DBFE;
You're kind of making my point, gigolo boy. You've given two arguments against the vaccine, one about cost (previous post), and one a social philosophy that humans should not use available technical means to stave off illness. But you appear to think these arguments fall under the category of science, even as you scoff at my suggestioin they are just a veneer and not the full monty. Both are legitimate points, worthy of public debate (how much ought to be spent on anything, how far should we allow medicine to intervene in natural fate (ie: death)), but neither are technical claims. Pretending they are (that is, conflating distinct things) is just duping yourself into thinking you know more than you do. A little ignorance is unavoidable, a mild amount possibly natural, but alot of it is just dangerous!
Listen,
Some people will say sewers isn't health care but I'd say modern sanitation systems have been and always will be the invention that has extended expected lifespan for us.
Yes, that's considered to be a public health issue. Clean water and sewers make the largest impact, from what I recall.
That's something of a necessary precursor to Fugi's contribution, though I don't really think it undermines the point he was getting at.
Fuji is suggesting that, in people's accounting regarding vaccines, they often just count the cost of the vaccine. But they should also take account of the cost of not swamping the ICU's and the costs not lost with not losing lives.
You replied with the above quote about Darwin and letting nature take its course. Given that you were responding to Fuji's suggestion that we not overlook the saving of lives, it's a pretty reasonable interpretation of your intent to interpret that you were making a social darwinist point about letting some die.
So it's not 'obvious' that you were meaning let the public drama unfold. You might want that interpretation to be obvious, after the fact, but in the context of the actual exchange, you implied two things. One, that a social philosophy justified a rejection of scientifically informed public health initiatives. Two, let some die, it's nature's way. I called the first claim ignorant, because it confuses social views with technical views. I think the second claim is damn stupid, but I left it alone. You have to read closer, including your own post. It's fine to be passionate, but it's better to be right.Listen . . . I think it's obvious that I meant, 'let nature take it's course' with respect to this whole H1N1 melodrama... not eliminate public health care . . .That's quite a bold statement saying I'm ignorant...
***
I agree, if we are expanding beyond medicine, that is a huge improvement. However a little off topic--sanitation systems don't do much for the flu. We had chlorinated water in Toronto when the 1918 H1N1 epidemic hit and a lot of people died.
