3 ms·
There are things that are a public necessity and indeed collectively-enforced rules simply because they won't work if too few people agree to it. Another examp
by rscho 8y ago
There are things that are a public necessity and indeed collectively-enforced rules simply because they won't work if too few people agree to it.
Another example of this process is vaccines. If herd immunity is too low, then vaccination cannot work, although it is a perfectly good solution if everyone is on board.
A second point is that you probably are no expert on the topic of human plasma. This could motivate the enforcement of rules under certain circumstances, given that you are unable to personally judge if the use of such precious material is a waste or not.
I personally, think that your opinion is the epitome of selfishness.
- krageon 8y agoIt is true that not all vaccinations work 100% of the time and that herd immunity helps protect the people for who they have not worked. It is very, very wrong to say that this means that "If herd immunity is too low, then vaccination cannot work".
- rscho 8y agoOh yeah? Please expand on this, I'm curious. If that is your point of contention, you could replace "cannot work" by "may do more harm than good at a social level".
- krageon 8y agoI don't know what to expand on, as I don't understand how it wasn't clear from what I have already told you - can you indicate roughly where I stopped being clear?
- rscho 8y agoYou mentioned I said something very very wrong, but it's not clear to me if this is a language or fundamental issue. For instance if I say, as I have tried to enunciate above, "if herd immunity is too low, vaccines may do more harm than good at a social/epidemiologic level", does that still seem very very wrong to you? To be clear, your above comment gave the impression that you thought that a low herd immunity could not increase deaths due to disease compared to no herd immunity at all, which is wrong and was probably the reason why you were downvoted.