"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:52079769@news.povray.org...
>
> I would like you to tell if you think the smallpox vaccination program was
> a good thing or a bad thing.

I think the small pox vaccination was a beneficial thing, which is exactly 
as relevant as my thinking the holocaust was a horrific thing.

You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power 
anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's why 
you embrace totalitarianism.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 11/08/2013 2:53 PM, Warp wrote:
> I ask this because I am finding a notional dissonance here. I get the
> feeling that people here want to keep the cake and eat it too: They think
> the smallpox vaccination program was indeed a good thing (because it has
> saved countless lives), yet they still oppose the idea of such a vaccination
> program (because it requires forcing those who refuse to take the vaccine
> eg. because of superstitious beliefs, which is in fact the situation with
> the polio vaccination program.)

So what is strange about believing two contradictory things at the same 
time? That is what people do.

When you get those types of problems. Not only do you need to balance 
the "Good" of the solutions. You need to balance the "Evil", too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2013 14:30, Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept
>> that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without
>> risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine
>> something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio
>> rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you
>> willing to risk in order to protect others?
>
> And once again we come back to the question: Do you think the smallpox
> vaccination program (which was sometimes administered via borderline
> force), which has saved millions of lives, was a bad thing?

> If the same western culture zeitgeist had been in place in the 60's and
> 70's as today, smallpox would very probably still exist, killing countless
> innocent people who wouldn't have to die from that disease.
>

Many people are not going to believe you anymore when you wear a white 
coat and say you do it because it is good for them. You can not do that 
in any developed country (like for measles in the Netherlands) and also 
not in a developing country. In the latter you can be sure that someone 
will point out that it is just another form of imperialism (often to 
gain something himself, but that is not the point) and there will be 
people that will listen and act accordingly.

Or they have other (mixed) reasons:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255970/Seven-Pakistan-aid-workers-murdered-new-polio-revenge-attack-Killings-blamed-Taliban-avenging-Osama-bin-Laden.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/16/pakistan-militants-kill-health-workers

Another disease we want to get rid of is AIDS, yet there are people that 
claim that AIDS was invented by the west to oppress Africa. That does 
not help an treatment and prevention program. If you try to force such a 
program on them they will retaliate. There is always a US embassy in the 
neighbourhood and if not they can pick victims from the tourists, aid 
workers and ex-pats.

Two years ago we had the bird flu disaster. I.e. there was no disaster. 
Still a couple of companies made good money from it. One side effect is 
that the WHO is in trouble now. Both financially and morally. Does not 
help either.

Several other wide spread campaigns suffered from unforeseen side 
effects (see e.g. clipka's mail and the CAST study). Flu vaccinations 
tend to induce fever is some people. On average less people die when you 
vaccinate, but some die that would still be alive if they had not taken 
the vaccination. So if the flu does not come or in a different shape, 
was it worth it? There are also reports of people dying from polio 
vaccinations. Not many, but OTOH nobody is going to gain reporting them 
anyway.

Large scale vaccinations and medications are a sort of Russian roulette, 
that the results were very positive in one case is no guarantee for the 
future. And there is the real danger of political side effects.

In conclusion:
Getting rid of polio was a good thing. Yet, the method used then, could 
not be applied now. Both because we think different about human rights 
now *and* because the people you would want to vaccinate are thinking 
different.
It is really a pity that reality is sometimes more complicated then one 
would like. Just shouting that reality should behave better and that the 
world would be a better place if we all lived in your simplistic world 
is not going to help. Sorry.

[let's see if you get to this point before starting to shout]
Can we now please get back to the points that Shay made when starting 
this threat?



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:26:48 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:52071360$1@news.povray.org...
>> Hmm. I am not going to defend Warp's spiral into poor defense of an
>> argument, but, I will toss in my two cents. "Mandatory Public
>> Education".
> 
> Not the same thing. /My/ state requires I feed and educate my child, at
> least, once he's born. The education requirements are actually quite
> modest.
> That the alternatives are not better accepted is society's problem, not
> the state's. It's even conceivable that my national government could
> require I vaccinate my child, though that would, if it were done legally
> (your lot have pushed us nearly into mob rule), require a Constitutional
> amendment.
> 
> This is much different than going to another country and locking up
> /their/ children between 5 and 18-years-old.

Yep, this. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power 
> anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's why 
> you embrace totalitarianism.

I get the feeling that you are now deliberately trying to make me write
nasty things by trolling me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In conclusion:
> Getting rid of polio was a good thing. Yet, the method used then, could 
> not be applied now. Both because we think different about human rights 
> now *and* because the people you would want to vaccinate are thinking 
> different.

This is, in fact, pretty much what I said in my original post in response
to the post about Gates foundation polio vaccination campaign in this
thread. In other words, that it's a pitty that it won't work like the
smallpox campaign did because the cultural zeitgeist has changed.

Many people will suffer, get crippled and even die because of stupid
superstition as well as changed notions in political correctness. People
who wouldn't need to suffer. Humanity is stupid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.08.2013 14:30, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept
>> that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without
>> risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine
>> something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio
>> rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you
>> willing to risk in order to protect others?
>
> And once again we come back to the question: Do you think the smallpox
> vaccination program (which was sometimes administered via borderline
> force), which has saved millions of lives, was a bad thing?

If it used borderline force, then it was a borderline thing.

> If the same western culture zeitgeist had been in place in the 60's and
> 70's as today, smallpox would very probably still exist, killing countless
> innocent people who wouldn't have to die from that disease.

That may or may not be the case. The smallpox vaccination programme 
might have been just (or at least almost) as successful without 
resorting to borderline force.

> If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
> those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
> being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?

Yes, I might have done that. I might have taken that risk; note that a 
risk is something that may or may not happen.

> I'm not going to fall into namecalling anymore, but I am going to say
> with absolute sincerity that I would not do that even if I could. I see
> the lives of all those people as more important than our western moral
> sensibilities. If you really want to call it "totalitarianism" then you
> can go ahead. It won't change my mind.

You are free to hold this stance; I have no serious problem with that, 
especially since you are not the one to make the call. But please leave 
others the freedom to be of different opinion - at least those people wo 
aren't the ones to make the call either.

> People here are comparing forced vaccination programs to totalitarianism
> and eugenics. However, a better comparison would be mandatory elementary
> education.

No. Education doesn't normally put your health at any risk.

> Most western countries have mandatory elementary education. The opinion
> of the "victims" isn't asked. Parents who would refuse to allow their
> children to go to school will be met with ever-increasing sanctions, up
> to their children being taken into custody by force.

Yes, this might be debatable. But note that it is pretty clear that 
/every/ uneducated child /will/ suffer severe consequences, so it can be 
argued that the government needs to step in for the /individual/ child, 
to protect its right to a good education from being restricted by their 
parents. (And yes, I would argue that if the parents cater for the 
child's education by private means, it should /not/ be forced to attend 
a governmental school.)

In the case of vaccination, you can only invoke this very same argument 
when we're talking about vaccination of children - and even then it is 
/not/ clear whether you're averting factual and otherwise inevitable 
severe consequences for /this/ particular child you intend to vaccinate. 
As a matter of fact, the whole forced vaccination scheme is based on the 
idea of forcing something on /this/ person to prevent /others/ from 
severe consequences - which you /might/ actually be able to avert using 
different means.

The best comparison /is/ eugenics: There, as well, the idea is to impose 
some medical procedures on (most likely unwilling) people to improve the 
health of future generations - with the only major difference that it's 
not about genetic material transmitted within a generation (by a virus), 
but genetic material transmitted from one generation to the next.

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2013 21:31, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> In conclusion:
>> Getting rid of polio was a good thing. Yet, the method used then, could
>> not be applied now. Both because we think different about human rights
>> now *and* because the people you would want to vaccinate are thinking
>> different.
>
> This is, in fact, pretty much what I said in my original post in response
> to the post about Gates foundation polio vaccination campaign in this
> thread. In other words, that it's a pitty that it won't work like the
> smallpox campaign did because the cultural zeitgeist has changed.
>
> Many people will suffer, get crippled and even die because of stupid
> superstition as well as changed notions in political correctness. People
> who wouldn't need to suffer. Humanity is stupid.
>

Except that we (taking the liberty to speak also for your other 
'opponents') don't think humanity is stupid. You can't get back to that 
time without also loosing the benefits of our time. There was a small 
time-window in which the smallpox campaign could have worked and luckily 
it was a disease where the approach turned out to work. Humanity got 
double lucky, I don't count on it to work again next time. It might, or 
it might not. Even if it would work for polio, the downside of forcing 
it is too risky to try that approach.

In the long run it will probably be eradicated but mainly because 
education and standards of living improves. Force will probably only 
play in the hands of those who don't want the situation to improve 
because they benefit from the poverty and ignorance of others. Which 
means that force might actually be counterproductive and delay the 
eradication of polio.

Humanity has become wiser and the human interactions have become more 
complex. I am quite happy with that. Even if it means that polio will be 
longer with us. Which is obviously not my goal. On the contrary, by 
trying to increase the availability of appropriate biomedical technology 
in developing countries, we* hope to create an environment where the 
polio campaign has a bigger change of success. I hope you will also play 
your role in this campaign in a way that fits you.

*) the IFMBE together with our friends in the IOMP

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:35:21 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Except that we (taking the liberty to speak also for your other
> 'opponents') don't think humanity is stupid.

Yep.  I think most of humanity understands that issues are not as black 
and white/simple as some would make them out to be.  It's naïve to 
oversimplify things without regard for their inherent complexity - and 
when people are involved, life is rarely simple.

That's one of the problems we have with extreme conservatives over here 
in the US, I think.  (And, truth be told, extreme liberals as well)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
> > those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
> > being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?

> Yes, I might have done that. I might have taken that risk; note that a 
> risk is something that may or may not happen.

So, how many lives would you consider an acceptable loss in the name of
respecting people's freedom of choice? How many deaths would be necessary
before you would change your opinion and accept forced vaccinations?
A hundred? A thousand? A million? How many would you sacrifice?

Do you understand why I find this whole conversation so nauseating?

> > People here are comparing forced vaccination programs to totalitarianism
> > and eugenics. However, a better comparison would be mandatory elementary
> > education.

> No. Education doesn't normally put your health at any risk.

I don't even understand how you can completely reverse the notion of
saving the lives of millions of people into the notion of putting lives
at risk. That's completely backwards.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message