
Samoa arrests vaccination critic amid deadly measles crisis - reddotX
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50682881
======
the_watcher
For Americans, I recommend reading about the _actual_ free speech standard in
the US (Brandenburg v. Ohio). While "Fire in a crowded theater" appears, it's
in a concurrence, and actually used to suggest that the standard created in
the decision may even go _too far_.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

~~~
iudqnolq
The term comes from _Schenk v. United States_ , and was used to argue that it
wasn't unconstitutional to imprison a communist activist for printing and
handing out flyers arguing that people shouldn't turn themselves in if they
were to be drafted.

From a modern perspective what Schenk did appears incredibly tame, and I
believe nearly anyone using the phrase today would find the central holding of
the case absurd; I don't think any reasonable person nowadays believes asking
people not to cooperate with the government in wartime should be illegal.

 _Brandenburg v. Ohio_ partially overturned _Schenk_ , and while I agree
reading about it is worthwhile unfortunately US law is sufficiently
complicated that no one case exists that can be read to fully understand the
current law around free speech in the US. I'd instead recommend the ACLU's
position paper: [https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-aclu-
position-...](https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-aclu-position-
paper) . Note that while they make a very good case for what the law is, not
every court in the country would agree with them.

------
petermcneeley
The issue here is should individuals be responsible for the consequences of
actions of others given their speech.

I think the classical answer is No. I think it's anti enlightenment thinking
to punish people for their discourse.

[https://youtu.be/myo7uSM91bc](https://youtu.be/myo7uSM91bc)

~~~
krapp
I'm pretty sure that even in the midst of the Enlightenment, speech which
directly encouraged violence, did harm or spread fraudulent ideas which led to
death could be punished.

------
jimmcslim
One wonders when we might see the same thing happen in regards to the emerging
climate emergency.

~~~
jessaustin
[EDIT: removed some mild irony.]

Is free speech really what's holding back significant action to combat global
warming? Isn't it possible that speech restrictions could have a negative
effect on public support for such significant action?

~~~
Koremat6666
I am not sure if this sort of language and comments are encouraged on HN. Are
we advocating arrest of individuals we disagree with ? Is this the new silicon
valley mob with hi-tech pitchforks ?

~~~
dylan604
Slippery slopes. There are certain "theories" that irk me so that I'd be okay
with them being arrested (almost). Flat earth believers are the top of the
list.

~~~
mcguire
That seems excessive. Flat earthers are a tiny minority and almost completely
harmless as far as I know.

------
notimetorelax
Seems appropriate given the current emergency.

~~~
nwah1
On the other hand, in the US freedom of speech would likely protect this
person. And there are strong arguments in favor of absolutist versions of
freedom of speech.

~~~
marmada
I find it interesting how people on HN are decidedly non-Utilitarian. I don't
know, but for some reason I expected software engineers to be utilitarian. Not
exactly sure why

~~~
Jedd
Not everyone, in any given community, are located at the same place on the
rationality spectrum.

Not everyone, in the HN community, is a software engineer.

~~~
mcguire
Is Utilitarianism associated with rationality?

(Quick reference to "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" before I forget the
name again.)

------
davidw
This is relevant to social media:
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/07/fireho...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/07/firehosing-
the-systemic-strategy-that-anti-vaxxers-are-using-to-spread-misinformation)

A local legislator backed some vaccination legislation here in Oregon, and she
cannot post _anything_ to social media without a horde of people from that
crazy death cult popping up to rant and screech.

~~~
Koremat6666
It is in appropriate to call other individuals "death cult" or crazy. This
does not lead to a constructive discussion on HN and leads to needless
flamewars.

~~~
fastball
Their behavior is leading directly to more deaths.

How is that not crazy / death cult?

~~~
SamReidHughes
Actually it leads indirectly. But there's "vaccines cause autism" people and
then there's "a vaccine killed my first baby and I don't want to give that
vaccine to my second baby" people. Not to mention the "holy cow the USA has an
intense vaccination schedule compared to other countries'" people.

The "beep boop vaccinate everybody" attitude is popular because it makes
people feel smarter and morally superior to others.

~~~
fastball
How many people are there where a vaccine actually killed their baby?

------
shrubble
What is the needed percentage of people that need to be vaccinated, for there
to be herd immunity? And, what is the efficacy of the vaccine for Samoans?

That is if you need 80% immunized for herd immunity and 95% of the immunized
group develop antibodies, then you need more than 80% to be immunized.

------
throwawaysea
These arrests are anti-free-speech and therefore anti-freedom. This is a
classic short-sighted decision that opens the door for widening definitions of
crises, emergencies, etc. to justify any action or shut down opposing views.

While these arrests have a clear and problematic free speech issue, I also
think societies should be careful to preserve bodily autonomy in instances
like this. People have a right to decide what goes or doesn't go in their own
or their children's bodies. They get to decide what risks they are willing to
take or not willing to take. Bodily autonomy is also an important part of the
argument to preserve a woman's right to choose (abortion rights).

Lastly - are people really factually wrong to distrust vaccines or the medical
world in general? Note that this article mentions how nurses administered
vaccines incorrectly previously (by mixing the vaccine with muscle relaxants),
which is what set off public suspicion in the first place. That's the type of
unexpected risk vector that spooks people and causes them to see risk even in
highly-safe treatments, since some dangerous flaw can surprise patients out of
nowhere. The medical world is full of stories of malpractice, orthogonal to
the safety/efficacy of individual medicines. So it is totally understandable
for people to sound the alarm and warn others.

I also want to point out that there are various legitimate stories or issues
for people to view vaccines with speculation/distrust:

1\. Experimental vaccines administered in unsanctioned trials (2018:
[https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/recipients-of-
exp...](https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/recipients-of-experimental-
herpes-vaccine-file-lawsuit-29953))

2\. WHO and FDA approve controversial vaccine despite serious safety issues,
and then eventually reverse approval (2019:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/7190377...](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-
vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions))

3\. Note that even tenured vaccines _do_ have a non-zero risk rate. See safety
data at [https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr-
vaccine.html](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr-vaccine.html) for
the MMR vaccine specifically.

Talking about those issues openly and with precision (characterizing
risks/tradeoffs transparently) is an important part of building public trust,
getting things right, holding various parties accountable, and ultimately
avoiding epidemics.

------
rahuldottech
> Samoa declared a state of emergency, and made vaccinations compulsory.

As long as reasonable exceptions are made for children who can't get
vaccinated due to medical conditions, and it's ensured that they get vaccines
from reputed sources, I see nothing wrong with this.

------
dyingkneepad
As someone who has a kid who is still too young to get certain vaccines
(including Measles), I am terrified of going to crowded places.

Seriously, unvaccinated people represent a threat to my son. This is not like
being a flat-earther where you spread misinformation but you don't really harm
people in a meaningful way. By spreading anti-vaxx information you are
indirectly killing babies, children and adults. It is in the interest of
society to stop you from doing harm.

------
someonehere
I don’t know if anyone read the details, but the reason there’s concern is two
babies died from receiving measles vaccines in 2018:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50625680](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
asia-50625680)

“Samoa's low vaccination rates are in part due to the deaths in 2018 of two
children given a wrongly-mixed vaccine.”

I think most rational people who are questioning the safety of vaccines are
not the Jenny McCarthy autism fearists, it’s parents who are worried about
vaccine safety from situations like this where two babies died. If it was your
baby and you were doing the right thing by vaccinating and your baby died, how
would you feel about vaccines after that? What if that baby that died was a
relative? Your neighbor next door? Your coworkers baby? You might question the
safety of vaccines after that.

The parents are already feeling bad about putting their trust in
pharmaceutical companies, are they nuts to stay away from vaccines now?

I think many people take the side of “anti-vaxxers are the worst people in the
world!” for granted because they’ve never had a relative or someone close to
them die from a vaccine.

If vaccines are supposed to be safe, then why did this happen? Mistakes
happen, but would you gamble that risk after having someone close to you dying
from a vaccination?

~~~
awillen
Those children didn't die from a vaccine, and you're fundamentally wrong to
imply that they did. They died because of human error administering a vaccine.
If you put some vaccine into a bullet and then shoot someone in the face with
it, they died because they got shot in the face, not because vaccines are
dangerous.

Of course things can go wrong in medicine, but that's not related to vaccines.
If this is the kind of concern you have, you should never allow any doctor to
put a needle in you, because it might be contaminated with something. You also
shouldn't take any medications prescribed by a doctor because the pharmacist
might mix them up with something. You certainly shouldn't ever have surgery,
because the surgeon might misread the chart and perform the wrong procedure.
Of course errors are possible in medicine, but that doesn't mean that
needles/medications/surgery are inherently dangerous, it just means that human
error happens. If you choose to never use healthcare for that reason, then
you're wildly irrational (which is fine, just don't harm children because of
your wild irrationality).

~~~
electriclove
I hear what you are saying in the first paragraph. But it doesn't logically
support what you state in your second paragraph. I can question the
medications that I am prescribed and choose to take them or not. I can decide
to get the surgery or I can decide not to or I can get another opinion. It
doesnt have to be an all or nothing decision.

Edited to add: The issue in this story is that someone is spreading false
information and people are acting on it and people are dying. Truly sad.

