Herd immunization is like the entire point...Originally Posted by Drummond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
Senior Member
Herd immunization is like the entire point...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
Thatcherite Minion
Noir, different people (.. us individualists, anyway ..) will have personal views, held AS SUCH. Individuals will differ in their outlooks, as you'd of course expect. But, those on the Left are far less likely to fit that criterion ... they sing from the same hymn sheet, they are aware of their need to unite behind a 'politically correct' viewpoint. [I call it the 'hive mind' phenomenon ... both with accuracy and with not a little disparagement intended ..]Oh yeah because look at all the other “Lefties” in the thread
For this basic reason, the likelihood of a Leftie going 'off message' is small to nonexistent.
You are a creature of the Left, as is Pete. You can expect to find unity of outlook between you. For proof, note Pete's own response, after your own ... note particularly his unashamed worldview, happily likening this situation to the treatment of humanity as 'a herd'.
Funnily enough, I've more respect for individual human beings than this. But then, I for one don't buy into Leftie poison.
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
Thatcherite Minion
Yes, Pete ... no surprise here, I think ....
Human beings share a common genetic structure. Meaning ... that this makes us akin to 'a herd' in the way we're to be regarded ?
Practicality when it's due, Pete, and only WHERE it's due, to achieve a specific goal. This is the lesson you of the Left choose not to learn. Medically speaking, our biological similarities need to be addressed as necessary, but beyond them, your thinking breaks down.
This is what you will never learn, and I'm wasting my time if I try to teach you that ...
... am I not ?
Elessar thanked this post
Super Minion
I'm not following what you are saying here. Are you for or against vaccinations? Is it Darwinian that you're going for? Only those with the right genetic strength should survive?
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Thatcherite Minion
I'd say that your last option is far removed from what I'm saying.
I'm actually saying a couple of things:
1. Vaccinations are fine. If a medical need for them exists, why withhold them ? That said ... any element of compulsion is surely of concern, at minimum. In times of national emergency, where it's literally vital to life and limb that they happen ... then, they have to be carried out. Anything short of that, though, and choice must play its part.
Compulsory vaccination as a form of 'luxury', or simply a 'preference', is surely wrong. Establish the social precedent of everybody accepting that authorities have the 'right' to insist upon them for no other good reason than that they prefer to have them done ... creates the way for a culture where psychological dependence on those who 'rule' you is increasingly established. Taken to extremes, this precedent can see everyone 'choosing' what their masters insist upon, all in the guise of 'the common good' overriding individual good ....
... in other words ... 'Socialist heaven' ....
... heralding universal approval from all Left-of-centre minded people, where what they want, goes.
2. I believe that too much vaccinating of populations must lead to a medical condition where, eventually, we THINK that diseases and viruses are absent from the population ... when they're not. Two possibilities: one, they exists in much-reduced form, meaning, entire generations live apparently having no genetic need to ward off such diseases, etc ... and have no physical need to be primed against them, meaning, that any re-emergence hits people far harder than otherwise, with any natural immunity long-gone. Two ... following on from one ... any environment we think to be sanitised from diseases cannot help but breed generations whose immune systems cannot cope with serious disease.
Consider this, as an historic example of the dangers of the absence of diseases compromising immune systems ....
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....eans-diseases/
If you mass-immunise, the point of doing so is to free a population of the disease you're immunising against. Fine if it's 100 percent effective, and the germ, disease (- whatever -) ceases to exist anywhere on the planet ! But, IF IT DOESN'T, and it reappears generations later, the population having had zero exposure to it for decades, won't have maintained any natural immunity to it.While estimates vary, approximately 20-50 million people are believed to have lived in the Americas shortly before Europeans arrived. Around 95% of them were killed by European diseases. So why didn’t 19 out of 20 Europeans die from Native American diseases?
The short answer is that Europeans simply had more robust immune systems. Several factors contributed to this: first, Europeans had been the caretakers of domestic animals for thousands of years, and had over time grown (somewhat) immune to the common diseases that accompanied the domestication of such food sources. Native Americans, on the other hand, were largely hunters and gatherers, and even in some domestication cases, it’s thought exposure was limited.
Second, Europeans lived in more densely populated areas than Native Americans. When so many humans live together in relatively close quarters (particularly with lack of good, or any, sewage systems and the like), disease spreads quickly with the general population continually getting exposed to numerous pathogens. The Europeans’ bodies had to adapt to dealing with many of those diseases, and for those who survived, their immune systems thrived as a result.
So there are dangers to immunisation which proves TOO successful.
One other thought: do germs, diseases, never evolve ? Strains of bird flu, for example, can evolve and mutate rapidly. What if, decades away, a strain of measles comes along that's far stronger than before, and a population having no defence against it finds itself unable to cope ?
Fact: we DARE NOT have an environment too sanitised. History itself teaches us that.
Last edited by Drummond; 04-27-2019 at 03:50 PM.
Super Minion
I already said before you even posted on this thread that it shouldn't 'need' to be compulsory, yet we can see that enough self-professed, 'enlightened' (I read, selfish), people have opted out to have reduced the herd immunity in certain areas.
I do not think, granted my medical knowledge is sparse at best, that vaccines actually reduce the naturally immunity, after all they are live or dead parts of the immunization.
We seem to be in total agreement though regarding antibiotic overuse, my real concern regarding that is in the feeding of animals.
I do think governments, US and France in particular, should be rewarding pharmaceuticals to research and develop more to deal with the superbugs.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Noir thanked this post
Plant Parenthood.
Herd immunity is a well defined and understood term, your feelings about it being ‘respectful’ or not could hardly be less meaningful when put in the context of medical science.
Last edited by Noir; 04-27-2019 at 04:40 PM.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Plant Parenthood.
The writing has been on the wall re: animal antibiotics for a while now, the guaranteed solution (stop putting animals in the position where we need to pump them full of drugs) is a non-starter (i.e. less profitable) so we can look forward to this problem getting worse and worse in the future.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Abbey Marie thanked this post
Kathianne liked this post
Super Minion
Yeah, I only buy antibiotic free meats now. The cost is worth it.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Senior Member
Maybe he would like to learn from a fine university from his very own country (I think!)
https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-i...w-does-it-work
Thatcherite Minion
Meaning .. either be a part of the 'herd', or be thought less of if you fail to be a part of it ?
I think my previous reply defends my position in sufficient detail. In cases of life v death emergencies, compulsion can be defended. In matters falling short of this, I don't think compulsion is acceptable. So, choice is reasonable ... just so long as anyone exercising it is, in so doing (if I understand your approach sufficiently well), are thought much the less of, if they do ?
So, you immunise en masse. Result .. that what you've immunised against, over time, seems to have disappeared. Sooner or later, budget-conscious medical authorities would want to save money by not immunising against something that appears to have disappeared (for example, who, these days, would offer routine immunisation against plague ?).I do not think, granted my medical knowledge is sparse at best, that vaccines actually reduce the naturally immunity, after all they are live or dead parts of the immunization.
Then, it re-emerges. Stronger ? Mutated ? An absence of exposure over enough time means, no defence.
Fair enough.We seem to be in total agreement though regarding antibiotic overuse, my real concern regarding that is in the feeding of animals.
... so long as the action of centralised Governmental action doesn't of itself create a dependence on them, I agree ... establish a methodology for one sector of care, and will it remain limited in application ?I do think governments, US and France in particular, should be rewarding pharmaceuticals to research and develop more to deal with the superbugs.
Last edited by Drummond; 04-27-2019 at 07:32 PM.
Thatcherite Minion
In some quarters, Noir, Socialism is also regarded as 'well defined and understood'. This says precisely nothing about how reputably or justifiably it can be defended.
You really like the term being discussed, though, don't you, Noir ? Does it appeal to you ?
Do you feel driven to defend and sanction the whole nature of the methodology, because you identify so readily with it ? Does it just seem 'right' to you on a very basic, fundamental level, and those resisting it are very fundamentally 'wrong' for stepping outside of it ?
Last edited by Drummond; 04-27-2019 at 07:39 PM.
Thatcherite Minion
H'm. Are those of you from the Left lining up to offer a defence of the term ? Usage, and application ?
Try to curb your enthusiasm, Pete ... if only a little.
Last edited by Drummond; 04-27-2019 at 07:41 PM.
Super Minion
Not sure your understanding of the science of medicine is light years above my own. I remember 30+ years ago, searching out information prior to my first child being born. Yes, I was concerned about vaccines back even before the Lancet article. What I found in the library and from my doctor was more than enough to follow the suggested routines.
Indeed, it seems that immunizations to combat superbugs is one of the possible ways medical science is looking:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655118/
From my perusal it seems to be for the very reason that mutations haven't appeared, even for tetanus, which has been one of the longest running vaccinations available.
Great minds: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/h...1smallpox.html
...
But as a historian, I found it even more bewildering to hear speakers claim that government-sponsored vaccines were a violation of the founding fathers’ design.
It is true that in their time there was no such thing as safe, standardized immunization. But even then, inoculation was used to quell smallpox, the deadliest scourge of the day. Such preventive public health measures framed the early days of our nation as tightly as the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
John Adams was inoculated in 1764. Twelve years later, while he was in Philadelphia declaring American independence, his wife and children were inoculated as an epidemic raged in Boston. Gen. George Washington ordered his soldiers to be inoculated in 1777 because more men were falling to smallpox than to Redcoat muskets.
Thomas Jefferson, who avidly followed the scientific literature on the subject, inoculated himself and his children in 1782.
...
But the most eloquent advocate of smallpox inoculation was
Benjamin Franklin.In 1721, the Puritan minister Cotton Mather promoted inoculation in partnership with a Boston physician named Zabdiel Boylston, who risked life and limb by inoculating his children, his black servants and many of his patients.
Among those opposing Mather’s efforts was Franklin’s brother James, the contrarian publisher of The New England Courant. Aside from the inherent danger of the procedure, James Franklin argued that religious zealots had no business practicing medicine. He was hardly alone; many colonists considered inoculation a breach of the Sixth Commandment (“Thou shalt not kill”).
Inoculation involved lancing open a wound and implanting dried scabs or fresh pus containing variola (the virus that causes smallpox) under the skin of a healthy, uninfected person. Said to have originated in China, it was commonly practiced across the Far East and the Ottoman Empire.
The procedure typically caused a milder form of smallpox and conferred lifelong immunity. Still, many people became ill from it, and not a few died. Moreover, it was feared that the inoculated would infect others.
Yet after an initial silence (perhaps out of fear of enraging his older brother), Benjamin Franklin became one of the colonies’ leading proponents of inoculation, trumpeting his advocacy in the pages of his own newspaper, The Pennsylvania Gazette.
...
Inoculation was eventually replaced by the far safer method of vaccination, which uses a milder virus to induce immunity. An English country doctor named Edward Jenner made this discovery in 1796 after noting that local milkmaids who contracted the annoying but harmless cowpox infection on their hands remained healthy during lethal smallpox epidemics.
Jenner’s vaccination soon became the major means of preventing smallpox. In 1801 President Thomas Jefferson declared vaccination one of the nation’s first public health priorities. Two years later, he instructed
Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to take vaccine on their expedition to the Pacific.
...
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Socialism = Poverty
Choose To Vaccinate
It comes down to this
Do I have the right to endanger the public well being? That is, do I have the right to act in such a way that endangers the life, property, and safety of others? The answer is clearly “no” and there are many laws on the books that protect us from such actions.
For instance, I have the right to private property, but I do not have the right to build a bonfire on my property during a severe drought when there is a good chance I can start a wildfire that will burn down my neighbor’s house
I have the right to free speech but I do not have the right to shout “FIRE!!” in a crowded theater.
I see vaccinations as one of these. By not being vaccinated against diseases like the measles (which can be fatal to adults), I am acting in such a way that endangers the life, or property, or safety of my neighbor and the public in general.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. - Ronald Reagan
Kathianne liked this post
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
