4 ms·

Trying to pin the blame on the Amish doesn't seem right. Sure they weren't vaccinated but they are also less educated and have much, much less access to informa

Trying to pin the blame on the Amish doesn't seem right. Sure they weren't vaccinated but they are also less educated and have much, much less access to information on health than us. The 'informed' members of society who choose not to vaccinate are the real problem, otherwise the disease would have been contained to a small community of people. These informed individuals have no excuse. Take the latest outbreak for example [0] in Disney land. [0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31034379 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31034379 NB: Just a reminder. The down vote button is not an 'I disagree with this person' button.

mhurron 12y ago
Anyone who is not vaccinated and goes around in public is a danger. It doesn't matter why they aren't, the why doesn't make them more or less of a danger. They are all dangers to society.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  I didn't say they were less of a danger. My point was that there mistake can be excused easier due to lack of information. People who are informed about the vaccine and make the decision not to use it however cannot be excused at all as there behaviour is reckless. Attempting to point the blame at the Amish instead of the latter group doesn't seem right to me.
  - richardwhiuk 12y ago
    Aren't the Amish deliberately not vaccinated as they deliberately don't have access to the information? How is that different from someone who has access to the information but deliberately chooses to ignore it or disbelieve it?
    - larsiusprime 12y ago
      Put it in perspective before you lash out. We "informed" people know car accidents are a leading cause of preventable death, and yet we kill more people with car accidents than unvaccinated non-car-driving Amish people (who are apparently swiftly adjusting their behavior re: vaccinations, which is a good thing).
      - hobs 12y ago
        I can see why being rude to a people can seem harsh, but both of these child comments (at the moment) seem to be off the mark to me. > The difference is the Amish are willing to change their stance on a technology if it proves to be beneficial to their lifestyle. So are most people, they just have a belief that vaccinations somehow cause more harm them they prevent. Almost like another communities clearly less educated decisions on various topics based on their belief. >The difference is the Amish are willing to change their stance on a technology if it proves to be beneficial to their lifestyle. People are not making choices because they know its the wrong choice to make. Anti-vaxers are dead wrong, but they dont make said choice to spite you, they think its beneficial. I would say that ignorance because of belief or personal choice are basically the same excuse for choosing something that is harming people, and can be easily remedied.
      - d4rti 12y ago
        The sacred rac is illustrative of people's culture blindness http://www.drabruzzi.com/sacred_rac.html http://www.drabruzzi.com/sacred_rac.html
    - Delmania 12y ago
      The difference is the Amish are willing to change their stance on a technology if it proves to be beneficial to their lifestyle.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      These particular Amish are deliberately not vaccinated because of a specific incident where two children supposedly had a bad reaction to a vaccine. It's nothing to do with their access to information, and as far as I can tell nothing to do with their religion either. I really wish people would read the article before making these assumptions. Half the people in here seem to have just seen "Amish" and leapt to the conclusion that Amish people reject vaccinations in the same way that they reject cars and computers.
- herge 12y ago
  So are smokers and people who are overweight. Your point?
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Overweight people aren't really a danger to other people. Smokers aren't a danger to other people as long as they keep their smoke away from other people.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- larsiusprime 12y ago
  The article explicitly says they were not refusing on religious grounds, and at the end also explicitly says they changed their minds about the importance of vaccinations.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> If they are refusing vaccinations on religious grounds Read the article. They aren't and have now started taking vaccines.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
dmckeon 12y ago
For most people, trying to find "patient zero" is doomed to be hard and fruitless - like the employees of a medium-sized company trying to figure out who brought a computer virus to work - too many possible vectors and not enough time and exposure information for amateurs to find, follow, and cross-check clues and stay ahead of prejudicial guesswork. For the Ohio outbreak, the professional epidemiologists could track it: > Fletcher describes it as a "perfect storm:" an unimmunized traveler going to a place with an outbreak and bringing an infectious disease back to an unprotected community. Going forward, here's an article that points to some ways that states could change their laws, rules, and procedures to get to higher immunization rates: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/29/why-this-mom-is-so-angry-at-the-anti-vaxxers/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/29...
freehunter 12y ago
>Sure they weren't vaccinated but they are also less educated and have much, much less access to information on health than us. This is by conscious choice, not by any necessity. They have access to all of the health information anyone else has, and they consciously choose to ignore it. I'm not making a judgment call on their society, I live in a heavily Amish area and they're mostly great people, but saying we can't blame them because they choose not to follow modern health standards until it's too late is just passing the buck.

mhurron 12y ago

Anyone who is not vaccinated and goes around in public is a danger. It doesn't matter why they aren't, the why doesn't make them more or less of a danger. They are all dangers to society.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
I didn't say they were less of a danger. My point was that there mistake can be excused easier due to lack of information. People who are informed about the vaccine and make the decision not to use it however cannot be excused at all as there behaviour is reckless. Attempting to point the blame at the Amish instead of the latter group doesn't seem right to me.
- richardwhiuk 12y ago
  Aren't the Amish deliberately not vaccinated as they deliberately don't have access to the information? How is that different from someone who has access to the information but deliberately chooses to ignore it or disbelieve it?
  - larsiusprime 12y ago
    Put it in perspective before you lash out. We "informed" people know car accidents are a leading cause of preventable death, and yet we kill more people with car accidents than unvaccinated non-car-driving Amish people (who are apparently swiftly adjusting their behavior re: vaccinations, which is a good thing).
    - hobs 12y ago
      I can see why being rude to a people can seem harsh, but both of these child comments (at the moment) seem to be off the mark to me. > The difference is the Amish are willing to change their stance on a technology if it proves to be beneficial to their lifestyle. So are most people, they just have a belief that vaccinations somehow cause more harm them they prevent. Almost like another communities clearly less educated decisions on various topics based on their belief. >The difference is the Amish are willing to change their stance on a technology if it proves to be beneficial to their lifestyle. People are not making choices because they know its the wrong choice to make. Anti-vaxers are dead wrong, but they dont make said choice to spite you, they think its beneficial. I would say that ignorance because of belief or personal choice are basically the same excuse for choosing something that is harming people, and can be easily remedied.
    - d4rti 12y ago
      The sacred rac is illustrative of people's culture blindness http://www.drabruzzi.com/sacred_rac.html http://www.drabruzzi.com/sacred_rac.html
  - Delmania 12y ago
    The difference is the Amish are willing to change their stance on a technology if it proves to be beneficial to their lifestyle.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    These particular Amish are deliberately not vaccinated because of a specific incident where two children supposedly had a bad reaction to a vaccine. It's nothing to do with their access to information, and as far as I can tell nothing to do with their religion either. I really wish people would read the article before making these assumptions. Half the people in here seem to have just seen "Amish" and leapt to the conclusion that Amish people reject vaccinations in the same way that they reject cars and computers.
herge 12y ago
So are smokers and people who are overweight. Your point?
- mikeash 12y ago
  Overweight people aren't really a danger to other people. Smokers aren't a danger to other people as long as they keep their smoke away from other people.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

larsiusprime 12y ago
The article explicitly says they were not refusing on religious grounds, and at the end also explicitly says they changed their minds about the importance of vaccinations.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> If they are refusing vaccinations on religious grounds Read the article. They aren't and have now started taking vaccines.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

dmckeon 12y ago

For most people, trying to find "patient zero" is doomed to be hard and fruitless - like the employees of a medium-sized company trying to figure out who brought a computer virus to work - too many possible vectors and not enough time and exposure information for amateurs to find, follow, and cross-check clues and stay ahead of prejudicial guesswork. For the Ohio outbreak, the professional epidemiologists could track it: > Fletcher describes it as a "perfect storm:" an unimmunized traveler going to a place with an outbreak and bringing an infectious disease back to an unprotected community. Going forward, here's an article that points to some ways that states could change their laws, rules, and procedures to get to higher immunization rates: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/29/why-this-mom-is-so-angry-at-the-anti-vaxxers/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/29...

freehunter 12y ago

>Sure they weren't vaccinated but they are also less educated and have much, much less access to information on health than us. This is by conscious choice, not by any necessity. They have access to all of the health information anyone else has, and they consciously choose to ignore it. I'm not making a judgment call on their society, I live in a heavily Amish area and they're mostly great people, but saying we can't blame them because they choose not to follow modern health standards until it's too late is just passing the buck.