4 ms·

Perhaps I should've been clearer. And yes they aren't helping. And yes, we should blame them for the things they do. T But the comment I was responding to was

Perhaps I should've been clearer. And yes they aren't helping. And yes, we should blame them for the things they do. T But the comment I was responding to was acting as if MAGA was the reason for measles outbreaks, which is false. I'm an incredibly strong believer in the truth. An example of why I think this is an important separation: imagine you tried to fix the measles outbreak and miraculously got every single American to hate Trump and got Trump out of office. The problem would still not be fixed! People would still be dying of measles! The effort would have been almost completely wasted!

stickfigure 1mo ago
A major campaign by RFK's replacement could absolutely make a significant difference stopping the spread of measles. That's the whole point of the (proven extremely effective!) vaccine.
- MoltenMan 1mo ago
  Do you believe this? I think it might help a little, but so we're on the same page RFK has only been in charge for 2 years. Why wasn't the previous secretary of health doing this? The measles outbreaks may be relatively new but we've had the vaccination data to see it coming for over a decade. My personal belief is that there a lot of people who believe stupid things out there (and it's all only amplified by the news and social media), and for anti vaxxers especially I don't think an authority figure saying 'You have to get the measles vaccine!' is going to help much, unfortunate as it is. :(
  - nemomarx 1mo ago
    I don't think it would be logistically that hard to criminalize the parents or take away their kids in those cases. It would have a lot of other downsides but it would probably reduce the rate pretty directly.
    - MoltenMan 1mo ago
      Ok if you want to do this then sure there is an easy solution. I think there are other problems with this though (for example no way this is flying even with the majority of people who are not anti-vax).
    - stickfigure 1mo ago
      I'll bet it would be enough just to make sure that the vaccine waiver signature box is positioned directly below some glossy full color pictures of emaciated, rash covered dead children.
    - horacemorace 1mo ago
      Excepting the turbo fascism, that is. People must be able feel agency while parenting or they can’t parent well.
      - cindyllm 1mo ago
        [dead]
  - stickfigure 1mo ago
    Inaction (and really, let's be clear - making it worse) is RFK's choice. We managed to cut the smoking rate pretty dramatically, including in about half over the last decade. Public policy is not ineffective, we just need competent people to wield it.
    - MoltenMan 1mo ago
      I think we live in a different age man. Media nowadays is completely different. Example: I have literally never had cable tv in my house. I've probably watched cable TV around 10 times total, all in a hotel room growing up. My media is all online, uncontrolled and (relatively) decentralized. Contrast that with 60 years ago and hopefully you see the difference. Also smoking smells and has other negative externalities, which doesn't hurt.

stickfigure 1mo ago

A major campaign by RFK's replacement could absolutely make a significant difference stopping the spread of measles. That's the whole point of the (proven extremely effective!) vaccine.

MoltenMan 1mo ago
Do you believe this? I think it might help a little, but so we're on the same page RFK has only been in charge for 2 years. Why wasn't the previous secretary of health doing this? The measles outbreaks may be relatively new but we've had the vaccination data to see it coming for over a decade. My personal belief is that there a lot of people who believe stupid things out there (and it's all only amplified by the news and social media), and for anti vaxxers especially I don't think an authority figure saying 'You have to get the measles vaccine!' is going to help much, unfortunate as it is. :(
- nemomarx 1mo ago
  I don't think it would be logistically that hard to criminalize the parents or take away their kids in those cases. It would have a lot of other downsides but it would probably reduce the rate pretty directly.
  - MoltenMan 1mo ago
    Ok if you want to do this then sure there is an easy solution. I think there are other problems with this though (for example no way this is flying even with the majority of people who are not anti-vax).
  - stickfigure 1mo ago
    I'll bet it would be enough just to make sure that the vaccine waiver signature box is positioned directly below some glossy full color pictures of emaciated, rash covered dead children.
  - horacemorace 1mo ago
    Excepting the turbo fascism, that is. People must be able feel agency while parenting or they can’t parent well.
    - cindyllm 1mo ago
      [dead]
- stickfigure 1mo ago
  Inaction (and really, let's be clear - making it worse) is RFK's choice. We managed to cut the smoking rate pretty dramatically, including in about half over the last decade. Public policy is not ineffective, we just need competent people to wield it.
  - MoltenMan 1mo ago
    I think we live in a different age man. Media nowadays is completely different. Example: I have literally never had cable tv in my house. I've probably watched cable TV around 10 times total, all in a hotel room growing up. My media is all online, uncontrolled and (relatively) decentralized. Contrast that with 60 years ago and hopefully you see the difference. Also smoking smells and has other negative externalities, which doesn't hurt.