Curiously, disease kills far more people than war, even discounting the diseases of old age. I’ve long felt that war was a double-pronged cause of human suffering though, as it kills a lot of people, but also ruins the lives of an order of magnitude more. Anyway, just a thought musing on what you said and not a direct response.
Yeah, no. Apparently a lot of the physicians who do this work choose to present the risks to the local communities as demonic possession that can spread by touch. I understand this to a point since there primary concern is to reduce the spread as quickly as possible and framing it in familiar terms doubtless gets more traction sooner than explaining the practicalities of the germ theory of biology. The problem is that by presenting it in religious or faith-based terms, it opens up the possibility of religious or faith-based “cures” not grounded in effective medical practices. I’m not trying to armchair quarterback the physicians on the ground for this - they take immense personal risk for all of us - but framing it as the locals willfully endangering the deaths of those they then infect because of this inaccurate but expedient explanation is not always or even usually correct.
I remember my high school curriculum had an elaborately worded explanation that basically came down to “plague” made things more equal because it killed enough poor people that by the laws of supply and demand, even poor people became valuable.
The teachers were less circumspect about “war”. The outcome almost never made things more equal, it usually just replaced one hierarchy with an even worse one.
My guess was my teachers weren’t big fans of regime change (Vietnam era).
I said “lets not frame it as pro-social”. Maybe revisit my post, with no preconceptions, as you have clearly misunderstood and taken a surprising tangent from what I sad to what you seem to have heard. I encourage you to try again, but without any notion that I am saying anyone is willfully disregarding medicine, just that they might be responsible for a tragedy. Implications are yours not mine. I’d appreciate that, and if you can’t do that this time, maybe next time?
You’re right. Willfully endangering was unfair. But you did say it was deeply irresponsible. And my point, or rather the one I wanted to make even if I didn’t do it very well, is: How can the AWOL patients be responsible in cases where they’ve literally been given false information by the doctors (that it’s demonic possession) under which their actions make sense? Who’s actions in such a case cause the consequences?
Also, who said it was a pro-social act? I must have missed that because the first time I saw that was when you said it?
Who is Lucy? Is that supposed to be some oblique Peanuts reference?
