Creation of a Hysteria

[steveh_131]

Why would a rational person even take the chance with single digit percentages?

First of all, the only single digit percentage is pnuemonia, which kids get all the time from various causes. Death or permanent injury is in the 0.1% range.

Secondly, this is not about vaccines. This is about government (and psuedo-skeptic) manufactured hysteria.

Drug manufacturers are quite literally pressuring our government to manufacture this hysteria to promote sales of their products. The CDC has admitted as much.

That doesn't bother you?

 

[MisterChester]

While it is a choice, people who don't get vaccinated and/or vaccinate their children for these kinds of diseases (flu shots are a different story) are selfish and unaware of consequences.

 

[OakRiver]

First of all, the only single digit percentage is pnuemonia, which kids get all the time from various causes. Death or permanent injury is in the 0.1% range.

Secondly, this is not about vaccines. This is about government (and psuedo-skeptic) manufactured hysteria.

Drug manufacturers are quite literally pressuring our government to manufacture this hysteria to promote sales of their products. The CDC has admitted as much.

That doesn't bother you?

Quick thought experiment for the class. How do we each react to the following statement;
"First of all, the risk of being attacked by a someone intent on doing you harm is miniscule. Death or permanent injury is in the 0.1% range.

Secondly, this is not about guns. This is about NRA manufactured hysteria.

Gun manufacturers and the NRA are quite literally pressuring our government to manufacture this hysteria to promote sales of their products.

That doesn't bother you?"

I thought that for many of us the decision to utilize our Second Amendment right isn't because the odds are high (unless you live in certain areas), but that the stakes are high

 

[rambone]

While it is a choice, people who don't get vaccinated and/or vaccinate their children for these kinds of diseases (flu shots are a different story) are selfish and unaware of consequences.

Its wrong to make assumptions about the motivations and level of knowledge of people who make a different choice than you. Reasonable people can disagree.

 

[steveh_131]

Quick thought experiment for the class. How do we each react to the following statement;
"First of all, the risk of being attacked by a someone intent on doing you harm is miniscule. Death or permanent injury is in the 0.1% range.

Secondly, this is not about guns. This is about NRA manufactured hysteria.

Gun manufacturers and the NRA are quite literally pressuring our government to manufacture this hysteria to promote sales of their products.

That doesn't bother you?"

I thought that for many of us the decision to utilize our Second Amendment right isn't because the odds are high (unless you live in certain areas), but that the stakes are high

And that is our decision to make. We weigh the odds, weigh the risks and benefits and make our choice. Odds do matter.

There might come a day when you have to be able to survive for 30 days with only what you have on your person. Do you carry 30 days worth of water? What about food? Why not? Because the odds are slim that this will happen to you? The stakes are high, right?

Even though I fully support guns and gun rights, I would be opposed to corporations like Smith and Wesson, for example, pressuring the government to whip everybody into a gun-buying frenzy by spreading disinformation and fear.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Its wrong to make assumptions about the motivations and level of knowledge of people who make a different choice than you. Reasonable people can disagree.

This ^^^^^

I don't mind either way. Vaccinate or don't vaccinate, buy into the media hype or not, it doesn't matter one bit to me. What bothers me is that the tone of some people sounds way too much like the leftist talking heads calling gun owners ignorant and paranoid.

 

[femurphy77]

I thought this was going to be about the MDA. Never mind!

 

[OakRiver]

And that is our decision to make. We weigh the odds, weigh the risks and benefits and make our choice. Odds do matter.

There might come a day when you have to be able to survive for 30 days with only what you have on your person. Do you carry 30 days worth of water? What about food? Why not? Because the odds are slim that this will happen to you? The stakes are high, right?

Even though I fully support guns and gun rights, I would be opposed to corporations like Smith and Wesson, for example, pressuring the government to whip everybody into a gun-buying frenzy by spreading disinformation and fear.

So if someone made that statement to you that I outlined in italics what is your reaction?

 

[steveh_131]

So if someone made that statement to you that I outlined in italics what is your reaction?

I would say that I disagree with their assessment of the odds, but that I agree that the government has no business marketing products for gun manufacturers by manufacturing public hysteria.

 

[rambone]

Quick thought experiment for the class. How do we each react to the following statement;

"First of all, the risk of being attacked by a someone intent on doing you harm is miniscule. Death or permanent injury is in the 0.1% range.

Secondly, this is not about guns. This is about NRA manufactured hysteria.

Gun manufacturers and the NRA are quite literally pressuring our government to manufacture this hysteria to promote sales of their products.

That doesn't bother you?"

I thought that for many of us the decision to utilize our Second Amendment right isn't because the odds are high (unless you live in certain areas), but that the stakes are high

Your analogy breaks down fast because the NRA is not a government agency. On the other hand, the CDC (a government agency) deliberately spends our tax dollars to influence consumers and tip markets in favor of one solution.

That is corporate cronyism. That is market perversion. Every freedom loving person should be against this.

Let vaccines stand on their own merits in a truly free market. The government should put down the pom poms and let consumers decide.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You have a source for this? You'll need to show that A) Government quarantines were "common", and B) These quarantines weren't already voluntarily taking place without the mandates.

As for quarantines, I fully believe in quarantining your sick child. My family is very careful to do so, without any government mandates.

I can only speak to my (and my brother's) experiences with measles, mumps, and chickenpox in the mid-to-late fifties: If you got "spots" or "lumps" you stayed home until they went away. AFAIK, there wasn't any "government mandated quarantine," parents just kept their kids home so they could treat their symptoms (and keep us from picking at the scabs). Of course, stay-at-home moms were the rule rather than the looked-down-upon exception in those days, so there wasn't as much pressure to get the little monsters taken care of so mommy and daddy could get to their respective jobs. And where mommy had "gone away", as was the case at our house when my mom died, there were grandparents available to fill in the void.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How many people who think the recent measles outbreak is hysteria have had measles themselves?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You'll need to show that A) Government quarantines were "common"

At one time, not so long ago, enforcing quarantines, to use the phrase of my friend Doug Masson, was the primary job of Indiana government.

The quarantine provisions of Indiana law are found at Title 16.

Here's the debacle in Muncie.

Armed guards enforce city-wide quarantine of Muncie, Indiana (1893) - Police State USA

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's a shame that measles, whooping cough, and TB have made a resurgence in our country decades after they had been all but eradicated. On the other hand, I sympathize with those who fear that vaccination will harm their newborns. I have personal (familial) experience with the theory that too many vaccinations at once can be harmful, in the form of two autistic children of a sister, and a nephew whose pancreas shut down after he got 22 immunizations in Basic Training. He is now a Type II diabetic; a trait he doesn't share with his twin brother. Whether these events are connected is problematic simply because we can't trust scientists and medical researchers not to lie to us if it suits their purposes. Sadly, this has become true for most branches of scientific inquiry - if it is not widespread, at least there are enough data points to strongly indicate that "scientific inquiry" has become a term of art, useful to establish a pet theory and used to bash competing theories.

 

[HoughMade]

Personally, I have seen reporting of the measles outbreak, and linking it to not having vaccines, but no hysteria that I would define as such- just reporting.

I guess it depends on your perspective. I suppose just telling what happened could be equivalent to fomenting hysteria in some minds.

 

[rambone]

At one time, not so long ago, enforcing quarantines, to use the phrase of my friend Doug Masson, was the primary job of Indiana government.

The quarantine provisions of Indiana law are found at Title 16.

Here's the debacle in Muncie.

Armed guards enforce city-wide quarantine of Muncie, Indiana (1893) - Police State USA

And it resulted in spectacular failure and public health nuts getting shot while trying to break into homes to abduct children. It is a valuable lesson that should not be forgotten or repeated.

 

[hornadylnl]

And it resulted in spectacular failure and public health nuts getting shot while trying to break into homes to abduct children. It is a valuable lesson that should not be forgotten or repeated.

The only lesson learned by the statists is to use more guns next time.

 

[phylodog]

First I've heard of it. Whoever is attempting to create a hysteria isn't doing a very good job. I don't watch the "news", maybe there's a correlation?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Its wrong to make assumptions about the motivations and level of knowledge of people who make a different choice than you. Reasonable people can disagree.

Your analogy breaks down fast because the NRA is not a government agency. On the other hand, the CDC (a government agency) deliberately spends our tax dollars to influence consumers and tip markets in favor of one solution.

That is corporate cronyism. That is market perversion. Every freedom loving person should be against this.

Let vaccines stand on their own merits in a truly free market. The government should put down the pom poms and let consumers decide.

Hmmm...

 

[steveh_131]

It's a shame that measles, whooping cough, and TB have made a resurgence in our country decades after they had been all but eradicated. On the other hand, I sympathize with those who fear that vaccination will harm their newborns. I have personal (familial) experience with the theory that too many vaccinations at once can be harmful, in the form of two autistic children of a sister, and a nephew whose pancreas shut down after he got 22 immunizations in Basic Training. He is now a Type II diabetic; a trait he doesn't share with his twin brother. Whether these events are connected is problematic simply because we can't trust scientists and medical researchers not to lie to us if it suits their purposes. Sadly, this has become true for most branches of scientific inquiry - if it is not widespread, at least there are enough data points to strongly indicate that "scientific inquiry" has become a term of art, useful to establish a pet theory and used to bash competing theories.

This is very reasonable.

First I've heard of it. Whoever is attempting to create a hysteria isn't doing a very good job. I don't watch the "news", maybe there's a correlation?

Social Media is blowing up about the subject. And, yes, the news.