Comment by smanek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smanek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't expect people to do the 'right thing.' For starters, because we don't know what the 'right thing' is.

Look at it this way: 99% of everything men have ever know has been wrong. All scientific theories (except the current ones) have been proven wrong. And, at every point in history, men who thought the current theories were wrong were labeled heretics or morons. There were men who wouldn't let themselves be 'bled' 200 years ago and men who won't undergo chemo today. And that is their choice.

I think a lot of people make stupid choices, but if it only harms themselves, I say let them. Hell, I would have thought some of Bill Gates' decisions early in Microsoft's history were wrong, but that goes to show what I know.

Every person should be allowed to make their own decisions (and live with the consequences of thereof).

If someone believes in homeopathy or the new age panacea du jour over real medicine, let them. If they die because they made the wrong choice, it's a shame, but at least they died free men.

But many of these choices lead to things which are destructive to others. For example, lots of people are resisting vaccination despite overwhelming scientific evidence that there is no link between autism and vaccination. These people let their children rely on the herd immunity of the first world.

If everyone followed this strategy, many people would die as a consequence of even a relatively small segment of the population's choice. At some point, your freedom ends and another's begins. Drawing that line is really hard, especially when some people are frantically trying to give it up and others are frantically taking it for personal gain.

Of course, not all cases are equal.

Whereas other people examine the studies and testimonies and see overwhelming evidence that there is a link.

This is the problem with a government one size fits all system. There isn't necessarily one right answer. And in a system like ours where what government does is influenced most by big pharmaceutical agriculture corporations who have a business interest in sick people and sick animals, well you're likely not to get the right answer at all.

Not true. Wouldn't people who chose to get vaccinated live, and those who don't would die?

That sounds like the tragedy of the commons.

Many vaccines sadly aren't 100% effective. The reason they work so well is because if _everyone_ is vaccinated the immunities of the group reduce exposure to the group, a kind of self-reinforcement.

And the more a vaccinated person is exposed to a disease, the more permutations of that disease get thrown at the vaccinated population. If one takes, then we have the whole problem of the disease all over again. One consequence of the short life of bacteria and the mutation of viruses is that they're basically brute-forcing our immunities of every population they're in contact with.

This is why it's _so important_ that people follow vaccination programs. Eventually we'll have to deal with new diseases, but if we aggressively and correctly vaccinate, we can stave off that day for a lot longer than if we half-ass it.

Sounds good in theory. In practice, there have been disease outbreaks in communities with 100% vaccination rates against that disease. Most vaccines don't even cover all the known strains, forget the new mutations.

IMO, vaccination is no replacement for promoting a strong natural immunity and preventative medicine. Both of which are virtually thrown out the window in modern medicine.

I'm for any medicine that can be proven to work through the techniques espoused by modern medical science. If you can prove it works in a placebo-controlled double-(or dare-i-dream-triple?)-blind study, then I'm all for it.

Anything less means "controlled study needed."

[citation needed]

Good point. You may be right then (depending on the specific number, that I don't know), that this is a situation where regulation is called for.

> If they die because they made the wrong choice, it's a shame, but at least they died free men

I agree with you if you are talking about adults. But what about their children? Should a child die just because their parents decided that a prayer would cure them?

Most regulations aren't there to protect what people do to themselves, but to limit what they can do to others.

A responsible child can probably carry a gun to school, but do you trust all children?

The author would probably kill his cattle in a humane way, but can we count on everyone to do so?

> A responsible child can probably carry a gun to school, but do you trust all children?

Less than 50 years ago, they carried their rifles to school on the bus every day, and kept them in their lockers. They also took gun safety courses in school. I don't find it at all surprising that kids are less responsible with guns now: when I work with kids, I find they live up (or down) to the level of your expectations.

> The author would probably kill his cattle in a humane way, but can we count on everyone to do so?

From everything I've seen, many/most farms still don't, so the USDA is more of a nuisance for those that want to do it right, than a way to force the bad ones to improve. The government is made up of people, too: you can't just sprinkle farms with the magic pixie dust of "government regulation" and have everything magically work out.

You should spend a few minutes learning about the OPV experimental vaccinations in the later 50s which is the leading candidate for causing AIDS.

http://www.documentary-film.net/search/video-listings.php?e=...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com