Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“You're not allowed science any more”

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#121

Post by tormeh »

dictum wrote: post #55
tormeh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We would be better off if nobody smoked, but let's not expand the war on drugs. I'm actually OK with a bit of this kind of totalitarianism, but not when it doesn't actually work.

Well, keeping the trains running on time did work. — The nice thing about mentioning Mussolini is that there's no Godwin Police to immediately point at you.

No, I don't think that if we let the government restrict or influence our actions when it comes to unhealthy habits next thing we know we'll all be living in fascist Italy.

Fascinatingly, if you read Wikipedia's article about fascist Italy [0] Mussolini's rise to power sounds more like something the war-mongerers ("our president is weak") on Fox News would support than what a nanny-state advocate would support.

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy#Fascist_regime...

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#123

Post by cossatot »

jeffbr13 wrote: post #65
spindritf wrote: post #3

I have spotted this totalitarian streak among some of my friends who went to med school. We should ban smoking, force everyone to do this or that. As bad as they can be, we're probably better off with lawyers in charge.

Doctors aren't really scientists, although some might think so -- they're taught the results of scientific research, and how to apply that to diagnose and treat patients. There's a reason that "evidence-based medicine" isn't just called "medicine". Most of it is pattern-matching on learned knowledge. The result is that some of this knowledge becomes outdated as the underlying body of scientific knowledge evolves, whi…

I think this is an under-appreciated point. Science is really concerned with inquiry into the world (broadly defined), while doctors and engineers are concerned with improving the world, typically by applying solutions that are based in science to specific problems that have been tasked to them. A lot of the difference isn't apparent even at the undergraduate level, where much of science is presented as true vs. false, rather than as this edifice built on bricks with wildly different levels of epistemic uncertainty that looks quite different to different observers.

The boundaries between these things are pretty fuzzy, though, (even though the cores are distinct) and many doctors and engineers engage in research, while most scientists spend a fair amount of energy on developing tools and techniques, which are often more engineering-type challenges (fortunately we don't practice medicine frequently). Nonetheless, there are often very large discrepancies between the mindsets and approaches of the typical scientist vs. doctor vs. engineer.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#124

Post by rmrfrmrf »

ISL wrote: post #99
jbooth wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but we're talking about not vaccinating your kids, here. It might be that we're all living in a computer simulation and none of this matters but we should still act on what we observe.

I'm personally convinced that vaccination is worthwhile; I've been convinced of that by my education, my experience, and my understanding of the scientific literature. The benefit to the individual and to society of vaccines is, to me, well-established. I'm willing to compromise part of my herd's immunity for those who wish not to receive a vaccine, even if it increases my risk somewhat. I don't think that anti-vacci…

There's the rub: it's not about you or what you want. There are already enough people who cannot be vaccinated -- people with egg allergies, people with compromised immune systems, etc. Furthermore, vaccines don't always take, so there may be more unvaccinated people out there than we actually know of. Herd immunity works by everyone who can participate participating; the more, the better.

What irritates me about anti-vax more than anything is the selfishness and privilege that goes along with it. "I don't need to put a vaccine in my child's body; if herd immunity really works, then my children won't be the problem!" Never mind the fact that every person this child comes in contact with now has a greater risk for infection, or even transmission of diseases.

Lastly, your usage of "convinced" really rubs me the wrong way. Granted, you have a "right" to believe whatever you want, but if you trust that evidence-based science is correct, it's really not a "take it or leave it" kind of situation.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#125

Post by danielweber »

Spooky23 wrote: post #104
ddalex wrote: post #35

This is beyond stupid. You can't explain something, so you ban the person from having a say so. I'm terrible afraid of people thinking that this is the way to go. As a doctor, which I am not, I would've said: the danger of your children dying or being crippled by a preventable disease is about 1000 times the risk of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Furthermore, I can guarantee that the vaccine will not caus…

The question to respond back to such a person is: "Can you assure me that you will get little Willow home safely after this appointment?" Demanding a yes/no answer to a question that isn't yes/no doesn't make a point, except that you already made an opinion and are paying a copay so that you can ask a doctor rhetorical questions. The fact is, likelihood that the parent in this story smashes the minivan into something…

There is a line that can be crossed where you take away people's ability to make decisions. This happens via court order

Yes, most disturbing in the story was how the woman took her children into a place she thought was trustworthy and she could talk openly, but instead her words were used against her to rob her of agency.

Antivaxxers can be pretty horrible, but there can always be something worse.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#126

Post by gretful »

Terr_ wrote: post #101
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At school: "Sacha your kids are not vaccinated and we do not admit any students not vaccinated." I thought this would perpetuate social stratification. But my hypothesis, that poor families are less likely to vaccinate their children than rich families, was incorrect. The National Network for Immunisation Information finds that "compared to fully immunized children, unvaccinated children were more likely to be non-…

Alternate theory: "Poor families" are more likely to be aware (either directly or "institutionally") of the impact of the various preventable diseases or conditions. Reminds of of a Bujold quote. The character is referring to how over time people forget how hard things were: > "They like to play dress-up and pretend being [noble-class] ladies of old, rescued from menace by romantic [noble-class] youths. For some reas…

Alternate theory 2: "Rich families" are more likely to have seen that there is reason to distrust the government and medical establisments.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#127

Post by nemo »

vonklaus wrote: post #29

If only there was a way to outsource all decision making to an over-arching centralized authority to make all decisions for us. That entity would have all our best interests at heart and make the tough decisions for us. It would be auch a weight off my shoulders of I didn't have to think anymore. I would even be willing to pay 20-30 percent of my paycheck to it, just so it could help me stay safe. What would we call…

You can give a medically informed body that understands the issues much more deeply some authority over public health policy, while still being able to think about those issues if you're interested. They wouldn't make all decisions for you, just those that have such a broad and important impact to society as a whole that irresponsible individuals wouldn't make choices that could have a net effect of significantly harming others like skipping vaccinations does.

Perhaps we could call that authority "civilization."

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#128

Post by danielweber »

aganders3 wrote: post #27
kstenerud wrote: post #15

This is so telling. The sheer arrogance is plainly visible, as is the doctor's complete lack of empathy. There are plenty of ways to motivate people, and this is most certainly not a good one. You don't get a mule to move by pushing it.

I agree, but consider that it's on Nature.com and the expected audience. This was an entertaining read for those who have felt such frustration, but it's ultimately unhelpful as a published article. I did appreciate the point about being proud to be bad at math. I think that attitude is damaging and probably deserves a (more reasoned) article of its own.

The odds are heavy that the doctors don't understand the math either https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/media/2012/03/new-study-ph...

I used to think "if I could just punish/control other people the world would be so much better because I'm so smart." But then I went through puberty.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#129

Post by lotsofmangos »

ISL wrote: post #62
micro_cam wrote: post #50

Things like this makes me ashamed to have my name on papers in Nature. First, lets set aside the hypocrisy of a non open access journal publishing this[1]. (What happens if Sacha wants to inform her self by reading a few old nature papers?) I am pro vaccine but far too many doctors have this fantasy that they should have unlimited control and articles like this just serve to validate that view point. Medicine is an i…

This is a Nature Future, the story printed at the back of the magazine as food for thought. Perhaps only twenty percent of them present a future in which we'd like to live. If the Future has driven HN to active discussion of an ethical topic, then it has succeeded in its purpose. Unlike most of Nature, the Futures are free to read (and ~10% of them are compelling enough to make reading them all worthwhile). (just scr…

I posted this Mitchell and Webb sketch further down, as an example of how to do this well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXTBPN1HhA

Now reflect on your reaction to that piece. Even when on the side of the trader, it is still funny. You can be a trader and find that funny.

This is because of how the characters are treated in the piece. Essentially, it is ridiculing ideas while remaining sympathetic to the character that holds them, which is difficult to do well, but makes for a much more persuasive piece of satire that will be appreciated by a wider range of people.

The piece in Nature however is just preaching to the converted, and doing it in a way that will just entrench the views of anyone who identifies with the mother. Frankly, if they want to publish satirical sci-fi, they should pay someone who can do it well rather than embarrassing themselves like this. It reads like a teenage first attempt at short-story writing.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#130

Post by Sanddancer »

JonnieCache wrote: post #52
DanBC wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love it if schools and nurseries started to disallow children who were not vaccinated. Unfortunately there are enough parents to make "no vaccinated children allowed" (you are not allowed in if you've been vaccinated) schools viable. See "Measles parties" and the sending of items infected with chicken pox through the post for examples.

There are really measels parties? I've heard of chicken pox parties, which makes sense because there's no vaccine and the adult form is vastly worse than the infant form. But measels parties, that's just medieval. EDIT: apparently there is a chicken pox vaccine, but it isn't administered to the general population in the UK, only NHS workers. Interesting.

Yeah, there are measels parties, just like the old days. Though regarding Chicken Pox, to be honest, I'm real surprised that chicken pox isn't on the list of mandated vaccines at this point. I had them a tiny bit on the late side -- at age 8 -- and I still had a pretty miserable time with them, with a 104 degree fever, etc. Making the vaccine just available to health workers seems silly; it's a dangerous disease, even in childhood.
Post reply on HN