Samoan gov't shuts down because MEASLES

butters

High on a Hill
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
85,851
The entire government of Samoa is shut down today so the country can focus on reining in a measles outbreak that has killed at least 62 people in recent weeks. More than 4,200 cases have been reported, and the rapid spread of the disease has forced the government to close schools and ban children from public gatherings in an effort to contain it. The Pacific island nation officially declared a state of emergency over the outbreak on November 15 and has been hammering a massive vaccination campaign ever since. Almost all civil servants are expected to help public health officials over the next two days to get as many people vaccinated as possible.
yeah, measles. that 'oh, you should let your kids catch it, it's nothin' disease. why do people forget so quickly? it was the 'done thing' to let your kids catch teh diseases there were not vaccines for because it harmed kids less (in general numbers) than if they caught it as adults. fucking VACCINATE YOR KIDS, ffs!
 
yeah, measles. that 'oh, you should let your kids catch it, it's nothin' disease. why do people forget so quickly? it was the 'done thing' to let your kids catch teh diseases there were not vaccines for because it harmed kids less (in general numbers) than if they caught it as adults. fucking VACCINATE YOR KIDS, ffs!

Let's hear from the anti-vaxers on this one, ok? :D
 
Butters puts up two cubes of of the same brand of butter today.
 
We need open borders

If only we had open borders then children and adults that have never been vaccinated against anything could swarm the USA and share the wonder. Only a racist that hates little brown people would reject an invasion force of 3rd world country folks that have all kinds of disease to share.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
to be expected: never mind the serious nature of so many ill and at risk of permanent damage, possibly death, let's try to be silly fuckers and ignore the issue! jesus would weep at your behaviour. :rolleyes:
 
If only we had open boarders then children and adults that have never been vaccinated against anything could swarm the USA and share the wonder. Only a racist that hates little brown people would reject an invasion force of 3rd world country folks that have all kinds of disease to share.
get back to us when you educate yourself as to the difference between 'borders' and 'boarders', k? :rolleyes:
 
anti vaxers are entitled to their view, even if it is misguided - like climate change cranks who follow the new anti carbon religion.

after all leopards cannot change their spots - in a way a bit like measles sufferers.
 
anti vaxers are entitled to their view, even if it is misguided - like climate change cranks who follow the new anti carbon religion.

after all leopards cannot change their spots - in a way a bit like measles sufferers.
good channeling of certain other posters. :p


entitled to their view, but their views should not be allowed to put others at risk when well-founded science virtually eradicated the disease in great areas of the globe.

unvaccinated travellers can carry the disease, country to country; deliberate disinformation that culminates in a few making a fast income from 'alternate' methods is alive and kicking on the www.
 
unvaccinated travellers can carry the disease, country to country;

good point, them fuckers in dingies in the med, very unsanitary conditions.

maybe we should burn them all at calais - keep the risk in france.

pikies are not all umwashed disease ridden trollops either ease back on the anti traveller venom sister.
 
plenty of 'we'd never vaccinate our kids' americans travel worldwide...
 
anti vaxers are entitled to their view, even if it is misguided - like climate change cranks who follow the new anti carbon religion.

after all leopards cannot change their spots - in a way a bit like measles sufferers.

I disagree with you (which, under the "BotanyBoy Rulez of Engagement", means u r a racist...no, I don't understand his logic either).

Anti-vaxxers put the general populace at risk when they don't vaccinate their kids. Their view should be criticized as a clear and present danger to the public health.
 
I disagree with you (which, under the "BotanyBoy Rulez of Engagement", means u r a racist...no, I don't understand his logic either).

Anti-vaxxers put the general populace at risk when they don't vaccinate their kids. Their view should be criticized as a clear and present danger to the public health.


agreed. they should be burnt on giant bonfires, climate change worshippers and anti vaxers alike. along with anyon else we/I deem to be placed on a list for reasons i dont fully understand but can feel slightly comfirtable with.
 
anti vaxers are entitled to their view

Yes. But they're not entitled to force their view upon anyone in a manner that can harm them. That's the rules everyone is supposed to play by.

You get me sick because you didn't get vaccinated due to your beliefs = I get to hurt you back. Simple.
 
If only we had open boarders then children and adults that have never been vaccinated against anything could swarm the USA and share the wonder. Only a racist that hates little brown people would reject an invasion force of 3rd world country folks that have all kinds of disease to share.

Seashells just had a stroke. :)
 
You get me sick because you didn't get vaccinated due to your beliefs = I get to hurt you back. Simple.

Mmm having recently watched the latest adaptation of the science series 'war of the worlds; i have to disagree.

if one folows the doctrine of, say, joseph mengele, it was not the anti vaxers who made anyone ill, it was the weakness of the indiviuals who became ill. who,like the martian invaders (a comparator for pikies) found themselves disadavntaged by their inferior imune systems - which could be cleansed by fire if they were burnt on one.
 
if one folows the doctrine of, say, joseph mengele, it was not the anti vaxers who made anyone ill, it was the weakness of the indiviuals who became ill.

A civilized society does not operate under "survival of the fittest". You can't tout that and simultaneously tout people being entitled to exercise their views in meaningful ways. More often than not, it's one or the other. Make your choice. :cool:
 
Back
Top