Arathain Kelvar wrote:
No, from the beginning I've been saying going straight to a mandate is lazy policy, and that further efforts to establish better PR campaigns is more appropriate. That a mandate should only be employed if efforts are tried, and fail, to produce results.
Which is significantly different from:
Quote:
Ok, more study is needed, but the study already done doesn't give us any reason for optimism. The empirical evidence from non-study sources gives us even less cause.
We shouldn't just go out and start forcibly injecting people but it is not out of line to start considering what such a mandate might look like and addressing the practical problems it undoubtedly would have. Then it could be compared on a cost-benefit basis to the merits of additional education or mixing the two approaches, or possibly other options that have not yet been discussed.
Which is what I said, and which you just claimed was what you've been saying all along. Now you're back to "Let's not go straight to a mandate", but I wasn't arguing for that, and as far as I can tell neither was RD. Lydiaa was, but she didn't jump in until we were already having this discussion.
See your underlined part. Efforts have already been tried and failed to produce results. We have already met that condition. Sure, we can keep looking to see if a better PR result can be obtained, but at this point there is no reason to think one will. It is already time to start looking at mandates or combinations or third options and weighing their costs, benefits, and complications - a process that does not include non-objections like "lazy policy". Whether it's "lazy" is not important; avoiding "laziness" is not the goal; prevention of infectious disease in the most cost-effective fashion is the goal.
Quote:
This is consistent with the recommendations from the study RD and you are citing (thought they don't get into mandates), and is now basically what you are saying above. So again, it appears we are finally reasonably close to on the same page.
It is not consistent with those recommendations at all; the recommendations are merely for "more study" and say nothing whatsoever about what should be done in the meantime. It cannot be taken as a recommendation for more or better education any more than as a recommendation for a mandate. If it could be taken as a recommendation of anything, it would be as a recommendation
not to do either, since education appears based on what we have learned to be ineffective or counterproductive and we have no information on the effectiveness of mandates yet.
Quote:
I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of argument, but I'd be happy to discuss the topic further if you have something else to say.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is exactly what you have been doing this entire time. You are stating two contradictory positions and claiming they are the same, and claiming that RD's study makes a recommendation it doesn't make.
So, like I said, I am mainly continuing this to see how long you'll keep going while at the same time insisting you're not going to continue.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
