Page 33 (emphasis mine):
The tools of modern immunology and molecular biology are being applied to develop new vaccines and improve old ones, and we discuss these advances in Chapter 16. The prospect of controlling these important diseases is tremendously exciting. The guarantee of good health is a critical step toward population control and economic development. At a cost of pennies per person, great hardship and suffering can be alleviated.
“Controlling a disease” via drugs and vaccines is missing the bigger picture of GIGO (garbage in = garbage outcomes) in terms of diet, sleep, exercise, weight management, employment and social interaction.
This is particularly telling when it comes to “guaranteeing good health”: fat people can get all the injections against COVID they want but they are still at a higher risk of severe death and mortality. Same with smokers.
WTF is with the quip about population control? Most developed countries (all??) are already below replacement levels of reproduction. After the excitement of “controlling these important diseases” it sounds like this group of people wants to “control people’s reproduction”…
Apart from that, it’s a solid book on immunobiology. Highly recommended.
Immunology II: Janeway's Immunobiology 8th ed.
Good little article and well made points.
Spot on I think with points 1 and 2.
In regards to point 3 I know since this whole mess started we would now look askance at that term but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they are referring to the fact that an old concept in population geography is that societies that have heavy disease burdens and low levels of industrialization typically tend to see many children being born to each couple since chances are at least some of the children will die before adulthood. So reducing disease incidence is seen as one way to remove the pressures for couples to have more than one or two children.
Of course this argument might itself be flawed. It might be looking at what happened in the US and Western Europe and assuming that:
1. It was indeed the reduced burden of diseases leading to the deaths of children that resulted in couples having more children (rather than this being coincidental for some other reason/factors instead of causal). If those factors aren't also replicated you could see other places reduce disease incidence while still having high birth rates/fertility rates. (For instance these days it simply is now very expensive to even have children in some countries (almost unaffordable in some circumstances), that growing expense might be a reason for declining fertility rates independent of the disease aspect)
2. Other countries will follow the same path regardless of any potential differences in these societies and their cultures and outlooks/values in ways that would lead to the persistence of high birth/fertility rates.
Generally the idea of reducing the deaths from disease is a very good idea. And the idea of giving couples the freedom to choose to have fewer children as they can be more certain that the ones they do have will make it is a good goal too I believe. As long as a population is having fertility rates at replacement levels it should promote continued economic growth and social stability (versus having an aging population that isn't going to be replaced as is happening in Europe, Eurasia/CIS (parts of it anyway) and East Asia which suggests a future of social instability as welfare schemes become much more expensive as each succeeding generation will have to give it up a larger percentage of their earnings and time to care for the preceding generation and even for themselves when they get old).
Love this! I have been preaching #1 but sadly nobody listens. The more I listen to Dr. David Martin, the more I believe #3.