Hah! Orwell was Right!

[elfs]

No, not about 1984.

Back in late October, I attended a get-together of the local Democratic "active" party membership, and got a feel for the whole local party scene. My impression was a sour one, fouled mostly by the presence of anti-vaccination, anti-flouridation, New Age apocalyptic vision crazies who were not only respected activists in the party, but former elected officials themselves.

I was reminded if that encounter while reading George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier, a book about Orwell's experiences among the lower middle class in England. Toward the end of the book, Orwell, a socialist himself, rails against the way the socialist project in England is operating, and gives his reasons for why socialism is such a failure. His section on the adherents of socialism in his country is timeless:

As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.

The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white- collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from. the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible-- the really disquieting-- prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.

And Seattle, apparently.

Comments

[taerin.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to see what he thought were the fringe behaviors when he wrote that. Obviously, no one bats an eye at fruit juice drinkers now.

[rapier.livejournal.com]

I really want some pineapple juice now. But yeah, most of those behaviors aren't so quacky now, but the point is definitely still valid. It's useful to remember that every age had its nutbars.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I suspect that Orwell's take on 'fruit juice drinker' is more along the lines of anyone who owns their own vegematic juicing machine and buys it organically, these days.

Reading Wigan Pier with little other knowledge of either the time or the man makes me wonder how he developed the reputation for insight that he did. The writing is choppy and dull, and his attacks on other writers of the time seems mean-spirited and unsupported. I suppose it's possible that in his time Shaw, Upton Sinclair and William Morris were regarded as "dull, empty windbags," and that W.H. Auden was "a kind of gutless Kipling," but I have my doubts.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

He sounds like he'd thrive as a blogger!

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

Is it opposition to immunization, per se, that incurs your wrath, or those who argue it's the 'cause of autism'?

I did a lot of research on the subject 22 years ago (my daughter turns 21 in Feb, if that's a clue), and there are IMO reasons to wonder if general immunization is a sound long-term policy. If knowing that causes you to see a tin-foil hat on my head, I shall be disappointed.

Tin-foil-hat brigades may infest any - and every - point of view; it would be sad if we allowed them to devalue those points of view in consequence.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

It was the 'mercury in vaccines causes autism' story that really got me itched. When I pointed out there hadn't been any mercury in vaccines for years, and that the Dutch had dropped it twenty years ago and seen no change in neurological dysfunction rates, he smoothly said, "Well, maybe it's something else, but it's gotta be the vaccines."

I'd be curious to know what you concluded about immunization yourself, though.

[codeamazon.livejournal.com]

I can address some of that, being a "cautious vaccinator" myself.

Here are my basic concerns:

1) It's acknowledged that CDC guidelines are not in the best interest of specific folks, but statistical bets. They have to be. In some cases the bet is for the general public good, such as immunizing boys against rubella so they won't infect pregnant women whose protection is missing or incomplete. But in some cases, like the Hepatitis schedule that sees initial vaccination before discharge from the hospital, it is ALL about the averages over individuals. By that I mean, the recommendation is specifically to protect the infants whose mothers are likely to infect them (and who are least likely to bring them back in for shots later.) My kids did not fall into that category, and carried no risk of spreading infection if I delayed the vaccination. So the next question became "am I absolutely certain there is NO risk to multiple vaccinations at birth?"

Given that question, and the fact that waiting to vaccinate held virtually no risk to my children or anyone else, I waited. It confirmed to me that I needed to consider every vaccination, and every schedule, with an eye to the reasons for the recommendation, and not just be a sheeple.

2) This was reinforced by experiencing pressure to use a certain vaccination when Stone was little. It was no longer used in Japan or Europe, but was the standard here, rolled in to two other shots. (Sorry I'm not certain any more which one it was.) I insisted on the version that had been moved to by most of the world and was told I was responsible for "extra sticks for the baby, since we'll have to do individual shots". i.e. guilt trip for being a mean Mommie. I insisted. iirc I paid the difference too.

Seven years later when Joy came along what I had done was SOP and the earlier vaccination was no longer used anywhere in the US -- it had an "unacceptably high rate of reactions." That was a powerful lesson, and it was my second such. The first was going to college and learning that my own "permanent protection" via MMR was outdated. Turns out there were (batches? years?) that had expired and I wasn't covered after all. I got vaccinated shortly before becoming pregnant and I always wondered if I hadn't been in college how would I have known my coverage didn't last as promised?!

3) In fact, for many things vaccination doesn't provide permanent nor comprehensive coverage to the same degree that infection would. For some things like Polio that would still be a "Duh!" decision. It's a terrible disease. But chickenpox used to be considered a mild infection that parents would intentionally spread to get it all over with. Unpleasant, but rarely dangerous in youngsters. (And Shingles was less common in young infections iiuc.) For myself, I was tested for antibodies and came up protected despite never having "had" it. Probably a very mild infection. I had Stone vaccinated prior to adolescence in part because the test for immunity is more expensive and unreliable.

exceeded limit for characters so...

[codeamazon.livejournal.com]

There's more, but what it all boils down to is this : vaccination is a powerful force for good in the world, and a big advance in medical care. However, like everything else the government gets involved in, there are other forces at work including pharmaceutical profit and 'common good' that may or may not be in any individual's best interest, and are not necessarily as represented. The proliferation of vaccination concerns me. I'm very enthusiastic about the killers that have been stopped, but much less so about including a wide range of lesser diseases "because we can". I believe there is a cost for everything we do, and provoking the immune system is certainly likely not to be an exception. I therefore believe in spreading the vaccinations out, focusing on the ones that really matter, and researching relative side-effect rates.

Note I believed all this BEFORE I spent the night at the hospital with Joy after her arm swelled up following a vaccination and she ultimately became seriously ill and dehydrated. They never isolated the rotovirus she supposedly had, nor did anyone else in the family ever catch it, but it was still reported that way, officially.

To give another example of why I don't entirely trust my government, have you ever seen a year where "they" suggested you not get the Flu vaccination because they'd guessed wrong when they made up the stocks months before? Some years they do guess wrong about the likely strains -- but I've never seen them NOT push vaccination. There's a lot of money riding on it you know.

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

Hey, I happen to like fruit juice drinking, sandal wearing, sex maniacs. They're some of the nicest people I know.

But yeah, that is the liberal curse. We value inclusion too much at times. After all, if someone is going to support my candidate, I'm not likely to tell them they can't stuff envelopes because they are a fluoridation kook, though I will ask if they used to be in the John Birch Society.