I think perhaps you’ve missed my point. Countries are not sick, nor are they healthy. The individual persons living within the boundaries can and will be. Again, public health is not corporeal; it can not be picked-up & held in your hands, nor could you tell me what it looks like so I could go from place to place to look for it. Public health can only be reported on through the aggregation of individual persons health data. Public health merely exists in statistics alone. And when a bureaucracy exploits this data, we get policies that promote the well being of many instead of protecting individualism & liberty.
Thanks for the clarification. But I don't think I've missed it; I think I simply disagree with your perspective.
In my view, a society, a people, a 'population' is much, much more than simply the sum number of individuals. No more than a person's body is simply the aggregate total of individual cells.
Moveover, in my view, saying that 'public health' is not corporeal and therefor does not exist seems like an extremely narrow and myopic perspective. Are emotions not real, because they are not corporeal? ideas? Thoughts? A person's spirit?
And, indeed, the collective state of health of any group or population can be quantifiably measured using numerous indicators.
I mean, are you suggesting that if my next door neighbors - two parents and 5 kids - if 6 of them come down with flu and are throwing up and have fevers etc, that the 'family is not sick' because in the end, they are only individuals who happen to share the same house?
What about dysfunctional families, where chronic psychological problems emerge all over the place, and where their relationships are extremely dysfunctional and troubled?
The only place that I agree with you - roughly - is that when data - including statistical or even fabricated data - are exploited by unscrupulous persons, then this can indeed be damaging to liberty.
But to be frank, and I don't mean this offensively, it seems to me that you are striving to set up reasoning (i.e. 'public health' does not exist) that justifies your conclusion, because if public health was actually a thing worth looking at, you'd have to look a bit deeper at what is going on and where the real problem lies, rather than simply (to my mind superficially) 'bureaucracy' and 'policies' that sacrifice a for b.
I appreciate your assertion and sharing your reasoning, but I think its a lot more complex and nuances than what your saying.
I think perhaps you’ve missed my point. Countries are not sick, nor are they healthy. The individual persons living within the boundaries can and will be. Again, public health is not corporeal; it can not be picked-up & held in your hands, nor could you tell me what it looks like so I could go from place to place to look for it. Public health can only be reported on through the aggregation of individual persons health data. Public health merely exists in statistics alone. And when a bureaucracy exploits this data, we get policies that promote the well being of many instead of protecting individualism & liberty.
Thanks for the clarification. But I don't think I've missed it; I think I simply disagree with your perspective.
In my view, a society, a people, a 'population' is much, much more than simply the sum number of individuals. No more than a person's body is simply the aggregate total of individual cells.
Moveover, in my view, saying that 'public health' is not corporeal and therefor does not exist seems like an extremely narrow and myopic perspective. Are emotions not real, because they are not corporeal? ideas? Thoughts? A person's spirit?
And, indeed, the collective state of health of any group or population can be quantifiably measured using numerous indicators.
I mean, are you suggesting that if my next door neighbors - two parents and 5 kids - if 6 of them come down with flu and are throwing up and have fevers etc, that the 'family is not sick' because in the end, they are only individuals who happen to share the same house?
What about dysfunctional families, where chronic psychological problems emerge all over the place, and where their relationships are extremely dysfunctional and troubled?
The only place that I agree with you - roughly - is that when data - including statistical or even fabricated data - are exploited by unscrupulous persons, then this can indeed be damaging to liberty.
But to be frank, and I don't mean this offensively, it seems to me that you are striving to set up reasoning (i.e. 'public health' does not exist) that justifies your conclusion, because if public health was actually a thing worth looking at, you'd have to look a bit deeper at what is going on and where the real problem lies, rather than simply (to my mind superficially) 'bureaucracy' and 'policies' that sacrifice a for b.
I appreciate your assertion and sharing your reasoning, but I think its a lot more complex and nuances than what your saying.
But happy to move on!