Change My Mind

Actually, fun fact, George Washington DID consider the idea of mass innoculation and forced quarantines to be antithetical to what they were fighting for.

At first. Then after measels killed more American troops than the British did, he was like "ohhhhhh! I see what you're getting at now!"

You quarantine the sick, not the healthy.

No. You quarantine whoever is spreading the disease. That has ALWAYS been the point of quarantine throughout history.

For most diseases, if you notice that someone is sick, it's usually already too late to prevent its spread. This virus is no different.

If you notice someone is sick, you separate them. Could you imagine ancient leper colonies if they had forced people they thought might have leprosy to stay there? Those nations for sure would have collapsed if they had all been forced into such things.

You're wrong here on many points, not least of which, people who got banished to leper colonies included people with generic skin conditions - completely for this exact reason: they didn't know what causes leprosy, so they quarantined ANYONE WHO POSED A RISK OF TRANSMISSION.

That's what quarantine is AND HAS ALWAYS been. The only reason you believe otherwise is because you live in a place where this hasn't happened in a really long time.

So should we close the nation every flu season?

Like we did in the 1918 pandemic?

You're seriously messed up if you think shutting everything down every flu season is a good thing.

You're the one who thinks that we have a flu pandemic every year!

A lot more people have died from the flu (and every year). But I guess human life only matters when it fits in your agenda.

COVID-19 deaths in the US just passed 100,000 and it's climbing and you are claiming this is lower than annual flu deaths, you f**king liar.

Including deaths from natural causes, heart attacks, and accidents that have been counted as corona deaths.

Corona has political opportunity tied to it. The flu does not. Pretty easy puzzle to put together.

More BS diseases did kill more American soldiers then combat measels wasn't a leading killer btw this was almost equally true of British soldiers too. This was not uncommon in war even up until the Spanish American war.
#1 while debilatating measels kills less than 2% of infected even back then.
#2 measels vaccinations weren't available until 1960

The only Vaccination available at the time was for small pox which was administered by taking puss from those who died and injecting it under the skin, or take puss from cows suffering from cow pox (a safer but slightly less effective form of the vaccination.)

Oh yeah! And innoculation was brand new cutting edge technology. The idea was far out to everyone. The British were like "we are loving this - we just send in soldiers who are already immune to measels and then we just wait for the rebels to die of something we can't catch. Science, bitches!"

Yeah, none of that happened.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&smallpoxinoculation.html

It absolutely did.

Which absolutely validates vaccines.

No it doesn't. Early vaccines did not add chemicals and adjuvents which is what 'anti-vaxxers' have a problem with. The early vaccines were also produced by taking the blood from people that had survived the disease.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jenner-tests-smallpox-vaccine
You are comparing apples to oranges.

toe-may-toe / tow-mah-toe

Erm no. Not even close. They took puss from blisters of people that had gotten over a similar virus and then inserted it into a scratch on a healthy person.

Now if they did the modern equivalent: A clean vaccine where they take nearly harmless viruses that are found in the wild and injected them into our bloodstream with no other chemicals and let us go through the sickness and get a full immunity that would be one thing, but that's not what's happening.
Here is what the CDC admits are in modern vaccines: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

Very true. Vaccines weren't distributed by big pharma back then.

It was a massive turning point in the campaign to raise public approval of innoculation, and Thomas Jefferson would greatly expand the vaccine program for smallpox in the United States.

The US still kind of lagged behind Europe a lot during the nineteenth century through to shortly after World War 1. I love our country but we were never very good at learning from the rest of the world.

I was going for the sarcasm used by the character.

Because why would you suggest that fairness of cringy megalomania is another dimension. Why not then consider preferred tie color or star sign. You knew I was concerned about escalation. Not sick artistry.

It felt like you were trying to outdo me.

Comparing a modern pandemic to a 200 year old Revolution is quite a stretch in comparison

He's comparing the people, not the event

Meme isn’t specific, sounds like an excuse

It is specific "Those who defend the lockdown", he's talking about the people, that's what "those" means. Understand?

Understand a Pandemic has nothing to do with historical events other than others pandemics.
As no known Pandemics are relevant to American revolutions, or people of the revolutionary time period, or single shot mussel loaded flintlock muskets given to colonial occupation soldiers
Perhaps Spanish flu 1918 would best compare?

Evidently you don't understand. This is referring to the type of person and is a prediction based on what we're seeing right now. It's about the type of people, not the event.

Sorry, don’t agree. This IS a Pandemic. Nothing remotely relevant in its description.

I have no use to carry on this conversation if you're going to refuse to try and understand

Sounds like a plan

apologists.. they out themselves daily

It's the same concept, submit to the government blindly and let them take care of us. Don't disagree or protest cause if you do they'll punish us with more quarantine

During the Revolution, if you didn't take your innoculation, they just wouldn't let you fight at all.

Hunh. And after that they went on to defeat the most professional and well-armed and well-trained military on the face of the Earth. Just so you know.

Not really. Much of Britain's military was stretched across Europe and the world and was in continuous conflict, and sometimes outright war, mainly with the French and their allies. At no time did the British bring their full force down on the Colonies; they couldn't afford to, and George III took the loss with a sigh and a whimper.

[image deleted]Prior to the Battle of Brooklyn Britain had more then 200 ships in and around New York (the largest invasion fleet in history until D - Day ) more then 30,000 British troops took part in the battle hardly a Half assed invasion

For the most part the troops they sent were hessian mercenaries known for their ruthless cruelty. Which of course made things worse.

Not really? Can you name a more powerful military force on the face of the Earth at that time? The fact that it was "stretched across the world" shows you admit as much. Totally irrelevant whether or not they brought their "full force" down on the colonies. The clearly came in sufficient numbers and force!!! Who were they up against? A bunch of dirt farmer irregulars with NO established military force!!! By all rights they NEVER should of defeated professional British forces. And in fact they were often on the retreat and on the brink of defeat. It is a stunning upset in military history.

The fact that the British were soundly defeated indicates they DIDN'T come in sufficient numbers and force.

Yawn. They were not soundly defeated. You just sussed yourself out as a know-nothing.