| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| cab |
Measles: How gutting is this?Kids are getting measles again, here in the UK, because parents have not been getting their kids immunised. And its a real problem, it can leave permanent damage, and can kill.Its got so bad that emergency measures are being taken in London; 100 cases so far in the capital this year, 1000 last year across the country, its getting worse. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7408278.stm I can't help but dispair of just how poorly we, as a nation, have handled this. How tremendously bad the misinformation on MMR was, and how gutting it is that so many people fell for it 
|
||||||
| Helen_A |
Cab - vaccines aside, a big reason for the upsurge in cases is a change in the way that measles is diagnosed and recorded for public health records. Up until 3 years ago, if a GP saw a spotty child they contacted the public health labs and were sent a swab kit, which was taken from the cheek of the child and sent off. If the result was inconclusive, (due to a poor sample pair, or because the swab was taken beyond the active phase in which this kit actually worked  - a window of 10 days from first symptom meaning that by the time the kit arrived you were close on that anyway ) then the result at 'public health' was recorded as negative. On top of this, most medics didn't use the card system if the child was 'up to date' with the MMR or equivalent, it was put down as fever, rash, virus, etc.
Basically they had a situation that was seriously underreporting, and had been since at least 1995 (when that system was last updated to be 'sent out' kits etc). Since 2004, all inconclusive results are now recorded as a case of measles. If it later turns out to be something else, the case is supposed to be then stricken (but there have been suggestions that this part of the mechanism just doesn't happen ). Whilst this potentially means that there are measles cases that are now registered, where they were not before. A child who has not received the vaccine, or where their status is unknown, is *assumed* to have measles - and the guidelines do not require a GP order a kit, just record it as such! This means that a child presenting with symptoms that could be a number of other diseases are being counted as measles, as the culture is becoming 'report as such and change mind later if ness.'
But the rise is being seen in vaccinated children as well as those who have not received it. It is still happening that measles in vaccinated children is being discounted as 'viral rash' when the symptoms and progression of the disease were clear. (I've recently seen this in a group of children here that DD1 plays with, all fully vaccinated, and a couple really quite ill and only accepted as having measles at the point their parents finally took them to A&E the family GPs all being insistent that MMR=not measles. My unvaccinated, children (two of whom have had measles anyway) have all been perfectly well. ) |
||||||
| Jamanda |
And exactly why herd immunity is so important. there will always be a few for whom the vaccine doesn't work (or cannot have the vaccine for some reason). If the majority of the population are vaccinted the will be no pool of the disease for them to catch. | ||||||
| JB |
So how does the current level of incidence compare to 1995? and perhaps more to the point how has the level of incidence changed since 2004? |
||||||
| lottie |
In Illinois where my grandsons live you aren't allowed in the public school system without your full set of vaccinations[they've had them] but it is one of the reasons among others for some parents there choosing to homeschool. My youngest had MMR but I decided against the whooping cough vaccine.
p.s. perhaps the take up would be better if they were given as separate vaccines? |
||||||
| cab |
Seperate vaccines have higher risk associated with them (although still not all THAT risky), but also become harder to ensure compliance with; the more vaccinations available in a single jab, the better. The problem is we've taken to respecting intellectually bankrupt theories about MMR being dangerous, and our press has given endless publicity to this harmful fiction. |
||||||
| cab |
(cut) Interesting, thank you. I didn't realise that reporting had changed so much. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Part of the issue is that people have high levels of distrust in the government, authorities, politicians, scientists, health organisations and so on. If we can restore trust in the public authorities then maybe MMR take-up will follow. | ||||||
| lottie |
I'm not arguing pro/anti multiple or single vaccines just wondering if more parents would have it done if they had the option of separate shots---I certainly know of people whose instinctive objection[whether scientific or not] is the amount being given at once---whether they are right or wrong is less important than allowing something that would at least encourage them to have their kids vaccinated. |
||||||
| cab |
Yet if you multiply up the vaccinations you're bringing greater risk back into the system, which is itself a problem. I agree, the best approach is the one that reduces risk for everyone as much as possible, its just that such is not necessarily achieved by single jabs. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
I've heard the arguments for single jabs before, but I think this is normally refuted on the lines that the human immune system is designed from the ground up to deal with multiple simultaneous threats - obvious when you think about it. | ||||||
| lottie |
The problem is many parents don't trust scientists all that much. Which is worse them not having the kids vaccinated at all---or having the jabs seperately? If the aim is better coverage for herd immunity then seperate jabs must be better than no jab. Alot of parents don't care that much about herd immunity as about their own child---so those arguments don't wash with them. |
||||||
| bagpuss |
What about the argument that rather than finding 3 occasions (I think that is the number of injections needed for full immunity) where the child is well enough to be vaccinated they need to find 9 occasions where the child is well enough to be vaccinated |
||||||
| Chez |
I think that's a good point. Leo is due for his third lot of baby vaccinations this week - he's under the weather, so I'm not sure they'll 'do' him. He's already running a few months behind because of appointments we've had to cancel because he's had some kind of peakiness. |
||||||
| Shane |
They did in this case. Unfortunately, they chose to trust the one that the media latched onto. |
||||||
| lottie |
I'm not disagreeing--all my grandkids have had their jabs---all I am saying is that for people who aren't happy so they don't have it done--it might be better if there was more flexibility in the system. |
||||||
| bagpuss |
I think it would actually be better to educate people properly about the options and what their consequences are and then more people will make sensible decisions, that isn't always an easy thing to do though |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
It's important not to forget that a doctor was behind the release of information which sparked the whole MMR panic, a doctor who is also now facing a professional misconduct charge. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
There was also the incident at the end of last year when a doctor on the working party for safe alcohol guidelines in the 1980s admitted that the male 21 units a week figure had been "plucked out of the air". When science is thus routinely abused, it is no wonder that the public gives it so little credibility. | ||||||
| Jamanda |
Twice in over twenty years is routinely? |
||||||
| orangepippin |
You don't think science is routinely abused for political ends then? | ||||||
| Jamanda |
I don't know quite what you mean by abused to be honest. In fact I'm not even sure of what you mean by "science".
The MMR debacle is more down to the media than politicians, as they have always encouraged the opposite, that children are immunised. Who was this doctor who allegedly pulled the 21 units out of thin air? |
||||||
| cab |
You think thats got anything at all to do with the cretinous, irresponsible media hype over MMR? |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Absolutely. If people could trust the advice of government agencies, media "hype" could easily be rebutted by some measured advice from a suitable government scientist. | ||||||
| Behemoth |
Unfortunately 'measured advice from a government scientist', which was available all along, doesn't sell papers. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
Really? What about the measured advice from a government scientist on the non-existence of WMD in Iraq?
Granted, the government is probably telling the truth about MMR ... but given the lies and statistics that government departments shower us with, you can hardly be surprised if some people decide that MMR is not safe for them. |
||||||
| Behemoth |
Sorry I'll rephrase that
Topping yourself does raise the profile though, or did he....... |
||||||
| cab |
There was measured advice from government scientists, non-government scientists, drug company scientiests, independent scientists, well informed lay people, yet the press still blew this story up to such a proportion that people got taken along in the hype. You really believe that scientists can be heard against a background din of ignorance? |
||||||
| cab |
Gents... Dr. Kelly was a good man, I share some acquaintances with the late Dr. Kelly, people who thought well of him, and as a consequence I find this side-track to be in poor taste. As a favour to me, drop this line please? |
||||||
| lottie |
Sorry bit of a scientist sceptic here----I remember listening to the radio as a kid about 45+ years ago about dumping stuff in the sea and some scientist rubbishing the people who were worried ---quoting parts per billion or something similar---oddly enough my husband remembers the same broadcast----probably explains a lot of our present views about the environment and sceptisism about the scientific community---their research is driven by whether theres a good grant money or not in it anyway. | ||||||
| cab |
With regard to parts per billion pollutants, for many things the guy was probably correct. |
||||||
| Brownbear |
I am no scientist, but is strikes me that the scientific approach involves giving opinions on the best currently supported scientific knowledge. That would mean that, before it was discovered that the Earth was spherical, it was 'correct' to declare it to be flat. Before Vietnamese women started giving birth to terribly deformed children, it was 'correct' that Agent Orange had no long-term effects on human health.
'Common sense' may appear to point in one direction, but the truth amy lie elsewhere - until something has been scientifically assessed, then there is no way of knowing one way or the other. Distrust of scientific opinion appears to lie in the gulf between current scientific knowledge and apparent phenomena, and is not helped by the tendency of scientific opinion to say 'This is correct - anything else is wrong' rather than 'The best information we have at present supports this - but further research or unexpected data may in fact show us we lack the full picture.' Public opinion may be ill-informed and often wrong, but members of the public aren't completely stupid - they know enough to be aware of a gap between current knowledge and future knowledge. That they fill the void with present fears and horrible imaginings is no more irrational or illogical than someone who declares that currently-accepted scientific knowledge is complete of itself, and immutable. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Maybe an extension to the freedom of information act which forced government departments and civil servants to tell the truth would help to restore public confidence in official statements. | ||||||
| Jamanda |
A scientist would ever say that the latest data suggests so and so. It's the media that insists on translating this into "scientists have found that..." which is only ever followed by nonsense. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
It's no use blaming the media, they are the monkeys not the organ grinder. In the case of MMR it is very little to do with the media and a lot to do with public distrust in government information. | ||||||
| cab |
Rather bold statements there, and a lot of generalisations too! Before the world was known to be spherical, as there was no evidence for it being flat, the correct approach would have been to say 'I don't know'. Before we learn what the long term effects of chemical (x) may be, the correct approach is to say 'we can make predictions based on what we know, but we can't absolutely know'. And, really, thats what scientists do, its what they say all of the time, there is a very formal 'correct' way of wording predictions based upon what is known to make it clear that some things can be shown to be true and some things cannot. People don't, for the most part, invent these horrible imaginings for themselves. Few people are so deeply depressing! What happens most often is that someone states something that is just flat our wrong (mmr will give your child autism), someone who either does not understand the evidence or who has an axe to grind picks up on it (newspapers ran horror stories about MMR pretty much solidly from 2001 onwards, with every kind of effort to change the negative spin being interpreted as government cover up), and you end up with a mess like we see now. It isn't that people are stupid, it is that they're not in a position to pick out the relevant evidence for themselves; when they're presented with rubbish, over and over again, they start to believe it. |
||||||
| cab |
No use blaming the media? Go look through the archives at the Daily Express or the Daily Mail. People don't, all of a sudden, in their thousands, suddenly decide that something is unsafe without egging on. The coverage was out of proportion, and resulted in an hysterical and dangerous response. You think that people all started to distrust the same jab, at the same time, just at the same time as there was farcical media coverage, and thats a coincidence? |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Blaming the media for MMR is rather nieve. The MMR issue will only be resolved if you can restore public confidence in government statements that MMR is safe. If we had a trustworthy government, media hype would have little impact. Look at it another way, what have we come to if the general population gives more credence to a populist newspaper than a government-appointed scientist? And whose fault is that? | ||||||
| cab |
No, it isn't. Ignoring the impact of the media here is choosing to be in error. MMR was safe, the evidence (such as it was) to the contrary was poor, ill thought out, highly contentious, and a very, very small minority view, and yet time and time again it was given prominence and the viewpoint that MMR was safe was portrayed to be pandering to the government. Don't take my word for it; go read the archives of the red tops like the Daily Wail and the Express.
You can't have a government which people always trust. Isn't going to happen, never has happened.
When does the general population get direct access to the science? |
||||||
| orangepippin |
The level of trust could be far higher than it currently is. The lack of credibility is entirely self-inflicted. |
||||||
| cab |
Independent scientists spoke out against the MMR scare. Government scientists spoke out against the MMR scare. Company scientists spoke out against the MMR scare. I defy you to find red-top newspaper articles that state, directly, that the view that MMR was harmful was both contentious, not proven, and very much a minority stance. You can't blame government for lack of trust on a scientific point when their position on that point is never correctly represented in the media. |
||||||
| Behemoth |
In the 'golden age' I'd say we were subservient rather than trusting. History has been full of selfserving, opportunists, liars and cheats. Many of them have been politicians and the rest have sold newspapers. | ||||||
| Jamanda |
The MMR scare happened when the labour government had only just come into power. I think people were as likely to trust them then as they are ever to trust any government. | ||||||
| Jonnyboy |
As in all things here we are expected to bow down to the views of one man when it comes to science. | ||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Bum, forgot the link there. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
One of the duties of government is to safeguard the population. That means among other things mass immunisation against deadly diseases. That is not the job of the media. It is the job of the government. If the government is unable to get that point over then it is failing. Other government health campaigns have been effective – e.g. drink driving – so why not MMR? Maybe the convincing argument proving that MMR was a good thing was published on a good day to bury bad news so we all missed it? | ||||||
| Behemoth |
Because the concept of it being socially unaccpetable to drive over somebody in your car while you are drunk is quite easy to get across. I didn't actually see any scientist, pressure group or media outlet suggest otherwise. |
||||||
| JB |
There was opposition ...
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/booze/history5.stm |
||||||
| Behemoth |
I'm sure there was opposition and a good ding-dong was reported by the press but did any media outlet publish an editorial against it? And it's an easy concept to understand. | ||||||
| Jamanda |
Also the consequences of being caught drink driving, even if you do not cause an accident, are punitive - loss of license, fines etc, where as there is no punishment for a parent who doesn't have their child immunised. (And no I am not suggesting there should be) | ||||||
| orangepippin |
The point remains, we have a government that is well able to manipulate the press for its own ends, yet is seemingly unable to deal with some apparent "bad press" about MMR. The reason, I suggest, is that the public is dis-inclined to believe what the government tells it - arguably with good reason. | ||||||
| cab |
There are reasons not to immunise a child; some children do have medical conditions that exclude certain immunisations, for example. Other than that... To not immunise a child needlessly increases risk of catching potentially lethal diseases. To be in possession of the correct information (that it is safer to immunise than not do so) while deciding not to immunise a child is not like beating a kid up, its more like abuse by neglect. The irresponsible media coverage that led thousands of parents to take the wrong choice... Well, its tantamount to encouraging parents to neglect their children to the point of causing harm. The simple fact is that the Government is not as good at getting the message across as the mass media is, the media is a vehicle through which authorities communicate with people, and when that vehicle goes against those authorities and sets out to cause mischief, the real losers are all of us. A free press is a vital part of a democratic society, but to behave so irresponsibly as they did over MMR, thats shameful. |
||||||
| Andy B |
Is their a link between increases in measels and increased immigration? | ||||||
| cab |
Well able to manipulate the press? Have you seen newspaper coverage of the Labour government lately? Are you reading the press in the same country as me? |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Maybe it is a good day to bring back Alistair Campbell? | ||||||
| cab |
Yes, we've recently (2006) managed to export it to Norway, we're so lax. |
||||||
| Andy B |
So its a home grown problem and nothing to do with people comming in from countries with no NHS or immunisation programs? Funny how its started out in an area where a large number of recent immigrants have settled! |
||||||
| cab |
Mostly home grown, but of course people move all over the place.
It would be funny were it true; measles clusters have sprung up all over the place. |
||||||
| Andy B |
Have they, where exactly? |
||||||
| Behemoth |
Suprising though it may be I doubt any member of the Government was/is qualified to provide an opinion on the efficacy of any medical treatment, immunisation programme etc. I suspect they may rely on expert advisers to make recomendations based on their knowledge. | ||||||
| cab |
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=measles&tab=ns&scope=all |
||||||
| Andy B |
The HPA report said most reported cases of measles were associated with outbreaks in travelling and religious communities where vaccine uptake has been historically low.
Quote taken from the Cornwall outbreak. To me that implies that the reason for an increase in measels is that its being spread by people who come here from areas where immunisation is low. It cant be our governments fault for other countries lack of immunisation. |
||||||
| cab |
People move around. Happens. All of the time. Herd immunity is what prevents such diseases spreading when they reach our shores. It can be the case that this will be an immigrant, it can also be a case that it'll be a Brit coming home from abroad. The clusters there have been do not seem to represent the main immigration hot spots, but they do reflect areas with low levels of vaccination uptake. Go figure. |
||||||
| Andy B |
MMR take up has been falling since 1992 with no large scale outbrakes until very recently and in areas where their has been a particular type of immigrant IE not migrant workers ( adults only) but families who are increasingly staying longer term and attempting to fit into society. Ignore mass movement of nationals whose grip of english can be limited at best, therefore not understanding that they can get the MMR jabs or the implications of not having them and the problem will continue to get worse. |
||||||
| cab |
No one has ignored mass movement of people, but you do seem to be ignoring the problem that infection only spreads when herd immunity falls below a critical point; that isn't addressed by targetting any minority group coming in to the country. |
||||||
| lottie |
Whatever the truth/causes of it were I think it was the B.S.E outbreak that led to distrust and sceptisism about government advice and experts[ a 20yr. old was diagnosed here the other week]---weapons of mass destruction didn't help either---it creates a mood of sceptisism where people are ready to listen to other things besides the official line. | ||||||
| Behemoth |
It may have been started with that 'temporary' measure to fund the Napoleonic wars. | ||||||
| lottie |
It's all been downhill since
|
||||||
| Helen_A |
I refer the gentleman to my post on this one (change in reporting considerations) |
||||||
| gnome |
there can be no doubt that the government and the BMA have lost all credibility. if they ever had it. i recall reading a report whilst i was studying psychology (it is documented in course books) that a survey revealed that 80% of lab assistants claimed they had known the scientists / doctors they worked for to fudge results and lie about figures to get the desired "proof". there is pressure to give the funders the answers they want, rather than the truth. Thatcher was notorious for sifting through scientific results to reject those that gave answers she didnt want in favour of those she did want. i'm sure gordy does just the same.
plus which - most "experts" are now claiming that we now have so many bugs and viruses that are imune to anti-biotics because we have been over using them. so it is no wonder that people ask themselves is immunisation really worth the risk? do we really need it? i'm biased - i am from pre-immunisation days. i've had measels, mumps, chicken pox etc. when i was a kid, our parents would encourage us to play with any kids in the street who had any of the so-called childhood diseases on the basic principle that it is better to catch it and get over it now, than get it later in life where it can cause complications. such behaviour would shock most people today, and social services would descend on parents doing this in a shot - but in my day it was normal practice. i had all the childhood diseases and they did not cause any long term problems. at least not that i know of. we were immunised against things like polio and TB - the real nasties, but mumps and measels were considered pretty mild. i didn't like it - that bout of measels itched like mad and spoiled what should have been a good xmas. |
||||||
| Behemoth |
I'm wondering if my GP is in legion with the cabal of incompetence. He was supportive of the MMR jab but then he would be with his target bonuses and generous new contract. Lying git. | ||||||
| lottie |
I remember the german measles parties before there was a vaccine---I also remember the baby born next door to us when I was a kid whose mother had caught Rubella when pregnant---I made sure when the injection came in when my girls were at school that they got the jab---even though I was pretty sure they'd already had the disease. I was never convinced that healthy robust kids needed the whooping cough jab---and the doctor actually recommended against with their allergy history.
p.s. my mums best friend as a child died of diptheria----people forget stuff like that now. |
||||||
| Behemoth |
We've recently held a chicken pox party. The only person I knew at school who didn't have the whooping cough jab got whooping cough and missed just about a year of education. | ||||||
| lottie |
My youngest daughter got it and wasn't even really ill apart from a couple of days---and as I said at the time the doctor advised me against that----they had all the others----I got every disease known to man as a child---was ill for a day at most and gave them to my brother who was always really poorly----my instinct would always be to give my kids any protection I could---but part of me wonders if overall we'd be better of with a population that are survivors of diseases. p.s. good idea on the chicken pox party---the eldest four had it as kids---the youngest caught it a couple of weeks before his A levels---6' 6"" strapping lad and he was so ill---hallucinating etc---we were so proud of the way he still coped with his exams. |
||||||
| gnome |
Lottie - you bring up a very good point. are we weakening ourselves by immunising against everything we can? some are clearly strengthening us by giving us a mild version of something to introduce it into our immune system, but we need to get sick now and again so our bodies know how to deal with sickness. i didn't know the chickenpox parties still went on - glad they do. | ||||||
| Behemoth |
There were friends of friends turning up, people we didn't know, but they were civilised enough to bring a bottle. 
|
||||||
| bagpuss |
there are issues with the way we currently handle our health and live our lives which are creating some health problems Vaccinations are not one of these factors they have stopped thousands of childhood deaths and disabilities and more or less erradicated several very severe diseases from at least the western world The vaccination programme is one the major health achievements of the 20th Century and this should not be forgotten |
||||||
| Jamanda |
Hear Hear! |
||||||
| Behemoth |
What we consider to be trivial, killed and crippled many, and continues to do so in other parts of the world. | ||||||
| cab |
Yep, a lot of thats true. But why should it then follow that another scientist giving an even more contentious, tiny minority view should be given massive public exposure at the expense of other independent scientists who maintain that he's clearly barking? This is what happened with MMR.
You're talking like superbugs are new. Fleming himself talked about this problem way back in the '40s, talking about the inevitability of immunity to antibiotics and how resistance to sulphonamide drugs back in the '30s was a model for this. He said we needed a national or even international institution to take care of this. Oh, of course, this is unrelated to immunisation... Is it worth the risk... Yes. And it is testament to the massive, unprecedented impact of mass immunisation (and indeed to antimicrobial drugs) that people can even ask questions like that. Mass mortality due to infectious disease is, where these things are available, a thing of the past. Of all medical/scientific advances of the 19th and 20th centuries, this is the most important. By a long, long way. |
||||||
| cab |
We lived in a council house with paper thin walls separating us from neighbours. When their three kids got whooping cough I could hear them, night after night, coughing and whooping breath back to the point of vomiting. This went on for ages, the poor kids were in a dreadful state. One of them was never really well again while I knew him. |
||||||
| gnome |
i'm just putting across why people take the veiw they do - it is entirely justifiable. the media is much to blame, but the medical fraternity is equaly to blame for taking a arrogant stance. as a profession, they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, so people dont trust them.. having watched Watchdog, would you buy double glazing from a door to door salesman? | ||||||
| Jamanda |
That's rather rude to all the people on here who work in health care. I think they seem a rather trustworthy bunch. Ditto my own GP, dentist doctors and nurses etc who cared for me and Ben when we were in hospital. | ||||||
| cab |
Would I buy double glazing from a door to door salesman? If the product and price are the best then yes. Medical fraternity arrogant? Well I've met doctors who are arrogant, I've met nurses who were a little over-confident after a couple of drinks (long story involving parties at a private nurses college), but you've just come out with a generalisation/stereotype that I think you would find extremely hard to defend. Go on, describe what, specifically, you've seen that leads you to this conclusion. Withot the uninformed, ignorant and just plain irresponsible media coverage, would we now be seeing insufficient levels of immunity to measles to prevent infection from spreading? |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Having worked in the NHS and seen at first hand what goes on in one small corner of it, the general view of excellence at the sharp end is I think true, even if there are inevitably a few bad apples. But if you look at the "corporate" NHS, there are undoubtedly serious problems of performance and fitness for purpose. However I don't think the problem is trust, at least not in my experience. | ||||||
| ejc-free |
I work in new drug research and the laws & scrutiny that we have to comply with are huge, then when drugs reach the market they are followed closely for any prviously unknown issues - which has lead to some major drugs being withdrawn recently. Regarding the MMR - as a motherm concerned for my sons I reviewed the papers & research - and unless you have certain family histories such as febrile convulsions where it would possibly be better not to use the vaccine - the risks of not vaccinating are far higher than the risks of vacinating.
Measils if it affects the brain can kill - & it makes a far higher proportion of kids far sicker than any reaction to the vaccine. For the sake of the children who cannot be vacinated the rest of us have a responsibility to vaccinate & protect our kids. It was very sad the one doctor was able to cause so much misinformation based on false data that is still circulated today, still he has been duly punished now - but how many children has he impacted............ |
||||||
| Brownbear |
People are now in a frame of mind where they doubt every bit of information given them by any sort of 'official' source. Time was people would do as they were told because they trusted the 'powers that be' as they were called without irony, and sadly enough people in authority abused that trust to the point where official sources of information are largely assumed to be spun, skewed, distorted etc even if not directly a lie.
In this disbelief, people fall victim to every crackpot with an axe to grind or a theory to peddle, as well as the straightforwardly malicious. |
||||||
| vegplot |
This has to be about the biggest single area where the government has mis-served the public. |
||||||
| Jamanda |
How have the government misserved the public? They provide the vaccinations free on the NHS and advise people to have their children vaccinated. What else should they do? | ||||||
| lottie |
Stop telling lies and halftruths about alsorts of things so when they say something that is important for children is safe and a good idea everybody believes them |
||||||
| cab |
And more importantly, in a mass media age where theres a buck to be made out of sliming everything a government says whether its good or bad, how on earth does any government maintain the confidence of the people on important issues? |
||||||
| lottie |
Just start telling the truth consistently---once trust is gone it's very difficult to get back---on a personal or governmental level. |
||||||
| Brownbear |
I didn't mean they'd lied in thos specific instance; just that politians of all stripes have lied about so much for so long that whenever they say anything at all people assume that the opposite must, or easily might, or probably will turn out to be, the case. If I had to pick the defining moment when trust was irrevocably lost, I would say it was that slimeball Selwyn Gummer feeding his daughter a hamburger for the television news. |
||||||
| gnome |
as Max Headroom once said, there is an easy way to tell if a politician is lying - you can see his lips move. |