huckelberry wrote:Is there reason to think this is related to religion? This part of the country is not big on old time religion though I suppose noplace is immune. There have been been anti immunization fears spread about some groups without religious connection.
Oprah, Oz, Jenny McCarthy and various professional woosters as much as religion. Some religions are less scientific than others.
You’re right. There are philosophical exemptions as well as religious. And there might be some areas that do see an uptick in NME rates due to religious attitudes that just haven’t been hit with an outbreak yet. Looks like ‘luck of the draw’ sometimes:
At the county level, Idaho had eight of the 10 highest NME rates of all states in the study group. Camas County, the second least populous county in the state, had the highest rate, with nearly 27 percent of kindergarteners having a documented NME. Utah's Morgan County was 10th, with a rate of almost 15 percent.
In addition to the states with higher NME rates, the researchers found a number of metropolitan areas with large numbers of kindergarteners with NMEs. Metropolitan areas with populations of more than 1 million people that had high NME numbers included
Detroit; Houston; Kansas City, Mo.; Phoenix; Pittsburgh; Portland, Ore.; Salt Lake City; and Seattle.
MeDotOrg wrote:It has been said that your right to swing your arm freely ends where the other man's nose begins. The same principle should apply to public health and religious freedom.
It does apply to religious freedom, which is why we are absent a Church of the Baby Eaters. But in cases of healthcare, I do not see how you can magically impose the State's will so arbitrarily when it comes to child vaccinations but support a hammer to the head if the child's foot is still in the uterus. Or to speak to this topic, if medical procedures are a choice and a commodity how can you insist that persons be vaccinated. If you and your family are vaccinated then why does it matter to you? if the unvaccinated neighbor falls to measles?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
MeDotOrg wrote:It has been said that your right to swing your arm freely ends where the other man's nose begins. The same principle should apply to public health and religious freedom.
It does apply to religious freedom, which is why we are absent a Church of the Baby Eaters.
Quasi on/off-topic, but I think this is groovy enough to share:
I can’t find the study, so I hope I summarize it properly. It was just published last month. It was a working hypothesis on mortality rates, and the measles vaccine.
When the measles vaccine is introduced to a new population, the mortality rate for a host of diseases plummets significantly. The research paper postulates that this is because of what the measles virus does to the immune system. It essentially gives the immune system a hardcore case of amnesia. A whole host of things that your body has gradually built up immunities for are suddenly able to party in your innards.
By having immunity to measles, populations are then protected from this particular byproduct of contracting measles, and are able to retain the various immunities that they already have developed.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Doctor Steuss wrote:When the measles vaccine is introduced to a new population, the mortality rate for a host of diseases plummets significantly.
Was "plummets" a typo? Mortality rates going down means survivor rates go up. Just trying to be sure I understand your point.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Doctor Steuss wrote:When the measles vaccine is introduced to a new population, the mortality rate for a host of diseases plummets significantly.
Was "plummets" a typo? Mortality rates going down means survivor rates go up. Just trying to be sure I understand your point.
Hi Analytics. It wasn't a typo. There are fewer deaths from other diseases when the measles vaccine is introduced.
This particular study hypothesized that this is because of what measles does to the immune system -- measles essentially presses the reset button on the immune system. Once measles is vaccinated against, there is no longer this potential, and various diseases are no longer as deadly because acquired immunities remain in place.
An example would be chicken pox. If you were to get it as a child, and then contract measles as a young adult, your immunity to chicken pox would be erased. You would then be susceptible to contract chicken pox as an adult (along with its increased mortality rate with adults).
Hopefully that makes a little more sense.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
such as?? moved to Phoenix? Played the Oboe? devoted their life to being a plumber? raised only cotton? climbed Mt Rainer every year? become professional guides to fishing the South Fork of the Snake? Got a Ph.D. in math? or philosophy? became professional chess players?
I miss the sense in this moral guide.
That's because you haven't seen the principle the way Kant expressed it, which relates to how people make moral decisions. It relates to general rules for decisions, such as 'I may tell lies if it will bring me advantage', or 'It is always wrong to kill people'.
This conception of a categorical imperative leads Kant to his first official formulation of the categorical imperative itself: “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (4:421). A maxim is a general rule that can be used to determine particular courses of actions in particular circumstances. For instance, the maxim “I shall lie when it will get me out of trouble” can be used to determine the decision to lie about an adulterous liaison. The categorical imperative offers a decision procedure for determining whether a given course of action is in accordance with the moral law. After determining what maxim one would be basing the action in question on, one then asks whether it would be possible, given the power (in an imagined, hypothetical scenario), to choose that everyone act in accordance with that same maxim. If it is possible to will that everyone act according to that maxim, then the action under consideration is morally permissible. If it is not possible to will that everyone act according to that maxim, the action is morally impermissible. Lying to cover up adultery is thus immoral because one cannot will that everyone act according to the maxim, “I shall lie when it will get me out of trouble.” Note that it is not simply that it would be undesirable for everyone to act according to that maxim. Rather, it would be impossible. Since everyone would know that everyone else was acting according to that maxim, there would never be the presupposition that anyone was telling the truth; the very act of lying, of course, requires such a presupposition on the part of the one being lied to. Hence, the state of affairs where everyone lies to get out of trouble can never arise, so it cannot be willed to be a universal law. It fails the test of the categorical imperative.
You don't have to agree with this - but I hope you will see that the point of view in question is not obviously nonsensical or devoid of interest.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I doubt that the Clark County outbreak is religiously based. Here in Washington, we let anyone opt out of immunizations in the guise of philosophical objections.
Given that only a couple of sects in the US prohibit objections, people generally misuse religious objections when their actual objections are political: anti-government, anti big pharma, or both.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
subgenius wrote: If you and your family are vaccinated then why does it matter to you? if the unvaccinated neighbor falls to measles?
Vaccination does not prevent infections during a large outbreak. It's effectiveness is reduced.
See this study from Nigeria, for example, where vaccination rates are lower and the percentage of infections of vaccinated children is high when an outbreak occurs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4507133/
Of 234 children tested (124 [53.2%] female), 133 (56.8%) had previously been vaccinated against measles virus, while 93 (39.7%) had not been vaccinated. Vaccination information for eight children could not be retrieved. One hundred and forty-three (62.4%) had measles IgM antibodies. Of these, 79 (55.3%) had been vaccinated for measles, while 65 (44.7%) had not. Despite the ongoing vaccination program in Nigeria, a high number of children are still being infected with measles, despite their vaccination status.
As to your other questions to MeDotOrg, it comes back to personhood. We've been over that.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
That's because you haven't seen the principle the way Kant expressed it, which relates to how people make moral decisions. It relates to general rules for decisions, such as 'I may tell lies if it will bring me advantage', or 'It is always wrong to kill people'.
This conception of a categorical imperative leads Kant to his first official formulation of the categorical imperative itself: “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (4:421). A maxim is a general rule that can be used to determine particular courses of actions in particular circumstances. For instance, the maxim “I shall lie when it will get me out of trouble” can be used to determine the decision to lie about an adulterous liaison. The categorical imperative offers a decision procedure for determining whether a given course of action is in accordance with the moral law. After determining what maxim one would be basing the action in question on, one then asks whether it would be possible, given the power (in an imagined, hypothetical scenario), to choose that everyone act in accordance with that same maxim. If it is possible to will that everyone act according to that maxim, then the action under consideration is morally permissible. If it is not possible to will that everyone act according to that maxim, the action is morally impermissible. Lying to cover up adultery is thus immoral because one cannot will that everyone act according to the maxim, “I shall lie when it will get me out of trouble.” Note that it is not simply that it would be undesirable for everyone to act according to that maxim. Rather, it would be impossible. Since everyone would know that everyone else was acting according to that maxim, there would never be the presupposition that anyone was telling the truth; the very act of lying, of course, requires such a presupposition on the part of the one being lied to. Hence, the state of affairs where everyone lies to get out of trouble can never arise, so it cannot be willed to be a universal law. It fails the test of the categorical imperative.
You don't have to agree with this - but I hope you will see that the point of view in question is not obviously nonsensical or devoid of interest.
Chap, you have shined a light on an area where I have remained lazily ignorant (reading what Kant was actually doing) I thank you, you have clarified well.
In relation to the subject of vaccinations I can see the principal would fit for a person genuinely believing that vaccination had more health benefits danger than benefits though there is also a principal that a person should seek the best information and understanding. The possible case of a person trying to express some extra special religious faith would be shown to be acting immorally due to possible increased dangers to others.