• @Ptsf
    link
    English
    15 days ago

    Ah yes, not preventing the spread of disease to prevent the spread of disease. 5D chess champ

    • @kitnaht
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      No, not preventing the spread of disease because chickens are cheap and the ones that survive are stronger. Basic natural selection. It’s just less acceptable to do this to the human population.

      • @Ptsf
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        You’re missing the point. You’re arguing for a natural “solution” to a natural problem. Nature (the chickens immune system) has been trying to solve for diseases attacking it for millions of years. Letting that approach play out may work occasionally in practice, but it completely discounts disease mutation, the long term immune system effects diseases can have on the “stronger” ones that survive (not every encounter with all diseases actually leads to longterm immunity, some are actually significantly worse the second time around due to lasting damage inflicted upon the immune system or genetics), and a host of other unaccounted variables like the extreme changes in exposure vectors we’ve subjected the animals to.

        • @kitnaht
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Diseases typically mutate to become milder over time, not stronger. You can’t spread when you kill the host; and mine are isolated, not in a large population so something like this only occurs rarely. There’s a level of reasonability here that I feel isn’t taken into account. There’s no point in me taking all of these measures for a tiny flock.