We all categorize people, and we often do it quickly and subconsciously. In the online world of skeptics versus (do we have a name for the larger group of non-skeptics?) woo-followers (way nicer than it could have been), each side quickly files a person based on key words or talking points the person uses in a comment at a skeptic blogger's site.
It's handy, and I'd argue, it's necessary. We can absolutely recognize where people are getting their information by what they write, and there are internet laws for a reason.
When a commenter over at my column at Science 2.0 invokes Nazis (" well, Godwin's Law applies:
As well as the descriptive form, it can be used prescriptively, so if any poster does mention the Naz!s in a discussion thread, Godwin’s Law can be invoked, they instantly lose the argument and the thread can be ended."It is closely related to the logical fallacy “reductio ad Hitlerum”, which says “Hitler (or the Naz!s) liked X, so X is bad”, frequently used to denigrate vegetarians and atheists.
e of the primary arguments that is being used to justify this insane behavior is 'herd immunity.' The fact is that vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying bacteria or viruses in your nose, in your throat, in your intestines, in your airway, on your skin, or in your body. But many do not understand the significance of this fact, and have been made to believe that if you’re vaccinated, you won’t carry viruses, and therefore, others will be protected because you’re vaccinated. As it turns out, this belief is NOT based on scientific fact."
AoA's happy to dish it out, though, with Katie Wright invoking Mercola's doctor Palevsky and writing: "We clearly need more inquiry into this critically important subject. However, it does not take scientific brilliance to understand this key point: discredit herd immunity and the house of cards supporting vaccine mandates comes tumbling down."
"herd immunity, defined as the indirect protection of susceptible individuals by immunes. He [Lister] suggested that this indirect protection should be included when evaluating the total public health advantage conferred by a vaccine. However, herd immunity may also influence the assessment of vaccine efficacy for an individual...How can herd immunity influence the measurement of vaccine efficacy? Herd immunity not only decreases the disease frequency in the nonimmunized but also affects the vaccinated (if the vaccine is not 100% effective). If disease frequency decreases in the vaccinated and unvaccinated to the same relative amount
(e.g., by 0.25), no bias would occur."
Human communities defend themselves against specific infectious agents in a way that extends beyond the simple sum of the immune status of its individuals. By analogy with individual immunity to specific agents, the community level of immunity may vary from complete susceptibility to full protection. Herd immunity has been used to name this community property, which is the result of evolution through natural selection, leading to relationships between two species, typical of prey–predator systems. Varying uses of the term herd immunity led to the use of other expressions, such as herd protection, herd effect and community immunity. Knowledge derived from observational studies and models on herd immunity has supported decisions on the choice of vaccines and vaccination strategies for the benefit of populations. This knowledge is most likely to be extended in the future, with far-reaching effects."Herd immunity: recent uses in vaccine assessment reads: "
No need to run to databases, though. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has a page on herd immunity, also known as community immunity:
"Vaccines can prevent outbreaks of disease and save lives.A PubMed search on herd immunity provides many articles, as well: 1068 articles, 254 of them available as free full text articles.
When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as "community immunity."
I have on this _________day of ___________________(month), A.D._________(year), administered this vaccination/medication/drug AFTER advising the above named patient that there is no risk involved with this vaccination, medication, drug therapy or treatment to the good health of my patient whatsoever. Therefore, and because any potentially negative or adverse effects of said vaccine(s) are apparently (and contradictorily) no longer insurable as being too high a risk, I hereby agree, without reservation, that should this patient at any time suffer or develop any permanent condition deleterious or injurious to my patient's health as a result of this treatment, I will personally pay for any and all costs involved relating to the care and treatment necessary for this patient for the rest of (his/her) natural life. I further agree that if my earnings are insufficient to meet these costs, I will sell my home, my business and all of my material possessions and put those proceeds towards meeting the patient-involved expenses."
**I'm aware that I have pronoun disagreements in my post, using someone and then they. Yes, it bugs me, but I can be grammatically incorrect for simplicity sake. Sure, I'll feel angst over it. I'll castigate myself endlessly. I'll have to sit on my hands to not fix it. But we'll deal with it, I'm sure.