Comments

1

Amen, Doc. I’d vote for you if I could. It amazes me that people who absolutely believe the scientific consensus on global warming reject the scientific consensus on vaccines. It is cultish.

2

@1: Many people pick and choose what to believe based on ideology, not evidence.

These people don't necessarily believe in global warming due to the science (because they likely have never looked at it), but because it is a way to critique business and capitalism.

They also don't believe vaccines are bad due to the science, which they have also not read, but because they represent "the man" and big pharma.

3

Trump is an Anti-vaxer. A significant chunk of the alt-right are anti-vaxers. The movement is anti-expert and anti-science. It’s roots started way back by anti-government far right John Birch Society types that were against vaccination of poor people and the UN programs that did so. They’re the ones that began whisper campaigns about secret poisons in vaccines.

4

“...Washington has two of the top 10 most under-vaccinated large cities in the U.S., Seattle and Spokane...”

Measles spreads most easily when you have a population living without basic sanitation in warm weather.

Sweep every illegal encampment. Every time. No excuses.

7

@2: really convoluted smear of climate change realism. good work.

9

Is tensor Harley Lever?

There's not that many people out there who can make everything a reason to persecute people for being poor.

11

@7 teddy is against everything, leads to some pretty twisted logic.

12

@8: So, a virus which spreads through the air won’t spread easily through densely-populated encampments, where the residents share enclosed spaces and have no immediate access to running water or proper waste disposal?

Quibbling over the exact meaning of sanitation doesn’t reduce the risk of a disease outbreak.

14

Alls I can say is, if epidemics starting in encampments is keeping you up nights, you should help pass a head tax to raise the money we need to put people in houses. Chasing people from one place to another is not a sanitation. If anything, they'll spread their cooties (if any) faster when you've got them on the run.

The way I look at it, we have record homelessness in Seattle, and no outbreaks. If you're spreading epidemic FUD over encampments, it's because of class hatred. If you're pissed off that the poorest aren't suffering enough, you're a very bad person. Call your mother.

15

Hey. Dipshit. The solution to disease outbreaks isn’t “make poor people invisible” it’s “provide sanitation and medical services.” What you want CAUSES disease outbreaks.

16

@13: From your link:

“The infected droplets may also land on a surface, where they remain active and contagious for several hours. You can contract the virus by putting your fingers in your mouth or nose or rubbing your eyes after touching the infected surface.”

So, a population without immediate access to clean, potable water for hand washing and regular bathing will have an easier or harder time in controlling this route of infection?

17

Well, at least no one's arguing that homeless encampments are a good thing.

19

@7: I know you are really insecure, but don't worry, no one was making fun of you.

Reading can be tricky, but I am very obviously only talking about people who emply scientific views on one thing, and eschew them on another. You know, the types of people the comment I was responding to was talking about.

20

@9: If you insist on erecting a straw man, at least put some effort into it. (If I really wanted to “...persecute people for being poor”, you know what I’d do? Confine them to filthy encampments, without sanitation, at the start of summer, in a city with a relatively large population of unvaccinated residents.)

@14: When an encampment is swept, the residents are offered real shelter — you know, the kind with water and soap and toilets? Very few accept the offer. If we sweep every encampment, every time, the persons who don’t want sanitary shelter will leave town.

(BTW, you lost on the head tax exactly because no one believed it would help house any homeless persons.)

@15: Putting quotation marks around your words doesn’t make them mine. See my comment about straw men, above.

21

I knew I shouldn't have read the comments. @18 overlooks the fact that not all vaccines are 100% effective, and thus herd immunity is necessary to protect even the vaccinated. Also @18 is horrible. I now return to lurking.

22

@14: “The way I look at it, we have record homelessness in Seattle, and no outbreaks.”

You wrote that exactly as if you’d actually made a real point about something other than your willingness to ignore an easily-preventable danger. (The question in the title to this post was rhetorical, you know — the author hadn’t meant for anyone to debate it.)

Don’t you have another 46,998 signatures to check?

23

@22 - amen, brother. They’re about to put a tiny house village in my neighborhood, and “residents” will still be allowed to use drugs. Will the “managers” make sure my kid doesn’t step on a needle? Guessing no. A little common sense would be nice.

24

@23: I’m sorry to read your child’s health will be needlessly exposed to preventable risks. One would think the primary role of local government would be to protect children, but I guess that’s not a realistic notion.

Imagine for a moment that we had no other concern than the health of the persons residing in the “tiny houses.” Some number of them are trying to stay clean of drugs, and they will now share a dirty ghetto with full-blown users. How long will it be before the persons who wish to stay clean succumb to their new environment?

Our “tiny house” policy won’t just endanger the health of your child; it may also harm the persons it claims most to want to help.

25

@24 - I also think placement matters. South Lake Union, where I live, with its burgeoning condo scene and businesses, should be allowed to flourish. Also, being so close to downtown, it’d be easy for drug dealers to target it. I think someplace else with more affordable land, like South Park or Fort Lawton (I think there are still some idled buildings out there) would make a heck of a lot more sense than someplace people are trying (and succeeding) to make more livable for decent, hard-workig people.

26

An epidemic? we already have two! autism an autoimmune disease. Time to wake up.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.