Shrink-wrapped Babies Pay for Over Caution in the Long Run

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Peanuts.

When I was a kid there was no one allergic to peanuts.  Peanut butter was a common food that was everywhere, and peanut free food processing probably was next to impossible.  Babies were often fed "tastes" of peanut butter regularly.

Whoever dreamed up the idea that infants should not be exposed to certain foods should be held up as an example of bad science.

[LexusInfernus 908]

12 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Peanuts.

When I was a kid there was no one allergic to peanuts.  Peanut butter was a common food that was everywhere, and peanut free food processing probably was next to impossible.  Babies were often fed "tastes" of peanut butter regularly.

Whoever dreamed up the idea that infants should not be exposed to certain foods should be held up as an example of bad science.

I don't think anyone actually intentionally came up with the idea to shelter infants from certain types of food. If I look back at my own youth, I think it was pretty peanut free, without my parents deliberately withholding food with peanuts from me. I just didn't really like the taste of peanuts until I was a lot older, so I myself avoided eating things like peanut butter or peanut sauce or just anything that tasted like peanuts in general.  

[Sabretooth78 808]

I had never heard of an allergy to peanuts I don't think until about 15 years ago.

As for preference, they seem to be a pretty divisive food.  I love them, yet my father despises them.  I notice you don't usually run into too many people who are indifferent to them.

[metarvo 711]

Well, I must preface this by saying that I'm not allergic to anything that I know of, whether it's food or pollen.  I love peanuts and most every other nut, by the way, and have eaten them as long as I can remember, likely starting with peanut and peanut butter M&M's as a kid.  They're good!

As far as not exposing kids to certain foods go, it's pretty much a textbook example of paranoia which is one of the bigger societal problems we have today IMHO.  Just look at the proliferation of all of these antibacterial soaps and sanitizers, not to mention the would-be addiction to antibiotics, even if this is by prescription rather than by choice.  I recognize that some of these things have their place, but it seems like everyone around me gets sicker the more they use them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Let's all feel sorry for the children who are born without an immune system and have to live their usually short lives in some kind of sterile bubble.  Our addiction to antiseptics and overuse of antibiotics is very likely at the root of this.  If people don't get exposed to pathogens of one sort or another, they can not develop the necessary antibodies to resist a massive invasion of them.  One of my grandmothers always said "You have to eat a peck of dirt before you die".  I don't think this is a formula for immortality.

[LexusInfernus 908]

55 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Let's all feel sorry for the children who are born without an immune system and have to live their usually short lives in some kind of sterile bubble.  Our addiction to antiseptics and overuse of antibiotics is very likely at the root of this.  If people don't get exposed to pathogens of one sort or another, they can not develop the necessary antibodies to resist a massive invasion of them.  One of my grandmothers always said "You have to eat a peck of dirt before you die".  I don't think this is a formula for immortality.

People were born with defective immune systems long before we ever invented antiseptics or anti biotics. There are also plenty of diseases that target and weaken or even destroy their victims immune system (Aids for example). 

Antibiotics are things that kill particular bacteria that can cause an infection or illness. The overuse or improper use of antibiotics results in bacteria becoming resistant to the antibiotics, it does not affect a persons immune system. The problem with the overuse of antiseptics is that they kill everything and can damage the skin. The problem is that if you use to much soap, you get a sterilized surface, which makes it easier for bacteria to come back. While in a normal situation, you have plenty of bacteria living on your skin which makes it harder for new strands of bacteria to find a place on your skin, if its just been sterilized, whatever comes first has plenty of space to start up. Also, your skin is your first line of defense against infections, so damaging it by using to many antiseptics on it is a bad idea. 

As for allergies, including food allergies like peanut allergies, the problem is that your immune system works fine, but misidentifies peanuts as pathogens. An allergic reaction is essentially your immune system going into overdrive mode to combat what it thinks is a deadly infection. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

In fact the bacteria we live with create a balance.  Some are beneficial and generate antibodies that keep the others in check.  If we go around sterilizing everything we touch, I'd suggest avoiding contact with ordinary garden soil which often contains streptococcus A, which can turn into 'flesh eating disease' if not countered by your immune system, which it usually is. 

And if you are really in a sterile state, avoid petting the cat.  Cats are host to some of the most violent clostridium strains.  I got a very serious infection from a cat bite and nearly lost my arm.  IV antibiotics for about 10 days.  Turned out the cat had FIS, so after the quarantine period we had to put him down, but the infection came from the bacteria in his mouth.

One of the general science experiments I remember from school is culturing some soil on a Petrie dish with a general culture medium.  Result, several colonies.  None of them very beneficial.

[AkemiAzula 280]

In Rome military service was compulsory. Methinks a return to the ways of the good old Empire might solve the problem of these silly parents.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Meh; I'm not very big on "serving the state".  If anything, my belief is that this mis-organization of priorities has its roots in our society's divorce from the times when your survival of the day from various natural causes was not a sure thing.  I'm not advocating a return to those days, but something needs to be done to make people a little less fat and comfortable; to "wake them up" so-to-speak.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The 'golden age' has passed and we've now become decadent.  This is the normal cycle for societies.

[Delta 88 262]

This falls under the same category as those people who are nuts about car safety. The thing about all these airbags, seat belts, collision-aversion systems, automatic/emergency braking systems, etc. is that it does unfortunately allow all the stupid people who cause these accidents to live on, and pass their pathetic defective genes down. I understand that stuff is here to stay, I've accepted that. It's just very, very sad to watch unfold. These people want everyone to live totally sterile lives where nothing associated with a negative emotion can ever occur, and thus today's kids won't know how to handle bad stuff when it does inevitably happen to them. It's the same delusional thinking from the folks who think we're headed for some technological utopia, always getting over-excited about the next gizmo, particularly if it promotes safety and aligns with their politically correct views. Fortunately, they're the same people who will be the first to go away once the whole system collapses.

[LexusInfernus 908]

^That makes no sense. All those car safety features also protect the perfectly capable drivers and passengers who just had the bad luck of getting involved in a car accident due to someone else. Not to mention the fact that car accidents usually aren't caused by anyones 'defect' genes. If you are gonna argue that society should follow some social darwinist approach/eugenics approach, at least make sure that you are filtering on actual genetic flaws. 

[Delta 88 262]

57 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

^That makes no sense. All those car safety features also protect the perfectly capable drivers and passengers who just had the bad luck of getting involved in a car accident due to someone else. Not to mention the fact that car accidents usually aren't caused by anyones 'defect' genes. If you are gonna argue that society should follow some social darwinist approach/eugenics approach, at least make sure that you are filtering on actual genetic flaws. 

Many car accidents are caused by stupid people with stupid genes. As the old saying goes, "You can't fix stupid". No amount of traffic school, citations, or berating from other drivers, or horrible car crashes will fix the unperceivable amount of stupid that lies within bad drivers' brains. Stupidity, even according to Darwin theory, does exist within genetics. It's also a combination of selfishness, self-centrism, ignorance and ego that contribute to those driving habits. Yes, people who would be considered capable drivers also get killed/maimed/injured, but I think nature should be allowed to weed out the stupid, dead-end genes even if it costs a few perfectly OK ones. You can probably already tell that I'm not the "but if it saves even just one life" politically-correct type. I suppose I'd like to think that if enough stupid genes were eliminated from the gene pool, it would prevent further long-term costs of good genes. But, wishful thinking. And it goes beyond car safety - childproof products, helmets, shoulder/knee pads, even the self-esteem movement....Watch the movie Idiocracy for a good idea of what I'm getting at, and it's pretty funny too.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"There is no question that stupidity is incurable.  Higher education positively reinforces it."

I don't remember who said that originally, but I have a feeling it was Albert Einstein.

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 26-3-2016 at 1:08 AM, Delta 88 said:

Many car accidents are caused by stupid people with stupid genes. As the old saying goes, "You can't fix stupid". No amount of traffic school, citations, or berating from other drivers, or horrible car crashes will fix the unperceivable amount of stupid that lies within bad drivers' brains. Stupidity, even according to Darwin theory, does exist within genetics. It's also a combination of selfishness, self-centrism, ignorance and ego that contribute to those driving habits. Yes, people who would be considered capable drivers also get killed/maimed/injured, but I think nature should be allowed to weed out the stupid, dead-end genes even if it costs a few perfectly OK ones. You can probably already tell that I'm not the "but if it saves even just one life" politically-correct type. I suppose I'd like to think that if enough stupid genes were eliminated from the gene pool, it would prevent further long-term costs of good genes. But, wishful thinking. And it goes beyond car safety - childproof products, helmets, shoulder/knee pads, even the self-esteem movement....Watch the movie Idiocracy for a good idea of what I'm getting at, and it's pretty funny too.

Car accidents are caused by lots of things, stupidity is just one of many factors that get involved in it. Mechanical failure, bad weather conditions or just plain old bad luck are just as much responsible for car accidents. And while the driver may be stupid, he could be carrying passengers that aren't, or he may involve another car driven by a responsible driver in the accident. Those car safety measures prevent one idiot from killing dozens of non idiots. So we are not talking about the 'but if it saves even just one life politically correct' argument, we are talking about it saving hundreds of thousands of lives annually. 

Also, who the hell are you to judge whether people who cause car accidents are genetically wired to be idiots? Aside from the fact that defining what 'idiocy' is, is rather difficult, people aren't defined by one single trait. Being 'stupid' as you call it does not mean you possess no worth, it does not mean you have no value to both society and the human race as a whole. Yeah, you might carry a few bad genes, you probably also carry a lot more good ones. 

 Finally, people who are advocating Social Darwinism should be very careful, lest someone else deems their genes unworthy for the genetic future of the human race and puts them on the short list of groups of people that should be prevented from reproducing one way or the other. I bet they wouldn't like it very much if someone who hardly knew them judged their genetic worthiness on their ability to perform some random skill, and then decided that they aren't worth their life.  

[Delta 88 262]

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Car accidents are caused by lots of things, stupidity is just one of many factors that get involved in it. Mechanical failure, bad weather conditions or just plain old bad luck are just as much responsible for car accidents. And while the driver may be stupid, he could be carrying passengers that aren't, or he may involve another car driven by a responsible driver in the accident. Those car safety measures prevent one idiot from killing dozens of non idiots. So we are not talking about the 'but if it saves even just one life politically correct' argument, we are talking about it saving hundreds of thousands of lives annually. 

Also, who the hell are you to judge whether people who cause car accidents are genetically wired to be idiots? Aside from the fact that defining what 'idiocy' is, is rather difficult, people aren't defined by one single trait. Being 'stupid' as you call it does not mean you possess no worth, it does not mean you have no value to both society and the human race as a whole. Yeah, you might carry a few bad genes, you probably also carry a lot more good ones. 

 Finally, people who are advocating Social Darwinism should be very careful, lest someone else deems their genes unworthy for the genetic future of the human race and puts them on the short list of groups of people that should be prevented from reproducing one way or the other. I bet they wouldn't like it very much if someone who hardly knew them judged their genetic worthiness on their ability to perform some random skill, and then decided that they aren't worth their life.  

By in large, stupidity is the primary cause of most traffic accidents. Those other causes you mentioned are very minor by comparison, and each one of them also involves substantial amounts of stupidity on someone's part. And I know the safety measures save thousands upon thousands of lives each year, I was using the "but if it saves just one life" as an example of the mentality of these people that I disagree with. That's the way they tend to think, they will get behind anything so long as they feel morally obligated to do so (I've literally heard the "if it saves just one life" phrase used dozens of times by these people). The point I'm getting across that they don't get is that death, sadness, pain, etc. are all okay. It's okay, in fact it's necessary in this world, that these feelings exist and that we experience them. It helps make you a mentally stronger population, capable of handling the negative aspects of reality. The safety freaks want everyone to live completely sterile lives where nothing bad ever happens, where everyone is extremely thin-skinned and incapable of handling reality when it hits. I understand the want to protect the lives of those you care about deeply, but this safety obsession goes off the cliff with it. 

 

And it doesn't take a team of professional investigators to figure out that there are stupid people. I wouldn't say that their "purpose" is to be stupid, but they are incredibly stupid nonetheless. You're giving the human race, in general, too much credit. Your argument that the dumb driver could be carrying non-dumb passengers goes both ways as well - we may not know that they are stupid, but we also don't know that they aren't stupid either. Often, especially here in America - it's the people who shouldn't be reproducing and passing their genes down, who do it the most. I know people don't like to hear this, but I think we're saving too many lives. It results in a drain on society. I don't think every human is special, I don't think every child is special, nor do I believe that "life is sacred" BS. I'm not saying that stupid people are necessarily bad people and therefore should die for it, but some people should be allowed to die. I know it's not politically correct and clashes with the moral standards set by many folk out there, and I'm sure they like to feel superior to others for imposing those morals, but I believe that danger is a necessary component of everyday life. It builds character. The more you go through, the more you experience (not like PTSD but you know what I mean) and eventually overcome, you become a stronger, wiser individual. I see that as beneficial to society. The safety obsession is one of the parts of modern society where I believe society is completely backwards right now.

[LexusInfernus 908]

7 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

By in large, stupidity is the primary cause of most traffic accidents.

Thats an opinion pretending to be a claim. As far as I can tell there is nothing to backs that up. 

7 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

The point I'm getting across that they don't get is that death, sadness, pain, etc. are all okay. It's okay, in fact it's necessary in this world, that these feelings exist and that we experience them. It helps make you a mentally stronger population, capable of handling the negative aspects of reality. The safety freaks want everyone to live completely sterile lives where nothing bad ever happens, where everyone is extremely thin-skinned and incapable of handling reality when it hits. I understand the want to protect the lives of those you care about deeply, but this safety obsession goes off the cliff with it. 

That argument rest on the false assumption that the 'safety freaks' have managed to mitigate every type of risk out there, making life a completely safe experience. The fact is that life, while not exactly unsafe, is far from completely safe. Death, sadness, pain, etc are still very much part of the human experience. That said, its also completely logical that people want to contain the risks as much as possible. Accepting that bad stuff can happen to you doesn't mean you should therefor invite it to happen. Finally, to impose the bad stuff on people to make some incredibly stupid point about how tough times supposedly help people build character and prepare them for 'reality' is all kinds of messed up. 

7 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

And it doesn't take a team of professional investigators to figure out that there are stupid people. I wouldn't say that their "purpose" is to be stupid, but they are incredibly stupid nonetheless. You're giving the human race, in general, too much credit. Your argument that the dumb driver could be carrying non-dumb passengers goes both ways as well - we may not know that they are stupid, but we also don't know that they aren't stupid either. Often, especially here in America - it's the people who shouldn't be reproducing and passing their genes down, who do it the most. I know people don't like to hear this, but I think we're saving too many lives. It results in a drain on society. I don't think every human is special, I don't think every child is special, nor do I believe that "life is sacred" BS. I'm not saying that stupid people are necessarily bad people and therefore should die for it, but some people should be allowed to die. I know it's not politically correct and clashes with the moral standards set by many folk out there, and I'm sure they like to feel superior to others for imposing those morals, but I believe that danger is a necessary component of everyday life. It builds character. The more you go through, the more you experience (not like PTSD but you know what I mean) and eventually overcome, you become a stronger, wiser individual. I see that as beneficial to society. The safety obsession is one of the parts of modern society where I believe society is completely backwards right now.

So the assumption should be that the passengers in the car of stupid drivers are also stupid people? Its like you said, you don't know those people, and in most cases you also don't know the driver. Perhaps you should refrain from judging those you don't know, rather than just assume that they are stupid. And then the drain on society argument? Are you serious? How do you define a drain on society? And as with advocating Social Darwinism, those that argue that others are a drain on society should be careful that the argument isn't turned against themselves. After all, its not hard for anyone to argue that anyone else is a drain on society. 

And the only thing danger leads to in every day life is that people take actions to mitigate said danger by creating safety measures that prevent or contain the danger. And in itself, danger doesn't build character. Driving a motorcycle without a helmet is dangerous, but if you survive, you don't turn out stronger or wiser. Wrestling bears is dangerous, and if you survive that you also don't come out stronger or wiser. Working with electricity is dangerous, but electricians aren't especially wise or strong. If you are simply gonna invite danger, live close to danger because you are convinced that somehow makes you stronger and better, well, then perhaps you should be especially careful that no one ever uses that drain on society argument against you and puts you on some Social Darwinist short list of useless individuals. Because that just sounds incredibly dumb and stupid. Smart people, wise people, they recognize danger, and they avoid or contain the danger as much as they can. They don't run away, but they don't expose themselves to pointless risks just to show off how tough they are either. 

[Delta 88 262]

49 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

Thats an opinion pretending to be a claim. As far as I can tell there is nothing to backs that up. 

Ehh....watch those dashcam videos of car accidents on YouTube. It might not be measurable, but the stupidity is pretty clear in those videos.

49 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

That argument rest on the false assumption that the 'safety freaks' have managed to mitigate every type of risk out there, making life a completely safe experience. The fact is that life, while not exactly unsafe, is far from completely safe. Death, sadness, pain, etc are still very much part of the human experience. That said, its also completely logical that people want to contain the risks as much as possible. Accepting that bad stuff can happen to you doesn't mean you should therefor invite it to happen. Finally, to impose the bad stuff on people to make some incredibly stupid point about how tough times supposedly help people build character and prepare them for 'reality' is all kinds of messed up. 

I didn't say the safety freaks had mitigated all risks yet (and thank god for that), but they certainly would if they could. I'm also not inviting disaster, nor wishing/imposing it on anyone specifically. But it can, and often does help build character. Yeah, some people don't make it through - they die. And that is perfectly okay.

(and excuse the troublesome formatting in this post, ST is being uncooperative with quoting for me)

Quote

So the assumption should be that the passengers in the car of stupid drivers are also stupid people? Its like you said, you don't know those people, and in most cases you also don't know the driver. Perhaps you should refrain from judging those you don't know, rather than just assume that they are stupid. And then the drain on society argument? Are you serious? How do you define a drain on society? And as with advocating Social Darwinism, those that argue that others are a drain on society should be careful that the argument isn't turned against themselves. After all, its not hard for anyone to argue that anyone else is a drain on society.

Again, I'm not assuming the worst of all people. But if they demonstrate to me that they are stupid via their poor driving habits, then I can safely make that judgment. They would have every right to make the same of me if I demonstrated the same stupid behavior while driving. And I don't mean the occasional mistake, which everyone makes. I mean consistent, self-centered, ignorant, maniacal driving. And the drain on society is keeping all the stupid people alive, and not letting them be killed by their own stupid actions. They then go on to reproduce, passing those genes down and spreading them like wildfire. God help us if their offspring displays the same stupid habits, and eventually they reproduce as well, and it just goes on and on...

And the only thing danger leads to in every day life is that people take actions to mitigate said danger by creating safety measures that prevent or contain the danger. And in itself, danger doesn't build character. Driving a motorcycle without a helmet is dangerous, but if you survive, you don't turn out stronger or wiser. Wrestling bears is dangerous, and if you survive that you also don't come out stronger or wiser. Working with electricity is dangerous, but electricians aren't especially wise or strong. If you are simply gonna invite danger, live close to danger because you are convinced that somehow makes you stronger and better, well, then perhaps you should be especially careful that no one ever uses that drain on society argument against you and puts you on some Social Darwinist short list of useless individuals. Because that just sounds incredibly dumb and stupid. Smart people, wise people, they recognize danger, and they avoid or contain the danger as much as they can. They don't run away, but they don't expose themselves to pointless risks just to show off how tough they are either.

Quote

 

No, those situations you described, I would categorize as 'stupid'. And electricians do learn what things NOT to do in order to save their own lives. In this case, any potential stupidity is mitigated, rather than just deathproofing everything. And what kind of life would it be, to be living in constant fear all the time? Learn how to handle it! You can't go through life every day worried about this, worried about that. I mean yes, safety freaks do this, and it's pathetic. Exercise caution during certain scenarios, sure, don't do blatantly stupid things. But this Volvo-state-of-mind thing that's going around? I would rather go about my life every day, not worrying about everything and just living life, and die from an accident - rather than live scared, running away from every possible life risk and trying to contain them. It just takes the life out of life. That's no way to live. They might outlive me, but for what?

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 hour ago, Delta 88 said:

Ehh....watch those dashcam videos of car accidents on YouTube. It might not be measurable, but the stupidity is pretty clear in those videos.

Dashcam videos only show a fraction of all traffic accidents. On top of that, they usually show the viewpoint of witnesses, not what happened with the driver causing him or her losing control over their vehicle. So its hardly a representative source on which you can base such a blanket statement like "By in large, stupidity is the primary cause of most traffic accidents." Finally, those dashcam videos do prove that one driver losing control over their vehicle can cause a danger to dozens of other drivers and passengers in cars that are driving normally. Those safety measures may prevent in some cases one idiot from dying, but they also save dozens of others from dying as well. So your argument for the reduction of safety features in cars in order to weed out bad drivers would come at the loss of life of hundreds of thousands perfectly good drivers. 

And so we come at the core problem of eugenics and Social Darwinism. In their efforts to weed out one negative trait (again, of which the links to genetics is extremely limited and weak at best) their actions will do much greater harm to positive traits as well. If people really have doubts about the utter failure of eugenics as an actual social policy, we only need to look at dog breeding, where we have essentially been applying eugenics for ages. Those pure bred dogs? The ones that have a number of seemingly positive traits bred into them? Yeah well they are also the most unhealthy and weak dogs with crippling genetic defects because in our efforts to bring out a few good traits, we also brought out way more bad traits. Not something we should apply to humans. Any efforts to reduce our genetic variety by weeding out selective traits can have devastating long term consequences. 

1 hour ago, Delta 88 said:

I didn't say the safety freaks had mitigated all risks yet (and thank god for that), but they certainly would if they could. I'm also not inviting disaster, nor wishing/imposing it on anyone specifically. But it can, and often does help build character. Yeah, some people don't make it through - they die. And that is perfectly okay.

Human history is one of us constantly trying to mitigate, reduce and contain risks. Its what has driven so much of our social and technological progress. Why put a halt to that process at some arbitrary point just for the completely unproven and unfounded idea that if we reduce to much of certain types of risk, it will weaken something as vague and undefined as 'our character'. Character gets build regardless of whether thousands of people more die in traffic accidents, adversity will come to us regardless of how many safety features we build into our cars. The complete elimination of all risk is impossible anyways. 

1 hour ago, Delta 88 said:

Again, I'm not assuming the worst of all people. But if they demonstrate to me that they are stupid via their poor driving habits, then I can safely make that judgment. They would have every right to make the same of me if I demonstrated the same stupid behavior while driving. And I don't mean the occasional mistake, which everyone makes. I mean consistent, self-centered, ignorant, maniacal driving. And the drain on society is keeping all the stupid people alive, and not letting them be killed by their own stupid actions. They then go on to reproduce, passing those genes down and spreading them like wildfire. God help us if their offspring displays the same stupid habits, and eventually they reproduce as well, and it just goes on and on. 

You make a judgement based only on peoples performance of one certain type of skill, a skill that is only vaguely related to more general personality types, and those personality types are then only vaguely related to peoples genes. You don't know those people, you don't know what else they can do, you don't know in what other ways they may contribute in a positive manner to society.

For that matter, you also can't accurately judge if they are a drain on society. You'd need to define when someone is a drain first. It typically means that someone costs more than they contribute, but how do you calculate that? In money? You could, but in such cases you would completely miss out on the positive influence someone can have through non paid work. Besides, some of the worst drivers I know drive in pretty fancy cars, so clearly they have money and pay their taxes. What you seem to do is call someone a drain not based on the way they behave, but rather on what you presume their genetic make up seems to be. You see someone drive like a maniac, you take that as evidence that their genetic make up must be terrible and that their mere existence is a drain because they carry and perpetuate what you assume are horrible genes, and therefor threaten the genetic health of the human race. Yeah...that is some pretty shoddy reasoning, based almost completely on prejudices, baseless assumptions and a terribly flawed understanding of genetics.

Quote

No, those situations you described, I would categorize as 'stupid'. And electricians do learn what things NOT to do in order to save their own lives. In this case, any potential stupidity is mitigated, rather than just deathproofing everything. And what kind of life would it be, to be living in constant fear all the time? Learn how to handle it! You can't go through life every day worried about this, worried about that. I mean yes, safety freaks do this, and it's pathetic. Exercise caution during certain scenarios, sure, don't do blatantly stupid things. But this Volvo-state-of-mind thing that's going around? I would rather go about my life every day, not worrying about everything and just living life, and die from an accident - rather than live scared, running away from every possible life risk and trying to contain them. It just takes the life out of life. That's no way to live. They might outlive me, but for what?

Frankly I don't know anyone who is afraid all the time of everything. At the same time, everyone I know is also pretty happy with such simple safety features like airbags, seat belts and what not build into their cars. Not because they are constantly afraid when they get into a car, not because they think it means they don't have to exercise caution when they are driving, but simply because they know accidents can happen to everyone, and should they happen to them, its nice if they have a better chance of surviving the accident. Honestly I think those safety freaks you describe, who worry about everything, have something like General Anxiety Disorder. Which isn't so much as pathetic as it is an actual mental health problem for which they need treatment. Then again, not that many have something like General Anxiety Disorder.  

[Sabretooth78 808]

@Delta 88

Do you follow Bill Burr's standup?  He's not George Carlin (nobody is, unfortunately and yet thankfully) but he's definitely filled some of the void.

Spoiler

 

We Need a Plague

I...I have been on the road for the last five months.  I don't know, man.  I'm just really thinking the worst of people.  I really am.  You should see some of the animals - some of the animals i see.  Like, I was in the airport the other day, right?  I'm sitting there waiting for my flight to take my life and watching this - watching this lady.  She's eating Egg McMuffins, like, plural, and just threw, like, three of them right down her throat like a pelican.  Just, like, right down her gullet.  And when she was done, she wiped her face with the bag. Ahh, with the bag, not even like a gentleman.  Like, "Oh, I'll just do the corners," and, "ahhhh."  Then she just kind of straight-razor shaved.  Just an absolute animal.  I saw this other dude.  He was so out of shape, he was, like, trying to itch his back, and he couldn't reach it, so he walked up to a support pole that was holding up an entire floor of the airport and just walks up, and he just starts, like, rubbing up against it like a grizzly bear.  Just sitting there.  Just a [bleep] animal.

Dude, i am so pro-swine flu, it's, like, ridiculous.  I want it.  We need a plague.  I'm telling you, we need a plague.  It's got to happen, and don't be afraid.  It's only gonna - it's only gonna kill the weak, you know?  Seriously, put on a sweater.  Take some vitamins.  You're gonna be fine.  Just...  You've got to let mother nature do her thing, man.  She keeps trying to help us out, and we won't let her do it.  Keeps trying to thin the herd, and every single time, we're like, "Oh, go down and get your vaccination."  Why?  Why?  So Egg McMuffin lady can breed with the back fat guy, you know?  It's got to happen.  You've got to let her do it.  Seriously, plague, it's like nature's forest fire, you know?  Just let it burn out all the dead wood.

No, i swear to god.  We're the only - we're the only species that saves the weak.  We really are.  Lions don't do that [bleep], you know?  A lion gets a little thorn in his paw, and everybody's, "Slow down, let's have an intervention.  How are you feeling?  Is everything all right?  Do you need some penicillin?" and it's like, "[bleep] him."  That's why there's no traffic on the Serengeti.  There's not a bunch of lions just standing there in gridlock like, "What the [bleep] is going on up there?  Dude, go.  Just [bleep] go."  An hour later, you get up there.  There's some hyena licking his balls.  Like, "Oh, that was the big holdup, right?  Like you never saw that before.  Oh, by all means, slow down and look at it."

I've seen some real doozies coming home from work yesterday and then going in today.  Probably a little more than average, and mind you I don't have much of a commute - it's about 10 miles and because I go off-peak only takes 15-20 minutes tops.  I still say risk compensation (which is sort of an evolutionary stupidity), but I will not disagree that overt stupidity plays a role.

A good example from yesterday:  Do you enter an intersection when the light is turning red (i.e. yellow) and you can't make it across to the other side?  Any modestly good driver would say no.  So what if you're behind a car carrier - or whatever you call those things; for simplicity let's just say truck, or lorry for you folks across the pond - and he enters the intersection and can't fit?  Dumb move on his part, but as any defensive driving course will tell you, there's nothing you can do about the other guy and basically always assume he's going to do the dumbest thing possible in any given situation.  So you now have a choice.  Do you:

1. Stop behind the white 18" (0.45 m) wide thermoplastic tape line on the pavement that has been generously provided for your use ahead of the light, or
2. Pull up behind the truck, sitting square in the middle of the intersection and block traffic?

Note that there is a bigger intersection up ahead about a thousand feet (300 m) that is also displaying a red indication, and by virtue of its higher volume has more phases, i.e. more red time and as such the queue up ahead of you can't move either.  Now I admit that's a tough call, and you're a very important guy who has places to be, but let's make it easier.  Suppose you and the truck are in the rightmost lane of a 5-lane arterial (2 opposing, 1 center turn, and 2 in your direction).  You goof up (everybody does it) and find yourself sitting under a red light in the middle of the intersection.  The left lane on your side is plenty free enough to accommodate your ugly boxy heap of worthless scrap metal on wheels.  You presumably don't need to turn right up ahead, because there is nowhere to turn into in the short block ahead and there's no point in turning right at the next intersection - assuming you know where you're going (though I'm not sure many people do; another topic for another day), because you could have just turned right at the intersection you're presently blocking as it cuts off the corner and effectively allows you to neatly bypass two signals.  Do you then:

1. Say to yourself "oops, my bad" and move over into the other lane unopposed (as you are in the only vehicle at the intersection now able to move; not to mention if you really had to be in the right lane, that truck will be very easy to overtake), or
2. Make a total a** of yourself by steadfastly holding your position despite the noises and looks emanating from your fellow motorists (after all you are more important than they are)

You could say yeah, it's one of these simple, perhaps even petty situations that don't amount to anything in the scheme of things.  Or do they?  It's the simple situations where you can see if people would have any prayer of passing the complex ones.  "It's the little things that matter."

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Drifting a little off topic here, are we not?  What has stupid drivers to do with diet?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Don't know.  We'd have to study how many of the stupid people trips generated begin and end at Tim Horton's and other various fast food chains.

[krbe 193]

The irony being of course, that it is likely that a 'safety feature' of some sort prevented the death of @Delta 88 and his ancestors, perhaps on multiple occasions, allowing him to grow, up learn how to read and write, operate a computer and tell us how unfortunate it is that people just aren't dying any longer.

[Sabretooth78 808]

If you believe in alternate universes, then there is an infinite spectrum of ones out there where that did indeed happen - each with infinitely different propagations of subsequent events, including one just like ours where no change was realized to the "present" date.

But that's nothing for anybody to know and subject to the speculation inherent to all other forms of alternate history.  And he wouldn't care, either, because if you weren't born then you would have had no way to know you weren't born (based on our current understanding of sentience, anyway).

How's that for being entirely off-topic while sticking to the topic? 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I read an interesting/scary statistic which showed that pedestrian deaths have increased since the mandate of automobile safety features like seat belts. Combined with increased amounts of traffic tickets, the study argued that drivers became more reckless when they felt safer in their cars. The drivers are indeed safer but are now far more dangerous for those without the safety features (such as those on foot or in small vehicles).

[rivit 3,402]

And the recent advent of headphones, earphones and mobile devices has helped (exterminate foot traffic more efficiently). All of which together with food fads and aversions, excessive cleanliness and any number of other somewhat obsessive behaviours has led to the general demise of "common-sense" which wasn't that common to start with...

Isn't it all a question of balance? i.e. too much of anything will kill you more quickly

[Bastet69008 1,102]

Back to what A Nonny Moose said about peanuts, thanks to the modern hygiene that surrounds us like treated water, pasteurized milk, antibacterial soap, air purifiers and all, kids aren't exposed to nearly as many microbes as they used to be. As a result, the immune systems gets fewer opportunities to learn how to discriminate between dangerous pathogens and harmless things. It's just a theory but it's widely accepted as many can't explain the exact origin of allergies like peanuts. Our immune systems become unregulated as they are no longer kept busy fighting infections, hence allergies like pollen.

Then, you'll see that even countries that don't necessarily adopt these hygiene precautions or have different diets also have high rates of allergies. We don't have exact figures for each countries, most are extrapolated data, but you can see that there are high level of certain allergies in developing nations as well. From that point, the issue becomes more complicated. Allergists explain the increase in pollen allergies through extended travel (that bring weeds and pollen we are not used to), the import of foreign trees, flowers and shrubs that we put in our parks and streets, air pollution and climate change. But these same allergists have trouble explaining why we are seeing such an increase over the years and over the world of many allergies, food allergies in particular.
It's true that food allergies are increasing in prevalence. I lived in Western Europe for a while, where people generally don't eat many peanuts. Consumption of peanut butter is low compared to North America and there are close to zero meals that are based on peanuts, unlike Sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia where peanut-based sauces and peanut oil are common. Still, peanut allergy is as common in Western Europe as in North America where the consumption of peanuts in particular is higher, and quite strangely, there is some increased prevalence of peanut allergy in parts of the world where peanut consumption is higher and peanut allergies were virtually non-existent 20 years ago. So, is exposure or non-exposure the real reason behind that increase? I highly doubt it. It might explain a couple of allergies, but not such a dramatic increase in prevalence all over the world.

Some scientists believe that the theory of Dr Charles Richet in the beginning of the 20th century could explain the increase in allergies. One of the most dangerous symptoms of food allergy is anaphylaxis, a severe and potentially life-threatening situation. It turns out the number of anaphylaxis cases exploded around the end of the 19th century, where diphteria vaccines became compulsory in many industrialized countries, the US in particular. The reason behind it could be the use of needles for vaccines. Hypodermic needles deliver substances into the bloodstream hence by-passing the modifying effects of our digestive system and could potentially create those life threatening situations.Turns out that many vaccines in the 50s, 60s and 70s contained an adjuvant (additive) that was based on peanut oil.  An adjuvant provokes the immune system to create antibodies while requiring less antigen (virus or bacteria), and it is very effective when it comes to cost, an important feature when you have to sting millions of people in a compulsory vaccine program.

Don't get me wrong here, unlike the people from the anti-vaccine movement, I'm not saying the products in the vaccine create the problem, but the adjuvant in vaccines and the process of injecting them in the blood could. I'm not trying to create a thread on how good or bad vaccines are, I'm not a doctor, but this a theory that has been asserted by a scientist that won a Nobel Prize. Vaccines, or at least the current process we use, are probably no stranger to this issue.

 

 

[Delta 88 262]

20 hours ago, Sabretooth78 said:

@Delta 88

Do you follow Bill Burr's standup?  He's not George Carlin (nobody is, unfortunately and yet thankfully) but he's definitely filled some of the void.

  Hide contents

 

We Need a Plague

I...I have been on the road for the last five months.  I don't know, man.  I'm just really thinking the worst of people.  I really am.  You should see some of the animals - some of the animals i see.  Like, I was in the airport the other day, right?  I'm sitting there waiting for my flight to take my life and watching this - watching this lady.  She's eating Egg McMuffins, like, plural, and just threw, like, three of them right down her throat like a pelican.  Just, like, right down her gullet.  And when she was done, she wiped her face with the bag. Ahh, with the bag, not even like a gentleman.  Like, "Oh, I'll just do the corners," and, "ahhhh."  Then she just kind of straight-razor shaved.  Just an absolute animal.  I saw this other dude.  He was so out of shape, he was, like, trying to itch his back, and he couldn't reach it, so he walked up to a support pole that was holding up an entire floor of the airport and just walks up, and he just starts, like, rubbing up against it like a grizzly bear.  Just sitting there.  Just a [bleep] animal.

Dude, i am so pro-swine flu, it's, like, ridiculous.  I want it.  We need a plague.  I'm telling you, we need a plague.  It's got to happen, and don't be afraid.  It's only gonna - it's only gonna kill the weak, you know?  Seriously, put on a sweater.  Take some vitamins.  You're gonna be fine.  Just...  You've got to let mother nature do her thing, man.  She keeps trying to help us out, and we won't let her do it.  Keeps trying to thin the herd, and every single time, we're like, "Oh, go down and get your vaccination."  Why?  Why?  So Egg McMuffin lady can breed with the back fat guy, you know?  It's got to happen.  You've got to let her do it.  Seriously, plague, it's like nature's forest fire, you know?  Just let it burn out all the dead wood.

No, i swear to god.  We're the only - we're the only species that saves the weak.  We really are.  Lions don't do that [bleep], you know?  A lion gets a little thorn in his paw, and everybody's, "Slow down, let's have an intervention.  How are you feeling?  Is everything all right?  Do you need some penicillin?" and it's like, "[bleep] him."  That's why there's no traffic on the Serengeti.  There's not a bunch of lions just standing there in gridlock like, "What the [bleep] is going on up there?  Dude, go.  Just [bleep] go."  An hour later, you get up there.  There's some hyena licking his balls.  Like, "Oh, that was the big holdup, right?  Like you never saw that before.  Oh, by all means, slow down and look at it."

I've seen some real doozies coming home from work yesterday and then going in today.  Probably a little more than average, and mind you I don't have much of a commute - it's about 10 miles and because I go off-peak only takes 15-20 minutes tops.  I still say risk compensation (which is sort of an evolutionary stupidity), but I will not disagree that overt stupidity plays a role.

A good example from yesterday:  Do you enter an intersection when the light is turning red (i.e. yellow) and you can't make it across to the other side?  Any modestly good driver would say no.  So what if you're behind a car carrier - or whatever you call those things; for simplicity let's just say truck, or lorry for you folks across the pond - and he enters the intersection and can't fit?  Dumb move on his part, but as any defensive driving course will tell you, there's nothing you can do about the other guy and basically always assume he's going to do the dumbest thing possible in any given situation.  So you now have a choice.  Do you:

1. Stop behind the white 18" (0.45 m) wide thermoplastic tape line on the pavement that has been generously provided for your use ahead of the light, or
2. Pull up behind the truck, sitting square in the middle of the intersection and block traffic?

Note that there is a bigger intersection up ahead about a thousand feet (300 m) that is also displaying a red indication, and by virtue of its higher volume has more phases, i.e. more red time and as such the queue up ahead of you can't move either.  Now I admit that's a tough call, and you're a very important guy who has places to be, but let's make it easier.  Suppose you and the truck are in the rightmost lane of a 5-lane arterial (2 opposing, 1 center turn, and 2 in your direction).  You goof up (everybody does it) and find yourself sitting under a red light in the middle of the intersection.  The left lane on your side is plenty free enough to accommodate your ugly boxy heap of worthless scrap metal on wheels.  You presumably don't need to turn right up ahead, because there is nowhere to turn into in the short block ahead and there's no point in turning right at the next intersection - assuming you know where you're going (though I'm not sure many people do; another topic for another day), because you could have just turned right at the intersection you're presently blocking as it cuts off the corner and effectively allows you to neatly bypass two signals.  Do you then:

1. Say to yourself "oops, my bad" and move over into the other lane unopposed (as you are in the only vehicle at the intersection now able to move), or
2. Make a total a** of yourself by steadfastly holding your position despite the noises and looks emanating from your fellow motorists (after all you are more important than they are)

You could say yeah, it's one of these simple, perhaps even petty situations that don't amount to anything in the scheme of things.  Or do they?  It's the simple situations where you can see if people would have any prayer of passing the complex ones.  "It's the little things that matter."

Ahh Bill Burr. Yes, I'm subscribed to his channel on YouTube and I listen to his podcasts every week. I love listening to him. I can't believe I hadn't seen the We Need A Plague bit yet, thanks. 

17 hours ago, krbe said:

The irony being of course, that it is likely that a 'safety feature' of some sort prevented the death of @Delta 88 and his ancestors, perhaps on multiple occasions, allowing him to grow, up learn how to read and write, operate a computer and tell us how unfortunate it is that people just aren't dying any longer.

Oh give me a break. If I should have already died then I would have by now. And if I'm going to die soon, then I will, whatever. I don't spend all day worrying about it nor do I lose sleep over it. By the sound of it, you would lose more sleep over it than I. That's a very loose, under-the-microscope attempt at irony anyway. For every one chance that a safety feature did save me or my ancestors, there were likely even more potential things that would have killed me or my ancestors, but they did not. And even if you turned that statement on its head, why would that disallow me from complaining about it anyway? Of course I can! Your fishing for potential argumentative loopholes in alternate universes doesn't affect me, get real. That smiling, winking avatar of yours with the thumbs up accurately depicts the attitude of your irritatingly self-satisfied post, at the very least. Doubt I'll get a complete/sincere response.

11 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

I read an interesting/scary statistic which showed that pedestrian deaths have increased since the mandate of automobile safety features like seat belts. Combined with increased amounts of traffic tickets, the study argued that drivers became more reckless when they felt safer in their cars. The drivers are indeed safer but are now far more dangerous for those without the safety features (such as those on foot or in small vehicles).

That reminds me of the small car vs. big SUV/truck argument I hear sometimes. Many people (at least here in the states) say they won't buy a small car (small as in Smartcar) because everyone else is driving the huge SUV or pickup truck, and that the small car won't fare well in an accident with the SUV/truck - I've been hearing that for years. I still have reached a conclusion on that argument, but a while back, Smart realized people were thinking that way, so they got together with a bunch of advertisers and marketers and produce this commercial:

I laughed so hard when I saw the commercial on TV. For the forklift to gently place the SUV on top of the car like that? Because that's totally how crashes happen.  How about slamming that SUV on there real hard and then coming back to me with the results!  That would be much more realistic! Only then could they show me just how safe their technology really is.

7 hours ago, rivit said:

And the recent advent of headphones, earphones and mobile devices has helped (exterminate foot traffic more efficiently). All of which together with food fads and aversions, excessive cleanliness and any number of other somewhat obsessive behaviours has led to the general demise of "common-sense" which wasn't that common to start with...

Isn't it all a question of balance? i.e. too much of anything will kill you more quickly

A couple of years ago, I was listening to the radio (it was on NPR, they're a bit too left for me these days but I occasionally listened in back then) and they were reporting a study that had been done on those hands-free devices built-into modern cars for talking on the phone. Apparently, they found that those hands-free devices were just as distracting as actually holding the phone up to your ear and talking into it, while driving. Automakers responded basically with a "wtf are we supposed to do then" and I laughed all the way home. I'm glad you raised the point about balance and the decline of common sense. Really, I think it goes back to the "We Need a Plague" bit that Bill Burr did.

[Delta 88 262]

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Dashcam videos only show a fraction of all traffic accidents. On top of that, they usually show the viewpoint of witnesses, not what happened with the driver causing him or her losing control over their vehicle. So its hardly a representative source on which you can base such a blanket statement like "By in large, stupidity is the primary cause of most traffic accidents." Finally, those dashcam videos do prove that one driver losing control over their vehicle can cause a danger to dozens of other drivers and passengers in cars that are driving normally. Those safety measures may prevent in some cases one idiot from dying, but they also save dozens of others from dying as well. So your argument for the reduction of safety features in cars in order to weed out bad drivers would come at the loss of life of hundreds of thousands perfectly good drivers. 

Dashcam videos have shown every type of traffic accident that can possibly occur, at this point I hardly doubt it. Both common and rare. The vehicle sliding on an icy or wet road, losing control and subsequently crashing is just one of those types. And even then, well, I'm not particularly sympathetic towards people involved in car accidents whether they caused it or not. If I'm on the scene, my gut reaction is to help, yes. But accidents do happen and I'm not in the running for saving everyone's life. People die, and it's okay.

Quote

And so we come at the core problem of eugenics and Social Darwinism. In their efforts to weed out one negative trait (again, of which the links to genetics is extremely limited and weak at best) their actions will do much greater harm to positive traits as well. If people really have doubts about the utter failure of eugenics as an actual social policy, we only need to look at dog breeding, where we have essentially been applying eugenics for ages. Those pure bred dogs? The ones that have a number of seemingly positive traits bred into them? Yeah well they are also the most unhealthy and weak dogs with crippling genetic defects because in our efforts to bring out a few good traits, we also brought out way more bad traits. Not something we should apply to humans. Any efforts to reduce our genetic variety by weeding out selective traits can have devastating long term consequences. 

Hold on, I never condoned genetic engineering. I don't support that myself. It sounds miserable - to have been basically designed by a creator(s), to possess certain traits they deem appealing and denied traits they don't like....ugh, it sounds awful to me. I may detest and tear apart the stupid, but I wouldn't wish genetic engineering on my worst enemy either. Science gone wrong...

You have to keep some stupidity, craziness and absurdity in the world. Just for the entertainment.  

Quote

 

Human history is one of us constantly trying to mitigate, reduce and contain risks. Its what has driven so much of our social and technological progress. Why put a halt to that process at some arbitrary point just for the completely unproven and unfounded idea that if we reduce to much of certain types of risk, it will weaken something as vague and undefined as 'our character'. Character gets build regardless of whether thousands of people more die in traffic accidents, adversity will come to us regardless of how many safety features we build into our cars. The complete elimination of all risk is impossible anyways. 

You make a judgement based only on peoples performance of one certain type of skill, a skill that is only vaguely related to more general personality types, and those personality types are then only vaguely related to peoples genes. You don't know those people, you don't know what else they can do, you don't know in what other ways they may contribute in a positive manner to society.

 

Don't mix me in with being against social and technological progress just because I'm for allowing the stupid to die. Besides, while character does indeed develop regardless of upbringing, it just develops really poorly when everybody is pampered and kept in a sterile environment from day one. Go to any yuppie part of town if you want proof, where everything is sanitized and squeaky-clean. Deplorable. I find the poor parts of town to be far more interesting, and the people fascinating. You just know that so much goes down there every day, people are street-wise. I like that. I enjoy those people and how gritty those parts of town can be. Call me crazy...

Quote

For that matter, you also can't accurately judge if they are a drain on society. You'd need to define when someone is a drain first. It typically means that someone costs more than they contribute, but how do you calculate that? In money? You could, but in such cases you would completely miss out on the positive influence someone can have through non paid work. Besides, some of the worst drivers I know drive in pretty fancy cars, so clearly they have money and pay their taxes. What you seem to do is call someone a drain not based on the way they behave, but rather on what you presume their genetic make up seems to be. You see someone drive like a maniac, you take that as evidence that their genetic make up must be terrible and that their mere existence is a drain because they carry and perpetuate what you assume are horrible genes, and therefor threaten the genetic health of the human race. Yeah...that is some pretty shoddy reasoning, based almost completely on prejudices, baseless assumptions and a terribly flawed understanding of genetics.

I wasn't implying that being a "drain" means being on welfare or something like that. I too find the more annoying drivers to be driving BMW's, Mercedes and such. But I've seen bad drivers in every type of automobile out there. "The driver makes the car, the car doesn't make the driver."

Quote

Frankly I don't know anyone who is afraid all the time of everything. At the same time, everyone I know is also pretty happy with such simple safety features like airbags, seat belts and what not build into their cars. Not because they are constantly afraid when they get into a car, not because they think it means they don't have to exercise caution when they are driving, but simply because they know accidents can happen to everyone, and should they happen to them, its nice if they have a better chance of surviving the accident. Honestly I think those safety freaks you describe, who worry about everything, have something like General Anxiety Disorder. Which isn't so much as pathetic as it is an actual mental health problem for which they need treatment. Then again, not that many have something like General Anxiety Disorder. 

Well they may not go out and say it, but they do express it when they buy a brand-new Volvo, or when they insist on talking about how safe they think their car is and how great its many safety features are. Don't underestimate their sheer numbers, I've met these people. It doesn't have to be a specific, known psychological disorder. Of course they'd like everyone to think they're happy when they're really anxious about their personal safety and cleanliness all the time. I just thought of that old Smokey Robinson song "Tears of a Clown" while typing this.

 

See, I'm not really bothered by crime, terrorism, ISIS and the like. A little excitement in your life is good, even if it kills ya! I'd rather live in a flawed, dangerous world where life is interesting rather than the sanitized, sterile world the yuppies want me to live in.

20 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Drifting a little off topic here, are we not?  What has stupid drivers to do with diet?

Well, we may be drifting a little bit. But I think the theme has been kept, the theme being safety/health obsessions in modern society and what we think of them.

[Linoa06 1,374]

On 3/21/2016 at 3:31 AM, metarvo said:

Well, I must preface this by saying that I'm not allergic to anything that I know of, whether it's food or pollen.  I love peanuts and most every other nut, by the way, and have eaten them as long as I can remember, likely starting with peanut and peanut butter M&M's as a kid.  They're good!

As far as not exposing kids to certain foods go, it's pretty much a textbook example of paranoia which is one of the bigger societal problems we have today IMHO.  Just look at the proliferation of all of these antibacterial soaps and sanitizers, not to mention the would-be addiction to antibiotics, even if this is by prescription rather than by choice.  I recognize that some of these things have their place, but it seems like everyone around me gets sicker the more they use them.

The fact indeed is, removing children from literally anything that might cause an infection however minor it is is what destroys their immune systems which simply have no experience when it comes to fighting actually dangerous illnesses off.

This does not include vaccines, which by definition stimulate the immune system, but rather this hysteria around literally cleaning everything with bleach, (figuratively) including food.