DescentBB

...so does this African satirist, and he skewers them PERFECTLY:
http://mic.com/articles/109794/one-twee ... -epidemics

You act as if the concern was overblown. Political bull★■◆● aside, I still think it wasn't taken seriously enough, considering the nature of the disease...

And just because something is treatable is no reason to take it lightly. It is wise to be cautious when dealing in serious matters, and likewise foolish to be otherwise.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You act as if the concern was overblown. Political **** aside, I still think it wasn't taken seriously enough, considering the nature of the disease...

And just because something is treatable is no reason to take it lightly. It is wise to be cautious when dealing in serious matters, and likewise foolish to be otherwise.

Sarge, I'll cede to you on bible quotes and a host of other items of expertise, but I spent 35 years dealing with items in the Medical field, specifically Diagnostic Medicine. I'm telling you that the Ebola response was laughable in many quarters. Luckily, the medical community response in the US was very professional, and quite effective, as a glance around will show you. Ebola is NOT easily transmissible with even rudimentary hygeine. Measles are both treatable, as you note, to a greater extent, but CAN be quite fatal, and are extremely virulent, so the comparison is actually pretty valid.

Ebola= mortality rate of @70%...no vaccine available...symptoms reported are going from initial exposure to a few days later death by puking your guts out and shitting your guts out in bloody pools of what was once your insides.
Americans have no experience with the disease being here and our own Obama administration 'experts' say 'you cant get from breathing...but don't breath on the bus'...lots of confidence inspired there to combat the fear.

Measles= mortality rate of @7%...most americans already vaccinated...symptoms are cough, runny nose and red, light-sensitive eyes. Two to four days later, a fine rash of red spots develops on the face and then gradually spreads down over the entire body. Fever, which can reach 103–105° F, comes with the rash. White spots, called Koplik spots, may appear on the inside of the cheeks.
Americans know the disease as something kids used to get and almost always survived and it was considered by almost every one an eradicated disease.

So, for a self described connoisseur of nuance, as well as now a 35 year veteran 'expert' of "items in Diagnostic Medicine" you sure didn't grasp the nuance of the differences.
Were those 'items' some kind of actual diagnosis or maybe you were selling cleaning supplies? Have you ever flown on a helicopter with Brian Williams?

callmeslick wrote:Sarge, I'll cede to you on bible quotes and a host of other items of expertise ...

Could you please link a source for this? I find the claims made here to be both spurious and highly questionable.

I guess the response to the Measles outbreak should be strapping un-immunized children down and forcing the treatment on them…you know all in the name of “good science” and whatever else that ★■◆● said.

Hey, if people are getting Measles…well, so be it…there is prevention and all, so it seems to me to be a choice, take the risk or not.

Just a shame it’s stupid parents making dumb choices for children.

I don’t think people are reacting to this the same as Ebola, because most people won’t get the disease even if exposed…you know, because they are immune…and all.

Try to note the sarcasm…before you go all stupid and all.

TIL: Spidey doesn't know how vaccines work.

Sarge, what do you need links to, exactly?
Will, what you say is correct about the nature of the two diseases, but just because Americans are too stupid to learn when scientific expert after expert patiently explain the low transmission rate and why is NOT an excuse to act hysterical. Measles is actually far more likely to become epidemic and to kill children.

With the CDC declaring Measles eradicated from the US back in 2000, where does one suppose we are getting new infections from.

woodchip wrote:With the CDC declaring Measles eradicated from the US, where does one suppose we are getting new infections from.

being part of the world. Measles, unlike ebola, is HIGHLY transmissible. You would have us isolate the entire nation from the larger world,after we have it back to eradicated status?

I would have us make it a requirement that people entering the country have proof of their vaccinations...or is that too much to ask?

sort of like dogs going to the kennel, eh? Sadly, many, worldwide haven't been vaccinated, and adults cannot receive the vaccine effectively, that I know of, so you rule out adults from 70% of the rest of the world for a generation or more, and who, exactly, is paying for those vaccines? I'm guessing that you wouldn't support OUR government paying the way.

Why should we vaccinate them. Just don't let then into our country. Why do we have to be the Sopwith Camel to everyone's Fokker Tri-wing

isolationism is stupid, for whatever reason. Just look at where this outbreak started: Disneyland, an example of the economic engine of tourism.

Disney land where some stupid guardian took one the the disease ridden kids that snuck across our boarder and now is living the good life (comparatively)

First off I think your calling the overall reaction as 'hysteria' is hyperbolic.
Hysterical is more like setting your neighborhood on fire because a criminal has been shot when he tried to take a cops gun...

People were afraid that airplanes unloading in america could be delivering infected people into the population and that other passengers were being infected. They didn't get this idea out pure imagination. Their instincts were triggered by the reaction of the 'authorities'.

Having the nations number one authority telling us 'you can't get it from riding the bus/plane but if you think you have it don't ride the bus/plane...' isn't patiently explaining it.
That, to the average person, is NOT reassuring. It sounds like a conflicting statement or a statement from a person who doesn't really know for sure if the disease is spread by a cough or sneeze.
Having the nurses who are supposedly well prepared to avoid infection get exposed and then take a flight out of town leading to the quarantine of others who came in contact with them isn't making people trust the 'experts'.

Overall the public was quite calm, not hysterical. political operators and pundits however seized on the opportunity sensationalize the situation.

I'm glad I can rely on the regular morons of this sub to be anti-vaxers as well. It's all about personal choice, right? No, not when you cause other people harm through your irresponsibility and stupidity.

I just find it hilarious, vision, how little people remember of their own histrionics over ebola. Will's response nearly brought me to tears, as did Woody's. Tears of laughter, mind you...

callmeslick wrote:Sarge, what do you need links to, exactly?

Any point at which you ceded any expertise regarding the Bible or anything else to me. I specifically remember the opposite, so I can only guess you were just trying to give me something (that I was never actually given) in a sort of exchange for the upper-hand in the present argument. Homey don't play that.

vision wrote:TIL: Spidey doesn't know how vaccines work.

A textbook example of libel…

A lie intended to defame.

So before I call my lawyer, care to explain how you came to that conclusion.

Spidey wrote:

vision wrote:TIL: Spidey doesn't know how vaccines work.

A textbook example of libel…

A lie intended to defame.

So before I call my lawyer, care to explain how you came to that conclusion.

call your lawyer, and please, do us a favor.....record the call. I love the sound of guffaws. Not only do you not understand how vaccines work, you have utterly no clue about tort law.

Fine, you can explain why it is I don’t understand how vaccines work.

(the lawyer part was a joke…doh)

Spidey: you can't accuse slick of Libel.

For that to stick, it has to be published in a newspaper. Was it? No it was not.

Ferno wrote:Spidey: you can't accuse slick of Libel.

For that to stick, it has to be published in a newspaper. Was it? No it was not.

not true.
Jessie Ventura just won a case for what was published in a book, not a newspaper. To be libel just means it has to be published in some form.
and they are working on new laws that apply to the net

The libel thing was a joke…but I’m still waiting for someone to explain why I don’t understand vaccines.

CUDA wrote:not true.
Jessie Ventura just won a case for what was published in a book, not a newspaper. To be libel just means it has to be published in some form.
and they are working on new laws that apply to the net

Both a newspaper and a book are published hardcopies. You're splitting hairs and contradicting yourself.

Spidey wrote:The libel thing was a joke…but I’m still waiting for someone to explain why I don’t understand vaccines.

Sure!

Spidey wrote:Hey, if people are getting Measles…well, so be it…there is prevention and all, so it seems to me to be a choice, take the risk or not.

Just a shame it’s stupid parents making dumb choices for children.

They aren't just making stupid choices for their children, they are making unbelievably dangerous decisions that affect everyone they encounter. Here are some facts about vaccines, un-cited because they should be common knowledge at this point:

1. Vaccines can be dangerous. However, most are perfectly safe and many vaccines have risk factors in the 1/10million range. The World Heath Organization does not recommend any vaccines when the risk of side effects is too great a portion of the overall risk of contracting the disease. That's one of the reasons smallpox vaccines are not administered as they once were.

2. Vaccines do not cause autism. No one knows what causes autism so it is wholly irresponsible to claim that vaccines do. If they did, we would be doing a great job of finding a cure for autism right now.

3. Vaccines are not 100% effective (but they are very effective and there are mountains of evidence to prove that). Because there is always a risk, even after vaccination, we rely on herd immunity to keep any outbreak of the disease to an absolute minimum. It's statistics man.

4. The resurgence of shitty diseases like measles* and whooping cough is the direct result of compromised herd immunity. It only takes a few assholes to ruin it for everyone.

So this idea people should simply shrug, say "so be it," and accept the "choice" of others is pretty goddamn insane. When a parent says they won't vaccinate their child it's like saying "★■◆● you everyone, I want my kid to be vector for deadly disease because I'm over-emotional and also don't understand science and math." Their actions affect others, gravely. We don't allow people to drive drunk because of personal belief exemptions. We don't allow people to do all sorts of dangerous things without threat of penalty or incarceration. The same should be true for anti-vax morons. Don't want to vaccinate your child? Have fun home-schooling them all the way through their PhD. And while we are at it, here is a tax penalty for your share of the medical expenses from those who could have avoided illness if it weren't for your stupidity. I would actually like to see lawsuits against people whose un-vaccinated kids spread this latest measles outbreak.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons a person cannot be vaccinated. Personal belief is not one of them. We are a society, not just a bunch of individuals. No, we don't have to strap kids down and stick needles in them (though that probably happened to me when I got my shots, haha), but we can make the choice not to vaccinate very inconvenient.


* I had German measles when I was only a couple years old. I remember being extremely sick and noticing the people around me were very, very worried.

Ok, so you didn’t see the disclaimer in my original post.

I was making a very flippant post, if anybody took that as some kind of basis for what I understand…well that’s pretty stupid.

hell, I stopped with Spidey's explanation......

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:not true.
Jessie Ventura just won a case for what was published in a book, not a newspaper. To be libel just means it has to be published in some form.
and they are working on new laws that apply to the net

Both a newspaper and a book are published hardcopies. You're splitting hairs and contradicting yourself.

You were SPECIFIC in your definition of liable. You could have said published work you didn't. No contradiction on my part. Just a back peddle on yours.

Spidey wrote:Ok, so you didn’t see the disclaimer in my original post.

I did, but I must say the sarcasm wasn't obvious even after reading it with a few internal voices. And reading it again just now I still can't say for sure what your position is, so that might tell you something. *Shrug*

CUDA wrote:

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:not true.
Jessie Ventura just won a case for what was published in a book, not a newspaper. To be libel just means it has to be published in some form.
and they are working on new laws that apply to the net

Both a newspaper and a book are published hardcopies. You're splitting hairs and contradicting yourself.

You were SPECIFIC in your definition of liable. You could have said published work you didn't. No contradiction on my part. Just a back peddle on yours.

Can you provide a distinct and tangible difference between a book and a newspaper?

They can both be bought. They both can be viewed at a library, in a house or in public. They both are printed. They both use paper. They both come out of publishing houses. They both can be satire, non-fiction, or anywhere in between.

They also both can be archived and kept away for later reference and enjoyment. They both can be used to document current events.


YOU are the one trying to eke out a technicality. And it's not working. My point about Libel still stands.

"liable" means you are held accountable for something. just fyi.

And just for the record....

"Libel and Slander

Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.

To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.

To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.

Defamatory matter is published when it is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This can be done in several different ways. The defendant might loudly accuse the plaintiff of something in a public place where others are present, or make defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a newsletter or an on-line bulletin board."

Note the part about the bulletin board.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... nd+Slander

Interesting bit, Spidey.

Further research bore these out:

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/leg ... defamation
http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_cybe ... forums.htm
http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_t ... /ttl3/861/

the line between "just an opinion" and Libel is becoming extremely narrow.