4 ms·

Happens more often than you think. We'd probably have eradicated polio already but the Taliban keeps killing off humanitarians in Pakistan. My dad's cousin sp

Happens more often than you think. We'd probably have eradicated polio already but the Taliban keeps killing off humanitarians in Pakistan. My dad's cousin spent his life trying to eradicate guinea worm with the CDC but now we have a bunch of civil wars breaking out in the endemic regions.

tareqak 8y ago
With respect to Taliban killing off humanitarians, it doesn’t help that the CIA organized a fake vaccine drive to get Osama Bin Laden’s family DNA [0]. The fake vaccine in question was for hepatitis B, but if your threat model requires you to be suspicious of humanitarian workers, then you’ll act appropriately. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci... Update: I’m not sure why the sibling poster and I received downvotes: we both provided the same fact that a branch of the US government conducted their operations in such a way that harmed the perception of vaccines amongst groups of people in another countries. In both the anti-vaxx movement in some places in the West and this particular incident in Pakistan and Afghanistan, you have a similar kind of attribution error involving the concept of vaccination that led to action against actual vaccinations as a whole.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  You are getting downvoted because you fit the pattern that any attack on Islamic terrorists must be answer by what-aboutism about the US government. In this case, you are correct, but normally the crimes don't compare.
acdha 8y ago
> We'd probably have eradicated polio already but the Taliban keeps killing off humanitarians in Pakistan. It’s important to remember that this was the direct result of the CIA’s use of a vaccination program as a cover: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28764582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28764582/ Whether or not you agree with that call, it seems likely to be an enduring side-effect.
- joecool1029 8y ago
  Thanks for that, absolutely a valid component and it is unfair to see you being downvoted. Tie this in with my other comment: When you influence a population's emotions towards a company, country, or thing.... it will be harder to overcome this than through just stating facts.
- mikeash 8y ago
  It’s very strange to see this downvoted. It’s completely factual and on topic. The CIA got thousands of innocent people crippled or killed just to track down one man. Quite possibly millions, depending on how long it goes on and how widespread it becomes again.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    It’s very strange to see this downvoted. It’s completely factual and on topic. I often see this pattern if I talk about anything controversial: 2 or 3 initial downvotes, followed by more upvotes. It can also just stay at -3 and never go up. Then sometimes, I get 50 or 90 upvotes. The CIA got thousands of innocent people crippled or killed just to track down one man. Quite possibly millions, depending on how long it goes on and how widespread it becomes again. The thought process seems to assume that they can be "invisible" and their activities have no externalities or long term repercussions. It's analogous to injection with needles. The assumption holds true for small n. It falls apart with large n.
    - InitialLastName 8y ago
      > I often see this pattern if I talk about anything controversial: 2 or 3 initial downvotes, followed by more upvotes. It can also just stay at -3 and never go up. Then sometimes, I get 50 or 90 upvotes. I suspect (based on things some of the mods have said) is that while the number of upvote points is capped, the number of negative points isn't, with the intention of keeping a bad comment from crashing someone's karma. As such, for controversial posts (that a chunk of people feel strongly enough to vote about), the post can quickly hit a negative but then eventually be overwhelmed by positive votes (as long as it isn't flagged for one reason or another).

tareqak 8y ago

With respect to Taliban killing off humanitarians, it doesn’t help that the CIA organized a fake vaccine drive to get Osama Bin Laden’s family DNA [0]. The fake vaccine in question was for hepatitis B, but if your threat model requires you to be suspicious of humanitarian workers, then you’ll act appropriately. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci... Update: I’m not sure why the sibling poster and I received downvotes: we both provided the same fact that a branch of the US government conducted their operations in such a way that harmed the perception of vaccines amongst groups of people in another countries. In both the anti-vaxx movement in some places in the West and this particular incident in Pakistan and Afghanistan, you have a similar kind of attribution error involving the concept of vaccination that led to action against actual vaccinations as a whole.

tomjen3 8y ago
You are getting downvoted because you fit the pattern that any attack on Islamic terrorists must be answer by what-aboutism about the US government. In this case, you are correct, but normally the crimes don't compare.

acdha 8y ago

> We'd probably have eradicated polio already but the Taliban keeps killing off humanitarians in Pakistan. It’s important to remember that this was the direct result of the CIA’s use of a vaccination program as a cover: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28764582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28764582/ Whether or not you agree with that call, it seems likely to be an enduring side-effect.

joecool1029 8y ago
Thanks for that, absolutely a valid component and it is unfair to see you being downvoted. Tie this in with my other comment: When you influence a population's emotions towards a company, country, or thing.... it will be harder to overcome this than through just stating facts.
mikeash 8y ago
It’s very strange to see this downvoted. It’s completely factual and on topic. The CIA got thousands of innocent people crippled or killed just to track down one man. Quite possibly millions, depending on how long it goes on and how widespread it becomes again.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  It’s very strange to see this downvoted. It’s completely factual and on topic. I often see this pattern if I talk about anything controversial: 2 or 3 initial downvotes, followed by more upvotes. It can also just stay at -3 and never go up. Then sometimes, I get 50 or 90 upvotes. The CIA got thousands of innocent people crippled or killed just to track down one man. Quite possibly millions, depending on how long it goes on and how widespread it becomes again. The thought process seems to assume that they can be "invisible" and their activities have no externalities or long term repercussions. It's analogous to injection with needles. The assumption holds true for small n. It falls apart with large n.
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    > I often see this pattern if I talk about anything controversial: 2 or 3 initial downvotes, followed by more upvotes. It can also just stay at -3 and never go up. Then sometimes, I get 50 or 90 upvotes. I suspect (based on things some of the mods have said) is that while the number of upvote points is capped, the number of negative points isn't, with the intention of keeping a bad comment from crashing someone's karma. As such, for controversial posts (that a chunk of people feel strongly enough to vote about), the post can quickly hit a negative but then eventually be overwhelmed by positive votes (as long as it isn't flagged for one reason or another).