Anti-vaxxers start epidemy at Disneyland

[Simon_Jester]

You might delcare the Chinese Goverment unreliable based on what was happening in the early 60's. In that same time, what was happening in the democratic USA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
In the last decade and a half, the Chinese government has lifted more people out of absolute poverty then any organisation in the world. They have certainly out performed democratic india. I'm not a fan of them for many reasons, but I do admit when they get things right.

* well, except in the last example. making it even worse then Mao's Gang of Four, who after all were given show trials and imprisoned for their crimes. Something you seem to have forgotten in your wikipedia trawl

I feel that i have caused you to lose your temper...

Now, I'd like to respond. Forgive me for quoting your post out of order; I intend to respond to everything but it's a matter of sequence.

Firstly, I have never understood why if I say "not-X," other people interpret that to mean "not-Y" and proceed to wave Y in my face like a battle flag. My point is, and I made this quite explicit, that the one (point three five) billion people now living in China are fortunate. They live in one of the best autocratic governments that has ever existed. I did not deny "the current government of China is working." Advertising this fact in no way refutes my arguments.

My argument is that China is working now, fairly well, but that this is not an intrinsic permanent virtue of the CCCP and the government it's created. One generation ago, said government was still getting its act together. Two generations ago, it was the heart of insanity. Hopefully for the sake of the Chinese people, they'll be getting the good side rather than the bad in the future.

The fundamental problem with autocracy as such, on average is the lack of mechanisms by which you can say "this autocracy is failing to provide for and secure the people; remove it."

[As to the matter of accountability, one can make a respectable case that the Gang of Four were scapegoats for policy decisions that were ultimately the responsibility of Mao. But because it is not permitted under the political system of China to say "Mao did something stupid and got ten million people killed," they have to fall back on the time-honored excuse of abusive empires that promise not to do it again:

"It was all the fault of that nasty evil vizier! The monarch is righteous and good!" ]

You know I'm not going to have to stretch far for counter examples. Should I go back to Cromwell's starvation of Ireland, Australian baby robbery or more recent Indian pogroms and religious riots? Should I talk about Thatcher's war on the miners, or Lydon B-Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin, or Blair, Bush and Cheney's adventures in the deserts? It's the same system of government, though all the officials have changed*, and has anyone in this selection been held to account for the starvation and misery inflicted on others?

Democracy is certainly and obviously not a means by which foreigners can get recourse against a country that has attacked them. You can't change the government by voting if the government in question is foreign. Thus, democracy is not a remedy for the complaints of the Irish against Parliament, the Vietnamese or Iraqis or Afghans against the US, and so on.

I would argue that this is a disingenuous criticism for you to launch because I never argued otherwise, and it is tangential to my real point, which is a response to Purple's idea that an autocracy that 'does the right thing' or 'provides for people' is better than democracy. I have never presented the democratic nation-state as a solution to all the world's evils. It is not a panacea.

If you wanted to use democracy to prevent wars and civilian deaths suffered during wars, you would need a one-world democracy, instead... and it'd be interesting to compare such a democracy to the kind of one-world tyranny that certain dictators have fantasized about creating. Would you prefer to live in a one-world dictatorship run by a really nice guy than in a one-world democracy?

If you are talking checks and balances, I'd point out the naked regulatory capture in the US and and Australia, the system that allows 2 schools to dominate the UK selection of MPs, and how many 'democratic' dynasties do the US and India boast between them? A vote is no protection against a dollar.

Dictatorship provides NO protection against anything, whereas the vote at least sometimes protects against some things. Almost every form of conflict of interest, oligarchical rule-by-old-boys-club, and dynastic silliness that goes wrong in a democracy... It can go and has gone just as wrong, or more wrong, in a dictatorship.

And at least in the democracy sometimes it's illegal even if it happens anyway.

This is, AGAIN, not to say democracy is a panacea. But its average level of quality-of-governance is a lot higher than that of the average tyranny.

---

Few thoughts before I go to work

1. I am really jaded because I think its less so about type of government than the person or persons running it. A monarchy where the ruler is smart, has decent feedback mechanisms (easier in the modern world with the internet), competent, and not corrupt will improve the standard of living in a country.

The only difference between different forms of government seems to be that some hold more power over their own countries, so their fuck ups are magnified, while their achievements if they work can occur quicker and more widespread. All other things being equal (eg population, GDP etc, so it makes it hard to compare between countries since all other things are not equal).

Personally I think that dictatorships magnify fuckups more efficiently than they magnify achievements.

The 'advantage' a dictator enjoys is that he can violently suppress oppositions. The ability to suppress opposition to your rule is far more useful when you are wrong than when you are right.

2. If I did not have the fortune to be born in a developed or relatively well off country (like most of the world's population) I freely admit I would forego some of the rights like voting for as Purple puts it "getting things done." Presumably he means things like economic development. The problem of course is, there is no way to tell whether I would get a leader who could get things done. But lets just say hypothetically if I was born in a poor country and the leaders had already demonstrated a capability to improve things. Lets say its not democratic. Would I forego temporarily the right to vote (ie not agitating for change) in exchange for improved standard of living?...

Again, my basic point here is that overall, there are very few autocratic governments whose citizens are lucky enough to be in a state where democracy would (allegedly) do worse. And many where the citizens are being badly abused by their own rulers, with no recourse.

In all honesty I would say yes. This strangely enough seems to be the path developed nations took. The West became rich before it became democratic did it not? The US didn't even allow women to vote until the early 20th century, but had already surpassed the British empire in terms of GDP almost 2 decades earlier (depending on who you ask).

Uh... and the British did have women's suffrage? I mean, it's silly to say "A was less democratic than B" because A doesn't have right X and B doesn't either.

[Soontir C'boath]

The US government for a couple decades(?) now has allowed parents to not vaccinate their children, but as time goes by and we see more cases occurring, it should not be an issue when the government with the officials we elect into office puts forth a solution to decrease these cases again.

[mr friendly guy]

Uh... and the British did have women's suffrage? I mean, it's silly to say "A was less democratic than B" because A doesn't have right X and B doesn't either.

You misunderstand the implication. I am saying the West became rich before it became democratic. That was an example.

I will expand on that and say that other democratic economies, eg Taiwan, South Korea also followed this pathway. Since more countries are poor to middle income than high income*, I expect a lot of these will be non democratic, and liberalise as they become rich.

* as per world bank definitions http://data.worldbank.org/about/country ... ing-groups

[Simon_Jester]

Some poor autocratic countries become rich. Others remain poor. Some poor democracies become rich. Others remain poor. I'm not sure we can easily say what the cause and effect relationship is.

I mean, I can argue that an autocracy that works and causes growth without unduly oppressing the people is better than a stagnant corrupt pseudo-democracy. But that's a bad test.

it's like saying "the strongest man is stronger than the weakest bear," as though that says anything about the relative strength of men and bears. The fact that you somehow dredged up a bear with terminal cancer and a wasting disease doesn't mean that men are, on the whole, stronger than bears.

So there is still a valid criticism of autocracy as such in that it lacks safeguards to ensure its continued function. Most democracies have peacefully abandoned quite a few bad policies in their lifetime. Dictatorships have a harder time accomplishing this without a revolution.

[Elheru Aran]

If a dictatorship becomes a democracy peacefully, usually it's because the dictator wasn't an idiot and knew he had to set up a way for things to change over smoothly. Look at Franco and Spain. From what I understand, he decided he didn't care what happened after he died, told the Spanish that Juan Carlos would take over after he passed, and once he did, Spain transitioned to a constitutional monarchy (if that's the right term) fairly quickly. These are typically exceptions to the rule, though, and I don't think anybody would point at (modern) Spain having a healthy economy currently...

[mr friendly guy]

Some poor autocratic countries become rich. Others remain poor. Some poor democracies become rich. Others remain poor. I'm not sure we can easily say what the cause and effect relationship is.

For your own interest, some people like Niall Ferguson, Jared Diamond etc do postulate what makes some regions rich and poor. Using Ferguson as an example, he lists the "6 apps" which the West developed and which as he puts it, China has downloaded 5 of them. Indications are they are making noise about adopting the sixth, "rule of law/ property rights."

My own thoughts are, that its a matter of adopting these reforms (which he calls apps because the smartphone generation), and that is highly dependent on the leader or leaders. Which is a bit frightening if you think about it. What are the chances the average person will be able to influence things? Even in a democracy one vote isn't much in a large voting population. Thus I am force to consider its simply a matter of fortune to be born in a country where the current leaders made the right decision.

In other words, being an autocracy or democracy is largely independent on being rich or poor. Now if you want to have a higher standard of living than ideologically being a democracy, then I can understand where Purple is coming from. It actually makes sense, because if you wanted to change a poor, autocratic country to a rich autocratic vs a rich democratic country, it would require more effort to do the latter (no one said setting up a democracy is easy). So its better to focus on one for the moment.

I mean, I can argue that an autocracy that works and causes growth without unduly oppressing the people is better than a stagnant corrupt pseudo-democracy. But that's a bad test.

Doesn't that suggest some other factors are more important in discussing what makes a country have a good standard of living rather than democracy?

You might not be aware of this, but a lot of people do expound that the high standard of living in democracies are due to democracy. There are others who list a whole bunch of reasons, which are independent on being a democracy or autocracy. To my mind there isn't really a reason why a democracy or an autocracy cannot adopt those reforms.

Now given that the West became rich before it become democratic, I am incline to lean towards the latter position, ie the reasons for being rich are independent of democracy (and autocracy for that matter).

it's like saying "the strongest man is stronger than the weakest bear," as though that says anything about the relative strength of men and bears. The fact that you somehow dredged up a bear with terminal cancer and a wasting disease doesn't mean that men are, on the whole, stronger than bears.

Perhaps a thought experiment involving mass body swaps might help? Let me explain. Perhaps a better way to compare is say if US politicians were magically put in charge of China with a change in their political system to match the US (by an act of Q), and this occurred in the 1970s, would they be able to produce a better growth by the modern day?

So there is still a valid criticism of autocracy as such in that it lacks safeguards to ensure its continued function. Most democracies have peacefully abandoned quite a few bad policies in their lifetime. Dictatorships have a harder time accomplishing this without a revolution.

Sure that might be true. However my point is the democracy / autocracy most likely plays a smaller part in things than you think. I would argue having a good leaders is more important, but hell if I know how to ensure we get goods ones. And that's even in a democracy. Which is quite depressing really.

[madd0ct0r]

sorry for the delay, work has been a leetle interesting. Mr Friendly guy has developed the argument along much the same lines I would have, except for a couple of points SJ skipped over in his first reply.

So where are we at? Sick bears and strong mans. It is generally agreed that autocratic countries can work. Simon Jester continues to bang the drum for autocrat control being worse, on average, then democracy. While I disagree with his swallowing of the propaganda in terms of how in control Mao actually was, and whether the right people were punished for the Great Leap Forward, I think we both agree that the country's people would be better off if it was never tried. It was a three year long experiment. Most democracies have terms longer then that, but unfortunately, aside from various invasions, I can't think of any monumental fuckups even close to the same scale for comparison. Simon Jester may here advance the argument that knowing you must face the ballot box later tends to make policy today more sensible.

One point that has not been addressed flows naturally from earlier point that a democracy can only protect it's members. One of the examples I gave, but unaccountably not quoted by Simon, is the Australian baby theft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
Where the rights of a minority and the desires of a majority collide, democracy alone gives no protection, even inside the country. I'm sure Americans will not have to stretch far to find their own examples.

A counter-example is Singapore, a modern classic benign tyranny. There is a wonderful documentary interview with Lee Kuan Yew where he admit to jailing protesters illeagely. He shrugs - "they were trying to split Singapore on ethnic lines, with each standing at the top of their own little heap. History will judge me". Where such fault lines divide a society, the strategy that does well for elections may not be the one that does best for the country.

[Simon_Jester]

Some poor autocratic countries become rich. Others remain poor. Some poor democracies become rich. Others remain poor. I'm not sure we can easily say what the cause and effect relationship is.

For your own interest, some people like Niall Ferguson, Jared Diamond etc do postulate what makes some regions rich and poor. Using Ferguson as an example, he lists the "6 apps" which the West developed and which as he puts it, China has downloaded 5 of them. Indications are they are making noise about adopting the sixth, "rule of law/ property rights."

My own thoughts are, that its a matter of adopting these reforms (which he calls apps because the smartphone generation), and that is highly dependent on the leader or leaders. Which is a bit frightening if you think about it. What are the chances the average person will be able to influence things? Even in a democracy one vote isn't much in a large voting population. Thus I am force to consider its simply a matter of fortune to be born in a country where the current leaders made the right decision.

In other words, being an autocracy or democracy is largely independent on being rich or poor. Now if you want to have a higher standard of living than ideologically being a democracy, then I can understand where Purple is coming from. It actually makes sense, because if you wanted to change a poor, autocratic country to a rich autocratic vs a rich democratic country, it would require more effort to do the latter (no one said setting up a democracy is easy). So its better to focus on one for the moment.

I mean, I can argue that an autocracy that works and causes growth without unduly oppressing the people is better than a stagnant corrupt pseudo-democracy. But that's a bad test.

Doesn't that suggest some other factors are more important in discussing what makes a country have a good standard of living rather than democracy?

You might not be aware of this, but a lot of people do expound that the high standard of living in democracies are due to democracy. There are others who list a whole bunch of reasons, which are independent on being a democracy or autocracy. To my mind there isn't really a reason why a democracy or an autocracy cannot adopt those reforms.

Now given that the West became rich before it become democratic, I am incline to lean towards the latter position, ie the reasons for being rich are independent of democracy (and autocracy for that matter).

it's like saying "the strongest man is stronger than the weakest bear," as though that says anything about the relative strength of men and bears. The fact that you somehow dredged up a bear with terminal cancer and a wasting disease doesn't mean that men are, on the whole, stronger than bears.

Perhaps a thought experiment involving mass body swaps might help? Let me explain. Perhaps a better way to compare is say if US politicians were magically put in charge of China with a change in their political system to match the US (by an act of Q), and this occurred in the 1970s, would they be able to produce a better growth by the modern day?

So there is still a valid criticism of autocracy as such in that it lacks safeguards to ensure its continued function. Most democracies have peacefully abandoned quite a few bad policies in their lifetime. Dictatorships have a harder time accomplishing this without a revolution.

Sure that might be true. However my point is the democracy / autocracy most likely plays a smaller part in things than you think. I would argue having a good leaders is more important, but hell if I know how to ensure we get goods ones. And that's even in a democracy. Which is quite depressing really.

[Flagg]

Here's an article guaranteed to make your fucking blood boil, in which a Cardiologist blames vaccines for a child's leukemia.

Arizona measles exposure worries parents of at-risk kids
By Elizabeth Cohen and Debra Goldschmidt

Updated 1:21 PM ET, Sat January 31, 2015

(CNN)—Anna Jacks checks her baby's forehead over and over again. Is he hot? Does he have a rash? Is his nose still runny?

Her son has been sick before, but this time it's different: Last week Eli was at a Phoenix Children's Hospital clinic with a woman who had the measles, which spreads easily from person to person. Now he's showing signs of the virus, such as runny nose and cough and fatigue.

At 10 months old, Eli is too young to get vaccinated and would be especially vulnerable to serious complications of measles, such as deafness and brain damage or even death. But his parents have an even bigger worry. If Eli does have the measles, he could give it to his 3-year-old sister, Maggie, who has leukemia.

So far Maggie is feeling fine, but her parents know that with her immune system wiped out by chemotherapy she's even more vulnerable than her brother to complications.

"My biggest fear is that I'll lose my child, or that she'll become deaf," Anna Jacks said. "My family has been through enough with cancer. I don't want her to go through anything else."

According to Arizona health officials, the woman at the clinic who put the Jacks children in danger was herself infected by members of a family that doesn't vaccinate and got measles during a visit to Disneyland, where the outbreak began more than a month ago.

This week, Maggie and Eli's father, Dr. Tim Jacks, wrote a blog post in which he expressed his feelings to this family.

"Towards you, unvaccinating parent, I feel anger and frustration at your choices," wrote Jacks, a pediatrician. "Why would you knowingly expose anyone to your sick unvaccinated child after recently visiting Disneyland? That was a boneheaded move."

"Your poor choices don't just affect your child," he continued. "They affect my family and many more like us. Please forgive my sarcasm. I am upset and just a little bit scared."

Jacks signed the post "Papa Bear."

The Jacks family asked a CNN crew not to enter their home or meet with Eli. Out of an abundance of caution we also chose not to meet with Maggie or with Tim Jacks, who has limited immunity to measles. We spoke to Anna Jacks in person because blood tests show she has complete immunity to measles.

The Jackses don't know the identity of the vaccine refusers who put their children in danger, but Anna Jacks said she knows what she would say to them if she ever met them.

"Your children don't live in a little bubble. They live in a big bubble and my children live inside that big bubble with your children," she said. "If you don't want to vaccinate your children, fine, but don't take them to Disneyland."

But Dr. Jack Wolfson said it's the Jacks family who should keep themselves at home, not him.

Wolfson, an Arizona cardiologist, refuses to vaccinate his two young sons. He said the family that didn't vaccinate and endangered the Jacks children did nothing wrong.

"It's not my responsibility to inject my child with chemicals in order for [a child like Maggie] to be supposedly healthy," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, it's very likely that her leukemia is from vaccinations in the first place."

"I'm not going to sacrifice the well-being of my child. My child is pure," he added. "It's not my responsibility to be protecting their child."

CNN asked Wolfson if he could live with himself if his unvaccinated child got another child gravely ill.

"I could live with myself easily," he said. "It's an unfortunate thing that people die, but people die. I'm not going to put my child at risk to save another child."

He blamed the Jacks family for taking Maggie to the clinic for care.

"If a child is so vulnerable like that, they shouldn't be going out into society," he said.

Anna Jacks said she hopes vaccine refusers get educated and change their minds. In the meantime, she prays that her daughter recovers from leukemia and that both her children avoid getting measles.

Can we bring back drawing and quartering? This asshole needs to be made an example of.

[Borgholio]

Can we bring back drawing and quartering? This asshole needs to be made an example of.

Let's just expose him to the very diseases that he claims aren't a problem and see how he feels when he's left with permanent scarring, a limp, or a disorder of the nervous system.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, he seems to be saying "vaccines are so dangerous I won't expose my child to that severe risk in order to prevent some other child from catching a disease."

Imagine if vaccines killed 10% of all children who were inoculated. In that case, basically all parents would make the same decision that Wolfson the Asshole is making- they would not accept a 10% risk of their child dying in exchange for immunity from a rare disease. Or in exchange for being sure their child won't be passing on that rare disease to someone else.

But Wolfson the Asshole is operating with two mental malfunctions.

One is that he grossly overestimates the danger of vaccines. He believes unproven allegations about how they cause things like leukemia, and so forth. So he's acting as though vaccines have a 10% chance of killing his child, when in fact they have an utterly negligible and tiny chance of harming his child. A chance that is probably lower than the chance the child will get hit by lightning if he allows them to go out and play.

The other issue is his massive raging blame-the-victim complex. This is a very common insanity in people who do something they have reason to know is antisocial. Rather than admit responsibility for things, they come up with contrived scenarios by which the victim could have avoided coming to harm.

And, OK, there's probably a third weird complex implied by that "my child is pure" line. That's the sort of thing you really don't say unless you have pseudoscientific ideas about health and 'purity.'

[Irbis]

Unfortunately we are going to see more incidents like this if the anti-vax movement keeps spreading. As logic starts to rear its beautiful face, though, I would expect certain institutions to begin requiring evidence of vaccinations. A number of private schools are already mandating that they will not accept students without vaccination records, and doctors' offices are telling parents that they won't take new pediatric patients without consenting to vaccinations.

Will that change anything? If you look at anti-vaxxers websites, you'll easily find instructions how to lie to doctors to get fake vaccination paper on religious grounds, or outright addresses of such imbeciles like idiot Flagg linked that will give you one out of sympathy. Yes, giving false testimony can be grounds to medical licence loss or even prison, but it looks like one of the cases where both sides have big incentive to stay silent making investigating it very hard.

Then you have big anti-vaxxers wins on exempting their brainless kind from vaccination not only on religious grounds now, but also on 'philosophical' ones (which us presumably just 'my say so'). If you can easily exempt yourself in 48 out of 50 states, small incentives that will only play a role relatively late in life won't stop 20 year long periods where you can be transmitting vector of any random disease and potential herd immunity collapses.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/sch ... -laws.aspx

Incidentally, Mississippi and West Virginia being the two sane states? Honestly, I'd guess north-eastern ones first before these two... And even then, they account for what? 1.5% of US population?

[TOSDOC]

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... _board.php

Seems Dr. Wolfson is now under investigation by the Arizona Medical Board. I hope they take his public comments on the news into ethical consideration. I just wish CNN hadn't given him the coverage they had.

This article was also quite amusing, and I intend to remember its points well should I find myself arguing with an anti-vacc'er:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/hey-ge ... 1682799466

[Irbis]

Incidentally, update on outbreak:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/02/healt ... index.html

Interesting points: Disneyland source already confirmed to infect more people in a day than were infected in most years in past two decades in USA;

Measles we declared eradicated in USA in 2000; since then, thanks to efforts of idiot anti-vaccine movement infection graph doubles each year, to 644 cases in 2014.

*sigh*

[Jaepheth]

I didn't realize the issue of state mandated vaccinations had already been ruled on by the SCOTUS, but someone posted this tidbit of relevant information on Facebook today:

Did you know the vaccine debate we are now in the middle of was an issue decided by the Supreme Court? In 1905! From the first Justice Harlan's opinion for the Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts:

The authority of the state to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power,-a power which the state did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution. [...] According to settled principles, the police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 203, 6 L. ed. 23, 71 [...] We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.' Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 471 , 24 S. L. ed. 527, 530 [...]

[... T]he answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare [...] and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few. [...]

Looking at the propositions embodied in the defendant's rejected offers of proof, it is clear that they are more formidable by their number than by their inherent value. Those offers in the main seem to have had no purpose except to state the general theory of those of the medical profession who attach little or no value to vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of smallpox, or who think that vaccination causes other diseases of the body. What everybody knows the court must know, and therefore the state court judicially knew, as this court knows, that an opposite theory accords with the common belief, and is maintained by high medical authority.

[...] It must be conceded that some laymen, both learned and unlearned, and some physicians of great skill and repute, do not believe that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox. The common belief, however, is that it has a decided tendency to prevent the spread of this fearful disease, and to render it less dangerous to those who contract it. While not accepted by all, it is accepted by the mass of the people, as well as by most members of the medical profession. [...]

Since, then, vaccination, as a means of protecting a community against smallpox, finds strong support in the experience of this and other countries, no court, much less a jury, is justified in disregarding the action of the legislature simply because in its or their opinion that particular method was-perhaps, or possibly-not the best either for children or adults. [...]

The defendant offered to prove that vaccination 'quite often' caused serious and permanent injury to the health of the person vaccinated; that the operation 'occasionally' resulted in death; that it was 'impossible' to tell 'in any particular case' what the results of vaccination would be, or whether it would injure the health or result in death; that 'quite often' one's blood is in a certain condition of impurity when it is not prudent or safe to vaccinate him; that there is no practical test by which to determine 'with any degree of certainty' whether one's blood is in such condition of impurity as to render vaccination necessarily unsafe or dangerous; that vaccine matter is 'quite often' impure and dangerous to be used, but whether impure or not cannot be ascertained by any known practical test; that the defendant refused to submit to vaccination for the reason that he had, 'when a child,' been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination; and that he had witnessed a similar result of vaccination, not only in the case of his son, but in the cases of others. [...]

These offers, in effect, invited the court and jury to go over the whole ground gone over by the legislature when it enacted the statute in question. [...] It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease. Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.

We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state. [Emphasis supplied.]

The more things change.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Incidentally, Mississippi and West Virginia being the two sane states? Honestly, I'd guess north-eastern ones first before these two...

Those most be the only two states that are so utterly backwards and devoid of scientific understanding that they don't even know what vaccines ARE yet.

[Flagg]

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... _board.php

Seems Dr. Wolfson is now under investigation by the Arizona Medical Board. I hope they take his public comments on the news into ethical consideration. I just wish CNN hadn't given him the coverage they had.

This article was also quite amusing, and I intend to remember its points well should I find myself arguing with an anti-vacc'er:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/hey-ge ... 1682799466

Anti-Vaxxers are like YECs, I'm afraid. Impervious to facts. Keep up the good fight, but don't think twice about stopping if you get sick of it, because it's largely a waste of time.

[Baffalo]

Incidentally, Mississippi and West Virginia being the two sane states? Honestly, I'd guess north-eastern ones first before these two...

Those most be the only two states that are so utterly backwards and devoid of scientific understanding that they don't even know what vaccines ARE yet.

*sigh*

As someone from Arkansas, I admit that our states down here do deserve a large portion of the flak they get for being ignorant and backwards. As a substitute teacher, I want to yank my hair out when these kids are deliberately obtuse to even the basic concepts of things. I know that part of it is that the kids are being difficult on purpose, but there's only so much I can take when a kid is genuinely confused by the concept of a coupon.

Yes. He was confused by the concept of a coupon. Part of me died inside.

[Flagg]

Incidentally, Mississippi and West Virginia being the two sane states? Honestly, I'd guess north-eastern ones first before these two...

Those most be the only two states that are so utterly backwards and devoid of scientific understanding that they don't even know what vaccines ARE yet.

*sigh*

As someone from Arkansas, I admit that our states down here do deserve a large portion of the flak they get for being ignorant and backwards. As a substitute teacher, I want to yank my hair out when these kids are deliberately obtuse to even the basic concepts of things. I know that part of it is that the kids are being difficult on purpose, but there's only so much I can take when a kid is genuinely confused by the concept of a coupon.

Yes. He was confused by the concept of a coupon. Part of me died inside.

Dude I grew up in Central Florida which was redneck heaven until about 2 years after I left, but even then my county voted McCain and Romney. In any case in 6th grade there were 2 kids in my class who insisted for 20 minutes in class that the United States had 52 states but they didn't add stars for Alaska and Hawaii yet... Like 40 years after their statehood took effect.

But the one I love to tell because it illustrates what a self destructive smartass I am always trying not to slide back into as well as demonstrating the sad state of public education in America (at least in the late 90's):
In 10th grade I was in a history class which was "taught" by a coach. Yeah. Anyway somehow good old Alaska came up when he asked the class which state was largest (no idea why in the bloody fucking hell he would ask such an elementary school question) and the first kid to get called on said "Texas!" and my hand still raised since the answer was wrong. I was shocked when the teacher/coach said "you're right!, good job!". I quickly asked, do you mean of all the states or just the lower 48? And as the ignorant dipshits began to snicker the coach told me "Everyone knows Texas is the biggest state! It's on all the school maps!" At which point he made a production of pulling down the map over the chalkboard and pointed at a map of the contiguous United States with Alaska and Hawaii off in separate boxes down on the bottom of the map. The idiot then took a ruler and measured each state as the entire class laughed at me. I was enraged. But instead of picking up my desk and throwing it across the room like I wanted to, I simply gathered all of my things, put them in my backpack and got up and yelled at the top of my voice in a very dramatic fashion, "IT'S CALLED SCALE YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS!" and left. Never went back, got my GED and if I had a time machine I'd go back and kick myself in the balls. But it was almost worth it.

[Elheru Aran]

So the newest line I've heard trying to explicate this?

It's all dem illegals.

Seriously. Some idiot on FB earlier (which explains a lot, I suppose, but still) was arguing that "these are diseases which have been unknown in First World countries for ten years" and that it's the "unvaccinated horde of illegal immigrants" which are responsible for the current spread of measles.

FFS.

[Baffalo]

Point to a problem, then let people bitch. You'll find out all their biases and hatreds within a few minutes.

Seriously. Get people talking about their opinions and you'll quickly find out what side of the divide they fall on, and you'll know how to steer your conversation so you avoid the worst of it. Unless they're the type to never shut the fuck up and literally bore you to tears.

[The Grim Squeaker]

So the newest line I've heard trying to explicate this?

It's all dem illegals.

Seriously. Some idiot on FB earlier (which explains a lot, I suppose, but still) was arguing that "these are diseases which have been unknown in First World countries for ten years" and that it's the "unvaccinated horde of illegal immigrants" which are responsible for the current spread of measles.

FFS.

Point them at this:

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/tech-compa ... -vaccines/

The scientists, technologists, and engineers who populate Silicon Valley and the California Bay Area deserve their reputation as innovators, building entire new economies on the strength of brains and imagination. But some of these people don’t seem to be vaccinating their children.
A WIRED investigation shows that some children attending day care facilities affiliated with prominent Silicon Valley companies have not been completely vaccinated against preventable infectious diseases. At least, that’s according to a giant database from the California Department of Public Health, which tracks the vaccination rates at day care facilities and preschools in the state. We selected more than 20 large technology and health companies in the Bay Area and researched their day care offerings. Of 12 day care facilities affiliated with tech companies, six—that’s half—have below-average vaccination rates, according to the state’s data.

SIX OUT OF 12 FACILITIES WIRED SURVEYED HAVE A LEVEL OF MEASLES VACCINATION TOO LOW TO PROVIDE HERD IMMUNITY.
And those six have a level of measles vaccination that does not provide the “herd immunity” critical to the spread of the disease. Now, this data has limitations—most critically, it might not be current. But it also suggests an incursion of anti-science, anti-vaccine thinking in one of the smartest regions on Earth.

vaccine_charts_
WIRED

Fifteen years ago the Centers for Disease Control declared measles eliminated in the United States. Yet an increasing number of parents now skip their children’s vaccines. A discredited and retracted journal article linking the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, better known as “MMR,” to autism helped spark the anti-vaccine backlash, as did celebrity endorsement of non-scientific positions on the timing, number, and effectiveness of vaccines. In any case, vaccination levels in the US have been declining for a decade and a half; a measles outbreak that began in December at Disneyland has spread to 121 people in 17 states. The CDC hasn’t identified the source of the epidemic, but measles is voraciously contagious, and children under age 5 are at greater risk for complications from the disease—including pneumonia, encephalitis, and death.

Three-quarters of the new cases are in California. The state requires children to be immunized for some infectious diseases to get certain immunizations, but parents can skip their children’s shots for medical or religious reasons, or if they claim a “personal belief exemption,” or PBE. In 2000—the year the CDC declared measles a goner— 95.4 percent of kids entering kindergarten had received their MMR jabs. Today in California that number is 92.6 percent.

AT ONE GOOGLE DAY CARE, ONLY 49 PERCENT OF CHILDREN ARE COMPLETELY VACCINATED.
Pay close attention to that number. It’s critical because of herd immunity—like any drug, in a small number of people vaccines don’t work. So the protective effect on a population only kicks in when a certain portion of the population is vaccinated. That rate for measles is 92 percent. A decade after vaccine rates started declining, that vaccination rate is perilously close to the level at which herd immunity no longer applies.

vaccine_charts_2
WIRED

Now, here come the caveats: Data is updated infrequently, so low vaccination rates can sometimes reflect out-of-date information. So it’s possible the data’s old, or just plain wrong. But we don’t think that’s the reason. For one thing, their rates are below the average for the counties in which they’re located.

Let’s get more specific. Take Google: According to the California DPH data, more than 200 children are enrolled at two Google childcare facilities in Silicon Valley. One facility has an overall vaccination rate of 77 percent, and 90 percent got the MMR—straining to reach herd immunity and not quite getting there. Three percent of the families there claim a personal belief exemption. At a nearby Google day care, only 49 percent of children—less than half—are completely vaccinated. Just 68 percent are up to date with their MMRs, which is well below the 92 percent herd immunity threshold. And in Google’s home county, Santa Clara, where the vaccination rate average is 88 percent—95.6 for MMR.

But Google has a simple explanation—a representative chalked it up to old data. “In 2013-2014, these two childcare facilities had immunization rates of 98 percent and 81 percent,” says a Google spokesperson, emphasizing that immunization is important to the company. “The reported numbers for the current year are lower simply because many parents have not yet provided updated immunization records. We’ve asked them all to do this, so we can update the figures.”

The numbers are similar at two Santa Clara county facilities associated with networking giant Cisco Systems, where the overall vaccination rates are 72 and 55 percent. Cisco spokeswoman Robyn Blum attributes the company’s low vaccination rates to the age of the children at those facilities. “Cisco childcare facilities care for infants who are under the age of completion for full vaccination series, ” says Blum. “Neither Cisco center has children enrolled and not vaccinated due to permanent medical exemption, personal belief exemption, or religious exemption.” Julie Kane, a spokesperson for Bright Horizons, a chain of day cares that operates facilities for many corporations, including IBM, says that Big Blue’s Silicon Valley childcare has low rates simply because of the number of infants who are enrolled.

That seems strange to us, though. The California DPH numbers only cover children between 2 and 5 years old, so as we understand it, a large infant population—very young kids ineligible for the MMR, let’s say—shouldn’t skew the overall rate.

THE RATES ARE MORE EGREGIOUS AT A PIXAR-ASSOCIATED DAY CARE. ONLY 43 PERCENT OF CHILDREN THERE ARE IMMUNIZED.
Nearby, Yahoo’s affiliated facility boasts a 94 percent rate for MMR vaccination.

Across San Francisco Bay in Berkeley, the rates are more egregious at a facility associated with Pixar. Only 43 percent of children there are immunized, with 2.3 percent claiming a personal belief exemption. Just over two-thirds of children there got the MMR. Pixar has yet to return our calls.

vaccine_charts_3
WIRED

Happily, we found some bright spots. Employees at the biotech companies Gilead Sciences and Genentech, both in San Mateo County, have excellent vaccination rates. Initially we thought this might spin into a distinction between technologists working on computers and scientists working on the rest of the world, but it turns out that day care centers affiliated with Electronics Arts and Oracle also have rates well in the safe zone. Curiously, 2.9 percent of kids at one Genentech-associated facility have a PBE on file, even though their vaccination rate is high.


WIRED

You’ll notice a bunch of familiar company names missing from our list. Facebook, Intel, Symantec, eBay, VMware, and Apple are among the companies we checked out that aren’t affiliated with a specific day care centers. Twitter only recently began offering a service to employees, and data for that facility isn’t yet available.

The best news, though, might come from Sacramento. California’s personal belief exemption may be on its way out. In 2012 the state began requiring parents who claim a PBE to receive counseling from a health care professional when refusing shots. And now two California state senators are planning to propose legislation that would repeal the personal belief exemption entirely. That might help bring some of these numbers up.

[Irbis]

Seems Dr. Wolfson is now under investigation by the Arizona Medical Board. I hope they take his public comments on the news into ethical consideration. I just wish CNN hadn't given him the coverage they had.

Meanwhile, the Asshat himself puked out a response to recent critique:

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/arizon ... -vaccines/

He really takes immunity to common sense and blame shifting to a new level

[NecronLord]

You know I'm not going to have to stretch far for counter examples. Should I go back to Cromwell's starvation of Ireland, Australian baby robbery or more recent Indian pogroms and religious riots? Should I talk about Thatcher's war on the miners, or Lydon B-Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin, or Blair, Bush and Cheney's adventures in the deserts? It's the same system of government, though all the officials have changed*, and has anyone in this selection been held to account for the starvation and misery inflicted on others?

Beg pardon?

Pictured right, Pride's Purge, 06 December 1648. You can see Colonel Pride there with a friendly member of parliament, who is identifying the MPs as they try to enter, the Colonel is looking at a list, to see if they should be allowed in, or arrested.

During this purge, the majority of MPs were prevented from entering parliament and transacting business, a total of 507 persons were eligable to sit in the parliament, and many were excluded, imprisoned (many only briefly) and 154 were allowed to sit. Those who were allowed to participate were called The Rump Parliament (also known as the First Rump Parliament).

This was done to make the parliament more tractable to army Grandees, and specifically to eliminate the members who wished to have a settlement with the king.

In Febuary 6th 1649 the House of Lords was abolished.

Cromwell's invasion of Ireland began in August 1649, while the Long Parliament prior to the purge had been planning to invade Ireland, it was not able to exercise any control over Cromwell, due to the army already having taken over in 1948.

Cromwell again personally purged the Rump parliament with his famous 'In the name of God, go!' speech in 1653.

Then he formed the so-called Parliament of Saints, ostensibly selected for its members' religious credentials, also called Barebone's parliament for the amusing name of one of its eminent members Praise-God Barebone, yes, that was his literal, actual, name.

Even by the standards of the limited franchise of the time, this was not a democracy that was sponsoring the invasion. It was a usurpation, and is if anything, an example of what kind of things non-democratic governments get up to.

[amigocabal]

I doubt that using the measles incident against the anti-vaxxers would be effective. Many anti-vaxxers had actually had measles in their childhoods, and came out with lifelong immunity. In fact, the first measles-free generation in america was born in the mid-1980's.



As demonstrated by this video, popular culture thought of measles as a minor, temporary nuisance.

I suspect that most anti-vaxxers would rush to get vaccinated from polio or smallpox if there was an outbreak of those diseases. But measles?