Hara Ra wrote:
> At 05:53 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >Hara Ra wrote:
> >> I don't believe in the history of public health that snipers were used for
> >> any purpose. It's a lot simpler to change the building code and tear down
> >> and destroy sources of disease. And I don't find many snipers at my local
> >> restaurants either.
> >Mike Lorrey:
> >HA HA! I've got you on this one!!!! During the Spanish Flu epidemic of the
> >the only community in North America that had absolutely no cases of this
> flu did
> >so by enacting a policy of posting guards at the edge of town with orders to
> >shoot anyone from the outside who refused to turn away. This was a small
> >community in Alaska.
> >Too bad I didn't make a bet with you on this....I'm too nice.
> The exception does not prove the general case.
When the exception performed to 100% it proves that it should more often be the general case. If more people had used their guns or whatever to shut down transportation of people during the epidemic, maybe only a small fraction of the 20 million people who died would have done so.
There was a similar policy recently in Africa during the Ebola epidemic. It seems that the international health workers were making the epidemic worse because they insisted on bringing infected individuals into hospitals, where they then infected normal patients who were there only for day visits. Those people went back to their villages and spread the epidemic. Finally the government stepped in and enacted a policy that anyone with symptoms was restricted to their hut, and food would be brought to their door each day. If they left they would be shot, and if the food was untouched for three days the hut would be burned down. No more epidemic.
So now I have two examples with a 100% success rate where guns and force are successful public health policies....