3 ms·

Unfortunately, I think a more significant cause of the continued existence of these diseases is failure to vaccinate, either by choice (anti-vax) or due to circ

by nxc18 7y ago

Unfortunately, I think a more significant cause of the continued existence of these diseases is failure to vaccinate, either by choice (anti-vax) or due to circumstance (cost of vaccination, access to health care, etc). There are several diseases that society could eradicate that we simply choose not to. Even wealthy tech people are affected by this; I was just told my very good insurance doesn't cover a vaccine that my doctor prescribed. It would cost $400, so I need to weigh my actual risk of getting the disease against cost of vaccination. I'd think the long-term return on investment for society would justify making just about every vaccine free to all. edit: consider how much easier it is to just get a few shots, compared to never going to a bar, restaurant, sporting event, public transit or shared workspace ever again. Going all-in on social isolation is a nonstarter, even discounting the people who won't comply (there are many) or the toxic political environment that has pitted half the US against science and expertise.

dathinab 7y ago
Not sure why you got down voted, I can only agree. Social distancing only slows distribution it doesn't prevent it reliably also some disease are spread by animals which are not at all affected by social distancing. And then vaccines are also not enough as it had shown for some disease where we did try to eliminate them by handing out free vaccines in affected countries. Lastly social distancing has a super high cost if continued. Not only economically but a super high health cost. Humans are not meant to live permanently social distanced they are inherently social animals and the internet can't really replace it. E.g. for people fighting depression social distancing can be like poison. It prevents them or at least restrict them from doing many the thinks which can help fighting depression and causes "physical" isolation (Internet is helping but has limits, it's not helping enough to counter it). Another group most likely majorly negatively affected are people with "home" problems, like violent partners or parents (or just to controlling partners or parents). To just name some example.

by nxc18 7y ago

dathinab 7y ago

Not sure why you got down voted, I can only agree. Social distancing only slows distribution it doesn't prevent it reliably also some disease are spread by animals which are not at all affected by social distancing. And then vaccines are also not enough as it had shown for some disease where we did try to eliminate them by handing out free vaccines in affected countries. Lastly social distancing has a super high cost if continued. Not only economically but a super high health cost. Humans are not meant to live permanently social distanced they are inherently social animals and the internet can't really replace it. E.g. for people fighting depression social distancing can be like poison. It prevents them or at least restrict them from doing many the thinks which can help fighting depression and causes "physical" isolation (Internet is helping but has limits, it's not helping enough to counter it). Another group most likely majorly negatively affected are people with "home" problems, like violent partners or parents (or just to controlling partners or parents). To just name some example.