6 ms·

More of everyone will die. It's not just the anti-vax children, infants, eldery, chronic, or, the immunocompromised people who get it worse when herd immunity d

More of everyone will die. It's not just the anti-vax children, infants, eldery, chronic, or, the immunocompromised people who get it worse when herd immunity disappears. Vaccines are risk reducers, but it's not like they are perfect + the increased toll on the hospitals make more outbreaks bad for everyone. It's one of the reasons the anti-vax movement never made any sense to me. Flat Earth is silly, but at least it's perfectly harmless, but anti-vax?

qsera 9mo ago
[flagged]
- lostlogin 9mo ago
  So why vaccines? Why not lose your mind over arthritis medication? Throat lozenges? Lice shampoo? Heart burn treatment?
  - spiderfarmer 9mo ago
    Because their manipulators only need a couple subjects for identity politics. If they sow too many seeds of doubt, the world becomes too complex again, while the goal is the opposite.
  - dmurray 9mo ago
    None of those are generally made mandatory. It's a reasonable position to say the government shouldn't be able to compel you to put any particular drugs in your body, even if it would benefit the population at large. The opposite position is also reasonable: the government should be able to compel you to take certain medical treatments in the name of improving public health. Reasonable people not blinded by ideology can accept both of those positions and handle individual cases on their merits. In the modern liberal world we've reached a consensus something like: measles vaccine OK, sterilising people with hereditary defects not OK. But people in other times and places settle on other compromises. Note: I'm aware that this decision isn't about forcing anyone to have the vaccine, it's just "advice". But it's only one step removed from that. Public schools already withhold services from kids who don't have CDC-recommended vaccines, and we've seen various governments willing to go much further during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    - guelo 9mo ago
      gsera's point was that the suspicious part was the business side of it not the government.
      - qsera 9mo ago
        Now that the original thread is flagged and hidden, we can discuss without fear. In capitalism, the incentive of the manufactures to maintain product quality is that people won't buy the thing if it is bad, or does not appear to work. This cannot be cheated. You cannot "bribe" a population. But when government mandates a product, then it changes the equation greatly against the population. Manufacture is no longer incentivized to maintain quality. If the quality is not easy to identify then it becomes much more easy. Now, they are outside capitalism. Now they can bribe the government, and enjoy perpetual sales. So to answer your question, if it was not mandated, there would be no push against it. Such businesses will run out of business as capitalism run its course.
        surgical_fire 9mo ago
        That's not how it works. Governments have regulatory powers. They can stipulate prices, control quality, etc and so forth. Companies can be fined for breaching regulation. Ultimately, the government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary.
        qsera 9mo ago
        > Governments have regulatory powers. Which part of "bribe the government" didn't you understand, assuming you read my whole message? > The government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary. Right. Let that be done.
        surgical_fire 9mo ago
        > Which part of "bribe the government" I read it. I just interpreted as "government icky" rhetoric that is very common around here. Corruption is a tool of any power structure. Gesturing vaguely towards it to invalidate any societal initiative is not an argument, it is just bad-faith whinging. "Why build roads? The government can be bribed" "Why trust the courts? The government can be bribed" "Wefare? The government can be bribed"
- LarsDu88 9mo ago
  A lot of people that will refuse to vaccinate their kids will gladly shoot up Ozempic every week or snort hardcore drugs. It's pretty eye opening to me how inconsistent people can be with the right dose of propaganda. RFK Jr for example, who shot up heroin for over 15 years and is probably at minimum doing some kind of steroids.
roenxi 9mo ago
It isn't particularly hard to understand - people should be allowed to make their own determination about what is good for their health, what isn't and what risk tolerance they are personally comfortable with. If that principle is embraced a whole heap of good things are fairly obvious - why there shouldn't be state-backed eugenics programs, why exercise is voluntary and it makes health policy a lot less charged. If the principle is thrown out then a lot of problematic policy becomes hard to reject. I mean, look at what the vax-mandatory movement got - they enraged a bunch of people, helped secure Trump II, made vaccine scepticism a mainstream and popular position which arguably handed the US health department vaccine policy to anti-vaxers. Maybe avoiding authoritarian tactics and sticking to principle would have gotten them a better outcome? Hard to see how it could be worse, to be honest. They screwed up pretty badly.
- tempodox 9mo ago
  Yes, the right to spread avoidable infectious diseases obviously has priority. /s
  - roenxi 9mo ago
    Have infectious diseases stopped spreading? And all this is happening in the shadows of COVID where the vaccines famously had no significant impact on the rate of the spread. The people claiming they would turned out to be part of the misinformation crowd. We ran a natural experiment in Australia. Everyone got the vaccine, then everyone got COVID over the course of a month or two. The official numbers were high and aren't even accurate because there were too many cases to count, it got everywhere and the measurement kits ran out.
    - surgical_fire 9mo ago
      > Have infectious diseases stopped spreading? Thanks to vaccines? Yes. Multiple times in history. Smallpox, polio, measles, mumps. > vaccines famously had no significant impact on the rate of the spread. That's quite a claim. I see you provided no sources. As far as I remember, vaccines were the main reason things became safe enough to things to return to a sense of normalcy. I mean, I am not from they US, so my actual response to this news is a vague shrug. I just hope the anti-vax bullshit is contained within US borders.
lithos 9mo ago
You're applying technical info to a social problem. Americans don't trust the medical system, MAGA Americans are likely to trust it less statistically due to who the opioid pandemic/over subscription issue hit (watching a potentially close family member go from productive to an addict that started on legally subscribed drugs is hard).
- TitaRusell 9mo ago
  The medical system that is infected by capitalism? Patients must never become consumers.
- anal_reactor 9mo ago
  Not to mention two giant problems with the entire scientific community: 1. It just sucks at communication. Many people have been misled because marketeers lied to them "it's scientifically proven!" while scientists did nothing to fix that, because they only cared about preserving communication channels between themselves. The mistrust in science is obvious if you take this into account. 2. At the end of the day, scientists are people who have their biases and weaknesses. There have been well-documented cases of the entire scientific community doing a massive fuckup. So when now a bunch of scientists come and say "trust us bro, this time it's legit" it's reasonable to be sceptical.
- mindslight 9mo ago
  > MAGA Americans are likely to trust it less statistically due to who the opioid pandemic/over subscription issue hit Quite on brand to go from "personal responsibility" and "you can always avoid bad businesses" to directly blaming someone else when something actually ends up affecting them personally.

qsera 9mo ago

[flagged]

lostlogin 9mo ago
So why vaccines? Why not lose your mind over arthritis medication? Throat lozenges? Lice shampoo? Heart burn treatment?
- spiderfarmer 9mo ago
  Because their manipulators only need a couple subjects for identity politics. If they sow too many seeds of doubt, the world becomes too complex again, while the goal is the opposite.
- dmurray 9mo ago
  None of those are generally made mandatory. It's a reasonable position to say the government shouldn't be able to compel you to put any particular drugs in your body, even if it would benefit the population at large. The opposite position is also reasonable: the government should be able to compel you to take certain medical treatments in the name of improving public health. Reasonable people not blinded by ideology can accept both of those positions and handle individual cases on their merits. In the modern liberal world we've reached a consensus something like: measles vaccine OK, sterilising people with hereditary defects not OK. But people in other times and places settle on other compromises. Note: I'm aware that this decision isn't about forcing anyone to have the vaccine, it's just "advice". But it's only one step removed from that. Public schools already withhold services from kids who don't have CDC-recommended vaccines, and we've seen various governments willing to go much further during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  - guelo 9mo ago
    gsera's point was that the suspicious part was the business side of it not the government.
    - qsera 9mo ago
      Now that the original thread is flagged and hidden, we can discuss without fear. In capitalism, the incentive of the manufactures to maintain product quality is that people won't buy the thing if it is bad, or does not appear to work. This cannot be cheated. You cannot "bribe" a population. But when government mandates a product, then it changes the equation greatly against the population. Manufacture is no longer incentivized to maintain quality. If the quality is not easy to identify then it becomes much more easy. Now, they are outside capitalism. Now they can bribe the government, and enjoy perpetual sales. So to answer your question, if it was not mandated, there would be no push against it. Such businesses will run out of business as capitalism run its course.
      - surgical_fire 9mo ago
        That's not how it works. Governments have regulatory powers. They can stipulate prices, control quality, etc and so forth. Companies can be fined for breaching regulation. Ultimately, the government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary.
        qsera 9mo ago
        > Governments have regulatory powers. Which part of "bribe the government" didn't you understand, assuming you read my whole message? > The government itself can even establish vaccine production to distribute among the population if necessary. Right. Let that be done.
        surgical_fire 9mo ago
        > Which part of "bribe the government" I read it. I just interpreted as "government icky" rhetoric that is very common around here. Corruption is a tool of any power structure. Gesturing vaguely towards it to invalidate any societal initiative is not an argument, it is just bad-faith whinging. "Why build roads? The government can be bribed" "Why trust the courts? The government can be bribed" "Wefare? The government can be bribed"
LarsDu88 9mo ago
A lot of people that will refuse to vaccinate their kids will gladly shoot up Ozempic every week or snort hardcore drugs. It's pretty eye opening to me how inconsistent people can be with the right dose of propaganda. RFK Jr for example, who shot up heroin for over 15 years and is probably at minimum doing some kind of steroids.

roenxi 9mo ago

It isn't particularly hard to understand - people should be allowed to make their own determination about what is good for their health, what isn't and what risk tolerance they are personally comfortable with. If that principle is embraced a whole heap of good things are fairly obvious - why there shouldn't be state-backed eugenics programs, why exercise is voluntary and it makes health policy a lot less charged. If the principle is thrown out then a lot of problematic policy becomes hard to reject. I mean, look at what the vax-mandatory movement got - they enraged a bunch of people, helped secure Trump II, made vaccine scepticism a mainstream and popular position which arguably handed the US health department vaccine policy to anti-vaxers. Maybe avoiding authoritarian tactics and sticking to principle would have gotten them a better outcome? Hard to see how it could be worse, to be honest. They screwed up pretty badly.

tempodox 9mo ago
Yes, the right to spread avoidable infectious diseases obviously has priority. /s
- roenxi 9mo ago
  Have infectious diseases stopped spreading? And all this is happening in the shadows of COVID where the vaccines famously had no significant impact on the rate of the spread. The people claiming they would turned out to be part of the misinformation crowd. We ran a natural experiment in Australia. Everyone got the vaccine, then everyone got COVID over the course of a month or two. The official numbers were high and aren't even accurate because there were too many cases to count, it got everywhere and the measurement kits ran out.
  - surgical_fire 9mo ago
    > Have infectious diseases stopped spreading? Thanks to vaccines? Yes. Multiple times in history. Smallpox, polio, measles, mumps. > vaccines famously had no significant impact on the rate of the spread. That's quite a claim. I see you provided no sources. As far as I remember, vaccines were the main reason things became safe enough to things to return to a sense of normalcy. I mean, I am not from they US, so my actual response to this news is a vague shrug. I just hope the anti-vax bullshit is contained within US borders.

lithos 9mo ago

You're applying technical info to a social problem. Americans don't trust the medical system, MAGA Americans are likely to trust it less statistically due to who the opioid pandemic/over subscription issue hit (watching a potentially close family member go from productive to an addict that started on legally subscribed drugs is hard).

TitaRusell 9mo ago
The medical system that is infected by capitalism? Patients must never become consumers.
anal_reactor 9mo ago
Not to mention two giant problems with the entire scientific community: 1. It just sucks at communication. Many people have been misled because marketeers lied to them "it's scientifically proven!" while scientists did nothing to fix that, because they only cared about preserving communication channels between themselves. The mistrust in science is obvious if you take this into account. 2. At the end of the day, scientists are people who have their biases and weaknesses. There have been well-documented cases of the entire scientific community doing a massive fuckup. So when now a bunch of scientists come and say "trust us bro, this time it's legit" it's reasonable to be sceptical.
mindslight 9mo ago
> MAGA Americans are likely to trust it less statistically due to who the opioid pandemic/over subscription issue hit Quite on brand to go from "personal responsibility" and "you can always avoid bad businesses" to directly blaming someone else when something actually ends up affecting them personally.