRST sexual contact, with her HUSBAND, if he is carrying it.
Denying the vaccine to females means that they may die because of their husband’s prior (or ongoing) sexual contacts, over which they have no control.
This has nothing to do with encouraging girls to have sex, but only to save their lives. HPV-carrier-men are the villains in this story, and no woman has the ability to identify whether their mate has the virus, and further, whether he has had prior sexual contacts.
Those who argue against the vaccine are effectively sentencing women to death for the acts of their husbands, so it is clear that they believe ALL sex should potentially lead to death, at least for women.
Preach it, Kathleen!
llewelly:
If you thought anyone was accused of propagating a legend, I apologize.
Duly noted. You are forgiven, my son. Do 10 hail Marys & call me in the morning.
In nomine domine, vobiscus celius sellius, feely me bonny belly…(what?)
;)
Caledonian,
I’m a libertarian, but I’m not persuaded by your arguments on this subject. There are at least two issues here that (I think) change things from the basic approach that the initiator of force is always in the wrong (in this case, government mandating immunization). First is the issue brought up by thwaite that one’s body can be (and often is) a vector without one’s knowledge. I sanction the right of others to carry firearms because I have confidence that the overwhelming majority of them can control their firearms in the same way that I can. If that gun were invisible, silent, multiplied, fired at random etc., I wouldn’t sanction the possession of it – indeed I would be fully justified in using force to control the threat. The most effective and compassionate way to achieve this would be through coerced prophylaxis, correct? I should say at this point though, having been on the receiving-end of forced immunizations to who-knows-what in the military, I don’t think all government-administered vaccines are safe or necessary.
Second is the issue of the rational agency of children vs. adults. Generally speaking, it would be rational for a person to want to be protected from disease. Children aren’t property, nor are they full-realized rational agents, so I think it’s OK to assume for them that they would make the choice to be immunized if they were rational beings – regardless of the wishes of their parents. My cats hate their shots, but I know they would want them if they understood their purpose – so they get them despite their fervent protests.
Gee, whatever happened to that distinction between omission and commission from earlier in the thread? Apparently now not getting a particular vaccination is a trendy new way of murdering babies.
I think the rhetoric on this one has gotten a little out of hand…
I’m not reading through 128 comments (hurray for the comment numbering system!) to see if anyone said this already, so I’m just going to say it anyway: Bring on the orgies! I’ll, uh, “protect” the fundies from them!
To throw in my two cents. Since Cale claims to have “never” gotten the flew, one would @$@#$# assume as someone that posts here often he would, just maybe, consider the possibility that his family has a natural immunity to it. He might also like to consider than such natural immunities don’t mean that he and his family “never” are infected, but just that they do not show symptoms. At worst, this means he could be fracking infecting everyone he goes by with it. Get a damn clue.
And just to be clear, he also seems to be missing the damn point. They recently concluded that there is a strong case for the Herpes virus that causes cold sores *also* being a significant cause in Alzhimers (not sure of the spelling of that and don’t feel like looking at the moment..). So, what was considered a *mild* annoyance, which didn’t need major research to find a cure/vaccine, now turns out to maybe be a *huge* problem. And that can be gotten from saliva contact when the person is having a cold sore break out. Its so fracking common that probably 60% of the populace has it. Imagine the effect of a *super strain* from that….
Oh, and Caledonian, if you do have a natural immunity to flu, then there is *nothing* preventing you from just happening to be the poor bastard that gets bitten by something carrying the super strain, having it have no effect on you at all, but being the vector that ends up killing tens of thousands of people, all because *you* didn’t think protecting yourself or them was something important.
I like to think of myself as an individual and consider ‘societies’ to be a philosophical construct rather than having a real life existence (much like species!). However I recognise that for practical reasons I should act as if society (and government etc) are real.
It means that other drivers on the roads I use are following the same ‘agreed’ rules. It means that my kids are (nominally) protected against exploitation by adults. It means that there is a police force to try and limit the acts of criminals who might hurt me.
Now I know that many individuals, particularly young ones, undertake risky activities without knowledge or care for the consequences. So I am in favour of using ‘society’ to reduce the consequences wherever possible.
Each society draws its own limits on how far it interferes with the freedom of individuals. In the UK people can drink alcohol at a younger age than most parts of the US, but gun control is much much stricter. Go figure. In the UK childhood vacinations are not mandatory, but people are expected by society to comply with the nationalised health guidance. Opting out is minimal (unless there is a scare).
I say make the chlamydia vaccinations available but not compulsory, and let Darwin take the rest. This would work if the majority of people became chlamydia resistant.
Of course this relaxed attitude shouldn’t apply to compulsory courses of antibiotics to treat resistant TB, as the general populace has little resistance against these strains…
It seems that each case has to be judged on its merits; spoils a good blog rant though.
Since libertarians take nonintervention by authorities to be the default, it’s the arguments for intervention that need to be convincing.
I can only conclude that you’re not a very good libertarian.
If only we had agood movie, with a big name getting top billing, about the real science behind the flu, pandemics, and value of vaccination. Hmmmm.
Influenza is usually transmitted through the expulsion of aerosolized body fluids – sneezing – and occasionally direct contact with body fluids. If we’re not sneezing, if our noses aren’t running, we’re not likely to be transmitting influenza. The flu isn’t typhoid, and not all diseases can be plausibly transmitted by asymptomatic individuals.
All we’ve managed to establish is that there are a large number of people here on Pharyngula whose IQs drop precipitiously when they’re morally outraged. Since the quality of their formed morals are most likely to have been set during periods of outrage, the death spiral just sucks ’em on down.
Merde. must not have put in my tags correctly.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b266/wonkabout/oneflu.jpg
There. Can’t screw that up.
That’s not only awesome, but horrible.
Although that is the primary method of transmission, it is not the only method, so it is a mistake to conclude influenza cannot be transmitted by those without symptoms. From the CDC :
Note however that the CDC does not specifically recommend that everyone get vaccinated, and has a short list of people who should not get vaccinated.
Good thing I haven’t reached that conclusion, then.
Ya know, I _used_ to be a libertarian. Then I spent two tours of duty in Iraq, and saw how people REALLY behave when they don’t have a strong government to keep their baser urges in check. After that, it amazes me that I ever saw libertarianism as anything but an idiotic pipe dream. :-P
Ok. So, the Pharyngula spam filter excludes posts with these words.
No. Fucking. Wonder.
Would it have killed any of the relevant parties to just tell me that when I repeatedly asked why my comments were being rejected with only a “403 Forbidden” page for explanation, pointed this out along with the non-helpfulness of the suggestions on the “having problems commenting” page which conspicuously lacks any mention of a word filter, forwarded those comments to both PZ and Seed tech support asking what was going on, etc?
Better question: is there a page cleverly hidden somewhere with a list of words that aren’t allowed in posts?
After reading through 140 comments worth of this fascinating, frustrating, depressing thread, I can only conclude that “not a very good libertarian” is the best sort of libertarian. “Mike Crichton”‘s point about how people really behave in the absence of some sort of organized society is well taken. I defy anyone to point out a nation-sized population without a functioning central government that you’d freely choose to move to from the U.S. Somalia, anyone? Darfur? Iraq? No? I didn’t think so.
For myself, I hold with John Donne:
I’ve seen many of you attack neoconservatives for holding the implicit belief that human beings cannot even begin to approach rational action and must instead be controlled through the application of manipulation and force.
Remarkable that so many of you agree with this position once the trappings of faction and tribe are removed.
Tell me again: besides the labels, and a few specific political points, what makes you ‘liberals’ any different from ‘conservatives’?
Calmer’n you are, dude.
So you misunderstand herd immunity and the actual guidelines for ‘mandatory’ vaccination(opt-out, home/private schooling). In fact, given that libertarians are traditionally for tearing down public schooling and replacing it with fairie dreams and pixie farts or something even less plausible, I should think you and your flu-immune(?!) wonderfamily wouldn’t have a say in this debate. Go back to your bunker, delicious-meat-sack-boy.
#139: It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.
Far too many of the Iraqi people (I do not say all) are brutalized by war and violent ideologies, but that doesn’t mean that people are inherently raving monsters that need an authority to control them. People who live under (let alone work for) authoritarian governments are usually *more* brutal than those who don’t – would you rather live in North or South Korea? In which country would you be more inclined to trust your neighbor?
In any case, since the only people available for the position of authority are themselves human, it’s obvious that authority can’t solve the problem of “baser urges”. Stalin didn’t have a strong government to keep his baser urges in check – he had a strong government to help him indulge them. Ditto Saddam Hussein, in fact. And to a dangerous extent, ditto George W. Bush. There aren’t any saints, and if there were, they probably wouldn’t run for president anyway.
Anyone who thinks that Iraq’s main problem is that its people have too much freedom… well, I don’t know exactly what’s wrong with them, but it’s pretty serious. The problem with anarchy is that it doesn’t exist – any place nominally anarchic is in fact generally ruled by competing gangs of thugs, a form of government I think we can all agree on despising.
Krystalline Apostate | February 10, 2007 12:20 AM
While y’all are hashing out the moral implications of vaccination, I’ve got 2 words for ya:
Typhoid Mary.
If memory serves, she had to be institutionalized for the common good, because she was an outrageous carrier of disease.
No. “Typhoid Mary” was removed from society in part because she was deemed to be a disease vector by the people involved in and expert in public health at the time. Whether or not that was true in hindsight, I don’t know, but it was believed at the time that she was, there was coincidental evidence that she was, and–and this is the most important fact–she refused to obey government orders that she not place herself in positions in which she might (presumably) infect others. It was that last fact that caused her to be removed from society.
On the subject matter of the post, yee gads, PZ, you hit it out of the ball park yet again. Pretty soon, the wingnuts will be complaining about the fact that those dastardly scientists developed vaccines against Rubella, the mumps and even childhood polio (a disease that horribly crippled my uncle, BTW) to undermine the gene pool. How dare those scientists interfere with Gawd’s plan, by making use of that very same plan. If the parents don’t want their kiddies to be vaccinated as a condition of entering public school and possibly infecting others, they have an alternative: don’t enter public school.
Next the wingnuts be complaining about fluoridation of the water supply. Ooops, sorry, they already have: it’s a communist plot.
If parents don’t want their kiddies to be indoctrinated in the rudiments of the Christian faith as a condition of entering public school, they have an alternative: don’t enter public school.
If parents don’t want their kiddies to be indoctrinated in the rudiments of the Christian faith as a condition of entering public school, they have an alternative: don’t enter public school.
Yup, and maybe all this brouhaha (including the anti-fag-bashing indoctrination, which a lot of the fag-bashers are now complaining about) will finally lead to the demise of the public schools in the US, which will lead to a halving of the extortionist property taxes that we pay in the US.
If parents don’t want their children to be obligated to attend public school and learn about Christ Our Lord and Savior, they have an alternative: they can emigrate to another country.
Well, this doesn’t actually seem like an accurate description of the typical liberal critique of neocons, but I’ll stipulate it for the sake of argument, since you eventually get to the heart of the matter:
I can’t speak for all liberals, of course, but the major difference between conservatives (and,I think, libertarians) and my kind of liberal is that I don’t consider the actions of a properly consitituted representative government of which I am a citizen to be equivalent to being “controlled through the application of manipulation and force.” Neocons and libertarians seem to invariably treat the government as an external, almost foreign, agent, but I (and I think it’s fair to say this is the liberal position) believe that the government is, as Lincoln put it, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I see our government not as my oppressor, but as my avenue for joining with my fellow citizens in coming to consensus about how we will live together.
Because we will live together: Visions of individual actors living in splendid isolation and exercising unfettered personal liberty are fantasy. In the real world, people live together, interactively, in communities, states, and nations, and they must cooperate in establishing the order of that life… and similarly, nations live together on the globe, and must define ways to cooperate. It might sound good in theory to imagine that, as Maggie Thatcher once intimated, there’s no such thing as society (well, actually that doesn’t sound good to me, even in theory, but it might to some)… but in reality society exists, and no amount of wishing it away will help.
Now about this time, you’re probably rubbing your hands and saying, “Got him! Now I’ll insist that his own logic requires him to accept mandatory religion, or mandatory chastity, or conservative definitions of marriage,…” or any number of other things you know “us liberals” don’t believe in. But not so: There’s no inconsistency in saying we should cooperate on the rules by which we should live together and also upholding the principle that those rules should be the least restrictive possible rules, and that they should be practical, fact-based rules rather than arbitrary imposition of non-universal moral or philosophical positions.
In the case at hand, preventing the spread of communicable disease is [a] a reasonable, pragmatic act that has not controversial moral dimension (i.e., preserving health is a noncontroversial “moral” good; the only moral controversy stems from sexual proscriptions arbitrarily overlaid on the debate by conservatives) and [b] something that, as a practical matter, can only be accomplished through coordinated community action.
Or, to say it more succinctly, bite me!
Y’all have a good day, y’hear?
Oh, by the way…
I’m sure some folks think my understanding of government as an avenue for the will of the people will call me naive and come up with dozens of examples of how our current government fails to adequately represent the people. I say bring ’em on! My answer is that the cure for this is to fix the government so that its function is more consistent with its underlying principles, not to demonize or abandon it.
And that’s another difference I observe between liberals and conservatives: Liberals (in my experience) say “it’s not working; let’s fix it”; conservatives say “it’s not working; let’s shoot it.”
Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer cherce!
raj: “Pretty soon, the wingnuts will be complaining about the fact that those dastardly scientists developed vaccines against Rubella, the mumps and even childhood polio …
Next the wingnuts be complaining about fluoridation of the water supply. Ooops, sorry, they already have: it’s a communist plot.”
True, but the fact is that anti-vaccination and anti-fluoridation fervor are now also on the Left. RFK Jr promoting vaccine paranoia in HuffPo and Rolling Stone, the affiliates of Fluoride Action Network: Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Ecologist:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/about-fan.htm
Post #150 and #151 are framable. Well said, thanks!
Chris: Bill Dauphin’s response articulate my position better than I could in my current caffeine deprived state, so I’ve just gonna say “Me too”. :-)
raj:
Whether or not that was true in hindsight, I don’t know, but it was believed at the time that she was, there was coincidental evidence that she was, and–and this is the most important fact–she refused to obey government orders that she not place herself in positions in which she might (presumably) infect others. It was that last fact that caused her to be removed from society.
Am I required to submit a 100 word minimum essay on the subject? I fail to see how I was incorrect.
Illnesses & deaths were linked to her being a cook. She was released from Brother Island on her O.R, via a promise never to do so again. She went right out & broke that promise.
I think the point being, it’s 1 thing to try to protect a sick individual’s rights, it’s another thing entirely when said person is aware (however dimly) that their infection is dangerous to the public health, & they go blithely on their way spreading it.
It’s definitely a bit of a departure from the discussion about flu vaccination (it has about a 6% fatality rate, I think?), but I thought it a reasonable example.
Much more, this deponent knoweth not.
The Apostate Said:
Absolutely. Although flu vaccination doesn’t have a 6% fatality rate (nor does the standard flu), but I think you misspoke there or else I simply do not understand. :-) Clarify if you feel like it.
The simple fact is that Lancaster County, just south of mine in PA, has a Pertussis epidemic going on (whooping cough) because the Amish do not vaccinate. That epidemic is spreading slowly through the unvaccinated populace, fortunately slowed down by the fact that the Amish (particularly children) don’t have much contact outside their community.
Given the sheer percentage of idiots…er, anti-vaccination types…around here, it’s likely to spread. For children it tends to be nasty and potentially deadly. For adults, very nasty. For the elderly whose immunity has faded, deadly.
Lives could have been saved by a simple vaccination program. They weren’t. That pisses me off. A lot.
To expand a bit and comment on some other ideas above, school is much like working in a hospital (which I do). You have your immunizations or you do not work here. In the last few months, I’ve had boosters for measles, German measles, Hep B, tetanus, and flu. With a few not so grand reactions, particularly to the tetanus, but it’s worlds better than getting tetanus.
Similarly, if you don’t have your immunizations you don’t go to school. Screw the belief-based exemptions, only medical ones should apply.
Damn it, yes, immunization sometimes causes bad reactions and rarely costs a life. The diseases they are made to stop always cause bad reactions and sometimes-to-often cost lives.
No shots, no school, no working in a public place. Enforce it! If you don’t like it, home school and run your own business, but don’t expose me to your illnesses because you’re too lazy/believe the Sky Fairy protects you/too cheap to get a shot.
A Slightly-Boiling MorpheusPA
Caledonian has a point about chlamydia not being spread through normal school contact. Teenagers are infecting each other, sure, but not by sitting next to each other in the classroom–unless the teacher has very poor eyesight. And a teenager’s sex partners could as easily be from a neighboring school (especially if it’s Catholic) as from their own. So the “Either immunize or stay out of public school” argument used for airborne infectious diseases doesn’t really apply here–keeping potential cases out of school isn’t as effective a quarantine tactic for STDs.
Unless an epidemiologist is around to tell me I’m wrong….
My solution, though, would be to strike the “or stay out of public school” bit: immunize, period, unless you’ve got a medical exemption. We can’t expect parental vigilance to substitute for immunity where STDs are concerned. With pertussis or measles, it’s at least likely that the sick kid’s parents will a) notice that they’re ill and b) keep them away from other kids until they recover. It doesn’t work that way with chlamydia.
That is my hypothesis from observing the behavior of trying to post that comment. (The first scienceblogs comment that day, so I was peeved too, after experimenting with script blockers et cetera.)
It is curious use on a science and especially biology blog. It is not a useful filter since one can construct recognizable mutations of the offending words. It is offensive in normal context that “i_n_c_e_s_t” is considered worse than “murder”. And I agree that such rules in postings ideally should be official and linked to.
Well said.
A minimal social contract is both compatible with and supportive of most policies. For example, I rather have police police the streets than unruly thugs. And both will extract payment, but in the former case I will get the pretext of democratic control.
That is my hypothesis from observing the behavior of trying to post that comment. (The first scienceblogs comment that day, so I was peeved too, after experimenting with script blockers et cetera.)
It is curious use on a science and especially biology blog. It is not a useful filter since one can construct recognizable mutations of the offending words. It is offensive in normal context that “i_n_c_e_s_t” is considered worse than “murder”. And I agree that such rules in postings ideally should be official and linked to.
Well said.
A minimal social contract is both compatible with and supportive of most policies. For example, I rather have police police the streets than unruly thugs. And both will extract payment, but in the former case I will get the pretext of democratic control.
I discovered this morning that soma is a Forbidden Word. Why, for heaven’s sake? How are we supposed to discuss Brave New World without it?
Bonus points if you figure out how I got it past the filter.
There are some general spamblocks in place over which I have no control. There is a reason “incest” is blocked but “murder” isn’t: there aren’t any advocates of murder who would deluge the site with a hundred spam comments a minute demanding that you all come look at their explicit murder photos and stories.
Seriously, it’s that bad. I once turned off the firewall and disabled a few filters on the old site where I had complete access to the server, and it was horrifying to discover how many venal idiots are incessantly pounding on the door, trying to get in.
By making it mandatory, you create resistance. If you simply offered vaccinations, and let the processes of time work on people’s opinions, eventually people would come to accept it.
The people who still won’t accept it are the ones who’ll take their children out of public schools to avoid it anyway, so what’s really been accomplished by the use of force?
One of the reasons people are abandoning the public school system is that it’s become a battleground for people who want to make their favorite causes part of the pedagogy – and the more they do, the more conformist, uniform, and inflexible the schools become.
Which is, of course, why I said “normal context”.
Which is, of course, why I said “normal context”.