I'm not sure what word to apply to facing three familial tragedies, any one of which might seem like more than a life's fair share of misfortune, with that kind of perseverance. Inspiring is too glib, inhuman is too alienating. Whatever kind of mettle that is, I hope to never have to prove it.
People are products of their environment. There are people with mettle/grit and then people who are more sensitive to perturbations of fate. The society they live in sets the base level of grittiness that you can expect any average person to be equipped with.
Dahl here is a very hardy man who approaches these issues in a very practical and logical way. But this was also in the post WW2 era where millions died, people lost their families and possessions, and had to start their life anew. It was a period of rebuilding after the devastation of war and hard times build hard people.
Today, all this feels like too much because we were all mostly born and brought up in wealth and prosperity. We have not seen any real hard times and there is no need for mettle.
I think your confusing providence with medical science in the form of vaccinations, blood thinners, and Mr. Dahl's contributions to hydrocephalus relief
A child could die from cancer or from falling while playing, and no vaccination or blood thinner can prevent this. I can understand op's reference to providence in not having to face these tragedies.
We could do with wider knowledge of a complicated man. My friend's husband wrote a fabulous play about a short period in Dahl's life centred around antisemitism, which was directed by Nicholas Hytner at the Royal Court. I suspect that it was done to improve public relations after various overblown controversies there, but that is not to take away from the writing and performance.
The other context around Israel invading Lebanon in 1982 was given to me (I was too young at the time to have a clue about anything) by another (Jewish) friend, a biographer of Primo Levi, who said, "I believe Israel had the sympathy of the world until they invaded Lebanon," in a conversation about how those who claim to be virtuous by invoking victimhood.
Dahl never invoked that himself, but with wider knowledge of his life and a more critical view of Israeli history, we can see what a complex polarized mess this is with little chance of redemption for either, although it is interesting that one man has generated disproportionate column inches compared to a country.
I'm trying to understand this comment. Are you saying that Dahl's antisemitism is ameliorated by the fact that Israel attacked the PLO in Lebanon? And are you claiming that journalists have written more about Roald Dahl's antisemitism than about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?
I'd like to read what you're saying in the most graceful way possible, but it really sounds like standard antisemitic beliefs about how it's really the Jews' fault that people are antisemitic, and that they control the media anyway.
Whether or not Dahl was influenced by the behavior of the state of Israel, he extrapolated his hatred towards a group of people. It's not really more complicated than that: it's wrong to be anti-Russian because of the actions of Putin, it's wrong to be anti-semitic because of the actions of Israel.
Whether or not you agree with the state of Israel's actions in recent years, it's very concerning to me to see comments like this that seem to justify or explain away racial hatred. You have to disentangle the two.
Is it wrong? The rest of the world is worse because Americans picked the current administration. I have a hard time articulating the reasons they shouldn't hate Americans in the abstract for their (our) selfishness.
Apply the same to hyper aggressive bees. The hive is the only thing dangerous, but you correctly say you hate bees, not this specific hive, or this specific bee.
I personally hate the (ficticious rhetorical) culture of the southern states because I disagree with their position and beliefs about human rights and other ethical problems. Am I wrong to do that? What nuance am I unable to see?
I take this point but would offer that the culture you reference is also quite real. By contrast, in southern cities you will find some of the most impassioned progressives you’ll ever meet. There is nuance.
Yes it is wrong.
You don't punish any one individual for something another different individual has done. This is a basic moral principal.
Half of US voters voted against Donald Trump. The chaos and pain he causes is not on them. Many Jews were appalled and angered by the invasion of Lebanon. They're not responsible for what the Israeli government did.
Humans are not bees. We don't have a queen, we don't have a hive mind.
This group think, that Americans should all be judged as a whole, that Jews are all an indistinguishable mass, is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice. This is what MLK meant when he said we should be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. I am me, not whatever group you want to toss me into.
So, yes, it's wrong.
> Humans are not bees. We don't have a queen, we don't have a hive mind. This group think, that Americans should all be judged as a whole, [...] is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice.
I don't agree with this. The behavior of a hive is distinctly different from the behavior of a bee. The way a hive behaves is bigger than the sum of the actions of the bees. The US as a country also has this same emergent intelligence to it.
> [...] an indistinguishable mass, is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice.
You'll notice I said hate Americans, and not hate Sally, or Bobby, or Jane. I'm not targeting nor blaming individuals, I agree with you, that is wrong for me to assign someone into a group they don't belong in. But is it wrong to hate the behavior and intent of said grouping? Is it wrong to blame people who willingly self-select to associate with said group?
Quoting from above
> it's wrong to be anti-Russian because of the actions of Putin
Is it? If I'm mad at Russia, so I refuse to interact with any russian company. That's being anti-russian, I'd assume? Is that wrong?
What if I don't like the family next door because they lived in Russia before the moved to the US. That would be wrong; until I point out they're still proudly Russian, and they support their former country. Then is it wrong to dislike them in that case? That's still anti-russian, no?
> You'll notice I said hate Americans, and not hate Sally, or Bobby, or Jane
I don't even know what this means. What does it mean to hate Americans if you don't hate, you know, Americans, like Sally or Bobby or Jane? What exactly are you hating?
You don't hate Americans, you hate Trump and his cabal. You hate the people who voted for him. Good for you. Do you also hate the Americans who voted against Trump because of the ones who voted for him? If yes, then that's absolutely bigotry. If no, then you could just as rationally say you love Americans, because, I mean, look at all the Americans who opposed Trump?
You say you don't hate Sally or Bobby or Jane, but that's exactly what you do when you hate Americans.
> That's still anti-russian, no?
No. That's anti-fascist, or anti-authoritarian, or anti-belligerent, or anti-whatever it is about their support that you don't like. That's judging them as individuals because of what they as individuals think. Disliking them just because they're Russion, regardless of that they think about Putin's government, that would be bigotry.
A Jewish person has no agency in their ethnic or cultural heritage. US citizens do have a choice in voting and US citizenship can be revoked. You cannot change your ethnicity.
I think what they meant is it’s wrong to be anti-Russian, while nonetheless being anti-Russia, because of Putin.
Individual Russians may or may not have much to do with Purim’s invasion of Ukraine - the same way individual Americans may or may not have much to do with Trump’s fumbling of supporting Ukraine’s defense efforts.
I think therein lies the complexity of the problem when the state itself maintains a population record where citizenship and nationality have been separated, and "Israeli" nationality does not exist, only "Jewish" exists. I believe this was also confirmed by the Supreme Court there in order to ensure a clear link or bond between all Jewish people all over the world. Anyway, what do I know.
I am not trying to explain away Dahl's comments, merely illustrating the complexity underlining all these arguments, and especially ones which allow Israel and its lobbyists to swarm over the arts in the UK and bully them if showing any sympathy for the Palestinians, which is no better than the torrent of antisemitic abuse meted out when there's sympathy for Jewish people.
This article underlines the point I made. Israel maintains separate data on citizenship and nationality on their population, and "Israeli" is not a "nationality" in that database. Of course Arab nationals of Israel have "Israeli" on their passports, but they are not "Israeli" in that database.
There are two different things here: what non-Jewish citizens of Israel identify as, and what their functional status is. The first is a component of the world’s most intractable conflict; the second is a question of nationality in the most basic sense: citizenship, identification on passports, etc.
The second sense is the one I’m interested in, and in that one there are plenty of non-Jewish Israeli nationals. They have every right (and plenty of cause) to not identify as such, but that’s the situation as it concerns citizenship, voting rights, etc.
TL;DR: nationality gets used with at least two different meanings in the I/P conflict; one is intractable and the other is straightforward. The straightforward is worth remembering, because far-right Israelis have a vested interest in eliminating it and imposing an ethnic definition of nationality.
It's complicated but I think what they're getting at is that the national demographics / census data for Israel does not have an "Israeli" nationality.
>and "Israeli" nationality does not exist, only "Jewish" exists.
This lie lies at the heart of all of the state's attempts to color fundamentally anti genocide, anti genocide and antiracist criticism of the state as anti semitic.
The country does not represent Jews, just a rather abhorrent form of racism.
Were the "various overblown controversies" when he said "There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason"?
Or when he said the United States is "utterly dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions over there"?
Or when he said "I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic"?
No, not Dahl, the Royal Court - they had a character/villain in a play, Rare Earth Mettle, with a Jewish name, which I think is hardly the theatre's fault, and previously a play by Caryl Churchill in 2009.
I don't understand how either of those, said in the mid 1900s, get the man cancelled in 2025. We have heard these thoughts countless times in modern day to less reaction.
In these times the saddest tragedy here is that Dahl was so preoccupied with medical care and expertise for his family – and the one time he let up, his daughter died because his brother-in-law thought "let the girls get measles[...] it will be good for them".
You have it the opposite way round. The UK (for example) never gave a chickenpox vaccine because it reasoned to do so increases the risk of shingles, and shingles is more serious than chickenpox. Also chickenpox is so mild that administering a national vaccination programme is of dubious benefit, the money can be more effectively spent elsewhere.
The JCVI might have recently changed recommendation but whether it is worth the cost/benefit is another matter.
The shingles vaccination programme (for older adults) has existed since 2013.
The JCVI recommendation from 2023 took into account new evidence that had emerged since the original decision in 2009, using a new model to evaluate cost-effectiveness and better evaluate the impact on QALY from infection.
For me it was a no-brainer. For a small amount of money, I avoid the kid being bedridden for potentially weeks, and the kid avoids scarring from the disease. Even though it isn't going to kill the kid, it's still awful to be ill.
Shingles won't be a problem for a long time afterwards, and medicine will advance. There's already shingles vaccines.
So it was an easy decision to spend about 100 pounds on vaccinating each kid.
Here in Europe, or at least in the Netherlands where I grew up, chickenpox isnnot vaccinated for, and of course the reason is not "lacking the possibilities".
I don't have a stance on the matter, other than "I and everyone I know caught chickenpox as a kid and we turned out alright".
The Dutch health council advised against including chickenpox vaccination in the standard vaccination programme in 2020 for the European Netherlands (but pro vaccination for Dutch overseas territories in the Caribbean). The advise (in Dutch) can be found under "advies Vaccinatie tegen waterpokken" [1].
I don't have an opinion on whether the council properly weighted all the costs and benefits. I just want to include this reference make the point that the Dutch policy stance is not based on lack of means or on ignorance of our politicians or health authorities. The advice includes plenty of references to many international studies and experiences with chickenpox vaccination.
I can see a little bit about what inspired the "spark" of his children's books – love, but also a need for escapism, normal but heroic figures in the middle of bewildering and impossible situations, nurturing. It think Danny, Champion of the World, was the first children's book he wrote approximately after this time period?
I had no idea. Was most of his work before or after these tragedies. Hope he had a peaceful death himself financially not in turmoil.
I hope most of the pain and death we see in the world today seem like solved problems many years from now. Much like the health issues faced by his family.
> "Measles: A Dangerous Illness" is an open letter written by the children's writer Roald Dahl in 1986 in response to ongoing cases of measles in the United Kingdom at that time despite the introduction of an effective measles vaccine in 1968.
One of Dahl's surviving daughters, Ophelia, cofounded Partners In Health with Paul Farmer. I highly recommend Tracy Kidder's _Mountains Beyond Mountains_.
The fascinating thing about Roald Dahl is that the children's books he wrote are the least interesting thing about his life and when you try to tell anyone about it they just look at you dumbfounded because it sounds so unbelievable.
His two autobiographical books a still a really good read today, and they only cover his life up to about world war 2, which he was extremely lucky to survive. Dan Stevens does a good job narrating the latest audiobook versions my library has.
I was shocked to learn that he was not only a fighter pilot, but also married an academy award winning actress and coinvented a valve used to help brain damage patients recover
When he was young, instead of going to university he went to work for Shell in Tanzania and learned to speak Swahil while living there. And after being pilot, he worked as a diplomatic attaché/spy for BSC in washington and was friends with FDR. He also got to know Ian Flemming during that time. Basically living a posh lifestyle of wining and dining important people while funneling any intelligence he learned back home.
I had no idea Roald’s life was mired in such tragedy. Stephen King’s book on writing is autobiographical and worth a read. Similar revelations if you don’t know much about him.
It is, yet I still feel I'm better off having read it. A real life person having this kind of strength in the face of tragedy makes one more optimistic.
I'm not sure what word to apply to facing three familial tragedies, any one of which might seem like more than a life's fair share of misfortune, with that kind of perseverance. Inspiring is too glib, inhuman is too alienating. Whatever kind of mettle that is, I hope to never have to prove it.
People are products of their environment. There are people with mettle/grit and then people who are more sensitive to perturbations of fate. The society they live in sets the base level of grittiness that you can expect any average person to be equipped with.
Dahl here is a very hardy man who approaches these issues in a very practical and logical way. But this was also in the post WW2 era where millions died, people lost their families and possessions, and had to start their life anew. It was a period of rebuilding after the devastation of war and hard times build hard people.
Today, all this feels like too much because we were all mostly born and brought up in wealth and prosperity. We have not seen any real hard times and there is no need for mettle.
2015 - https://archive.is/MsYOu
I am thankful that there are some challenges that providence has deemed fit to deny me.
I think your confusing providence with medical science in the form of vaccinations, blood thinners, and Mr. Dahl's contributions to hydrocephalus relief
Science is great but there are still plenty of diseases and lots of other stuff that leads to tragedies.
If you happen not to have to deal with any of this, it is still just providence.
Chance
Yes, providence is metaphor/personification of luck.
It’s hard for me to distinguish between meant as metaphor and meant literally.
A child could die from cancer or from falling while playing, and no vaccination or blood thinner can prevent this. I can understand op's reference to providence in not having to face these tragedies.
I think parents means not dying from measles thanks to vaccines.
One risk less.
The providence of being here and now, a time where those exist, a country where good medical care is available, and the means to afford it.
We could do with wider knowledge of a complicated man. My friend's husband wrote a fabulous play about a short period in Dahl's life centred around antisemitism, which was directed by Nicholas Hytner at the Royal Court. I suspect that it was done to improve public relations after various overblown controversies there, but that is not to take away from the writing and performance.
The other context around Israel invading Lebanon in 1982 was given to me (I was too young at the time to have a clue about anything) by another (Jewish) friend, a biographer of Primo Levi, who said, "I believe Israel had the sympathy of the world until they invaded Lebanon," in a conversation about how those who claim to be virtuous by invoking victimhood.
Dahl never invoked that himself, but with wider knowledge of his life and a more critical view of Israeli history, we can see what a complex polarized mess this is with little chance of redemption for either, although it is interesting that one man has generated disproportionate column inches compared to a country.
I'm trying to understand this comment. Are you saying that Dahl's antisemitism is ameliorated by the fact that Israel attacked the PLO in Lebanon? And are you claiming that journalists have written more about Roald Dahl's antisemitism than about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?
I'd like to read what you're saying in the most graceful way possible, but it really sounds like standard antisemitic beliefs about how it's really the Jews' fault that people are antisemitic, and that they control the media anyway.
Whether or not Dahl was influenced by the behavior of the state of Israel, he extrapolated his hatred towards a group of people. It's not really more complicated than that: it's wrong to be anti-Russian because of the actions of Putin, it's wrong to be anti-semitic because of the actions of Israel.
Whether or not you agree with the state of Israel's actions in recent years, it's very concerning to me to see comments like this that seem to justify or explain away racial hatred. You have to disentangle the two.
Is it wrong? The rest of the world is worse because Americans picked the current administration. I have a hard time articulating the reasons they shouldn't hate Americans in the abstract for their (our) selfishness.
Apply the same to hyper aggressive bees. The hive is the only thing dangerous, but you correctly say you hate bees, not this specific hive, or this specific bee.
I personally hate the (ficticious rhetorical) culture of the southern states because I disagree with their position and beliefs about human rights and other ethical problems. Am I wrong to do that? What nuance am I unable to see?
I take this point but would offer that the culture you reference is also quite real. By contrast, in southern cities you will find some of the most impassioned progressives you’ll ever meet. There is nuance.
Yes it is wrong. You don't punish any one individual for something another different individual has done. This is a basic moral principal. Half of US voters voted against Donald Trump. The chaos and pain he causes is not on them. Many Jews were appalled and angered by the invasion of Lebanon. They're not responsible for what the Israeli government did. Humans are not bees. We don't have a queen, we don't have a hive mind. This group think, that Americans should all be judged as a whole, that Jews are all an indistinguishable mass, is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice. This is what MLK meant when he said we should be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. I am me, not whatever group you want to toss me into. So, yes, it's wrong.
> Humans are not bees. We don't have a queen, we don't have a hive mind. This group think, that Americans should all be judged as a whole, [...] is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice.
I don't agree with this. The behavior of a hive is distinctly different from the behavior of a bee. The way a hive behaves is bigger than the sum of the actions of the bees. The US as a country also has this same emergent intelligence to it.
> [...] an indistinguishable mass, is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice.
You'll notice I said hate Americans, and not hate Sally, or Bobby, or Jane. I'm not targeting nor blaming individuals, I agree with you, that is wrong for me to assign someone into a group they don't belong in. But is it wrong to hate the behavior and intent of said grouping? Is it wrong to blame people who willingly self-select to associate with said group?
Quoting from above
> it's wrong to be anti-Russian because of the actions of Putin
Is it? If I'm mad at Russia, so I refuse to interact with any russian company. That's being anti-russian, I'd assume? Is that wrong?
What if I don't like the family next door because they lived in Russia before the moved to the US. That would be wrong; until I point out they're still proudly Russian, and they support their former country. Then is it wrong to dislike them in that case? That's still anti-russian, no?
> You'll notice I said hate Americans, and not hate Sally, or Bobby, or Jane
I don't even know what this means. What does it mean to hate Americans if you don't hate, you know, Americans, like Sally or Bobby or Jane? What exactly are you hating?
You don't hate Americans, you hate Trump and his cabal. You hate the people who voted for him. Good for you. Do you also hate the Americans who voted against Trump because of the ones who voted for him? If yes, then that's absolutely bigotry. If no, then you could just as rationally say you love Americans, because, I mean, look at all the Americans who opposed Trump?
You say you don't hate Sally or Bobby or Jane, but that's exactly what you do when you hate Americans.
> That's still anti-russian, no?
No. That's anti-fascist, or anti-authoritarian, or anti-belligerent, or anti-whatever it is about their support that you don't like. That's judging them as individuals because of what they as individuals think. Disliking them just because they're Russion, regardless of that they think about Putin's government, that would be bigotry.
The difference is agency or choice.
A Jewish person has no agency in their ethnic or cultural heritage. US citizens do have a choice in voting and US citizenship can be revoked. You cannot change your ethnicity.
US citizenship cannot be really revoked for natural born citizens. The US can't really make someone stateless because where would you deport them to?
I think what they meant is it’s wrong to be anti-Russian, while nonetheless being anti-Russia, because of Putin.
Individual Russians may or may not have much to do with Purim’s invasion of Ukraine - the same way individual Americans may or may not have much to do with Trump’s fumbling of supporting Ukraine’s defense efforts.
"I have a hard time articulating the reasons they shouldn't hate Americans in the abstract for their (our) selfishness."
I'm an American you truly hates Trump and is suffering under his rule as mach as anyone.
I think therein lies the complexity of the problem when the state itself maintains a population record where citizenship and nationality have been separated, and "Israeli" nationality does not exist, only "Jewish" exists. I believe this was also confirmed by the Supreme Court there in order to ensure a clear link or bond between all Jewish people all over the world. Anyway, what do I know.
I am not trying to explain away Dahl's comments, merely illustrating the complexity underlining all these arguments, and especially ones which allow Israel and its lobbyists to swarm over the arts in the UK and bully them if showing any sympathy for the Palestinians, which is no better than the torrent of antisemitic abuse meted out when there's sympathy for Jewish people.
> and "Israeli" nationality does not exist, only "Jewish" exists
This is facially untrue: there are over two million non-Jewish Israeli nationals[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
This article underlines the point I made. Israel maintains separate data on citizenship and nationality on their population, and "Israeli" is not a "nationality" in that database. Of course Arab nationals of Israel have "Israeli" on their passports, but they are not "Israeli" in that database.
There are two different things here: what non-Jewish citizens of Israel identify as, and what their functional status is. The first is a component of the world’s most intractable conflict; the second is a question of nationality in the most basic sense: citizenship, identification on passports, etc.
The second sense is the one I’m interested in, and in that one there are plenty of non-Jewish Israeli nationals. They have every right (and plenty of cause) to not identify as such, but that’s the situation as it concerns citizenship, voting rights, etc.
TL;DR: nationality gets used with at least two different meanings in the I/P conflict; one is intractable and the other is straightforward. The straightforward is worth remembering, because far-right Israelis have a vested interest in eliminating it and imposing an ethnic definition of nationality.
It's complicated but I think what they're getting at is that the national demographics / census data for Israel does not have an "Israeli" nationality.
>and "Israeli" nationality does not exist, only "Jewish" exists.
This lie lies at the heart of all of the state's attempts to color fundamentally anti genocide, anti genocide and antiracist criticism of the state as anti semitic.
The country does not represent Jews, just a rather abhorrent form of racism.
He wrote two books about his life, 'Boy' and 'Going Solo'
Were the "various overblown controversies" when he said "There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason"?
Or when he said the United States is "utterly dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions over there"?
Or when he said "I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic"?
Or are there others?
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/07/opinion/l-roald-dahl-also...
No, not Dahl, the Royal Court - they had a character/villain in a play, Rare Earth Mettle, with a Jewish name, which I think is hardly the theatre's fault, and previously a play by Caryl Churchill in 2009.
Do you think he based these opinions and observations on nothing?
I don't understand how either of those, said in the mid 1900s, get the man cancelled in 2025. We have heard these thoughts countless times in modern day to less reaction.
https://archive.is/MsYOu
> “Let the girls get measles,” he told her, “it will be good for them.”
Eerily ominous.
I suspect they strolled into the wrong part of the internet.
In these times the saddest tragedy here is that Dahl was so preoccupied with medical care and expertise for his family – and the one time he let up, his daughter died because his brother-in-law thought "let the girls get measles[...] it will be good for them".
Lots of people still think this way about chickenpox, and I have no idea why.
In the US, vaccination for it is prevalent for years now (in a rare win for preventative health there).
Many other countries: "Chickenpox (and risk of shingles) will be good for you..."
You have it the opposite way round. The UK (for example) never gave a chickenpox vaccine because it reasoned to do so increases the risk of shingles, and shingles is more serious than chickenpox. Also chickenpox is so mild that administering a national vaccination programme is of dubious benefit, the money can be more effectively spent elsewhere.
The JCVI might have recently changed recommendation but whether it is worth the cost/benefit is another matter.
The latest JCVI recommendations are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childhood-varicel...
The shingles vaccination programme (for older adults) has existed since 2013.
The JCVI recommendation from 2023 took into account new evidence that had emerged since the original decision in 2009, using a new model to evaluate cost-effectiveness and better evaluate the impact on QALY from infection.
The original 2009 reasoning's decision is available here: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130107105...
That is surprising to me. Here's what I could glean:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/two-for-one-chick...
For me it was a no-brainer. For a small amount of money, I avoid the kid being bedridden for potentially weeks, and the kid avoids scarring from the disease. Even though it isn't going to kill the kid, it's still awful to be ill.
Shingles won't be a problem for a long time afterwards, and medicine will advance. There's already shingles vaccines.
So it was an easy decision to spend about 100 pounds on vaccinating each kid.
Isn't scarring caused by scratching?
I remember parents wanted kids to get chickenpox as early as possible so they could put mittens on them so they wouldn't scratch themselves.
Are you sure?
It seems quite the other way around.
Some other countries just lack the possibilities to vaccinate while the US could but people refuse in favor of „natural“ immunity.
Hence two dead children because of measles.
Here in Europe, or at least in the Netherlands where I grew up, chickenpox isnnot vaccinated for, and of course the reason is not "lacking the possibilities".
I don't have a stance on the matter, other than "I and everyone I know caught chickenpox as a kid and we turned out alright".
The Dutch health council advised against including chickenpox vaccination in the standard vaccination programme in 2020 for the European Netherlands (but pro vaccination for Dutch overseas territories in the Caribbean). The advise (in Dutch) can be found under "advies Vaccinatie tegen waterpokken" [1].
I don't have an opinion on whether the council properly weighted all the costs and benefits. I just want to include this reference make the point that the Dutch policy stance is not based on lack of means or on ignorance of our politicians or health authorities. The advice includes plenty of references to many international studies and experiences with chickenpox vaccination.
[1] https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/documenten/adviezen/2020/10/0...
In Germany it’s recommended by the Vaccination Commission
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6605725/figure/F000...
Germany is one of the blue ones.
I‘m astounded especially because of the long term risk of shingles
AFAIK, we in the USA are still recommended to get the shingles vaccination, which has two shots, after age 50, and it's only effective for 7-10 years.
I can see a little bit about what inspired the "spark" of his children's books – love, but also a need for escapism, normal but heroic figures in the middle of bewildering and impossible situations, nurturing. It think Danny, Champion of the World, was the first children's book he wrote approximately after this time period?
I had no idea. Was most of his work before or after these tragedies. Hope he had a peaceful death himself financially not in turmoil.
I hope most of the pain and death we see in the world today seem like solved problems many years from now. Much like the health issues faced by his family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles:_A_Dangerous_Illness
> "Measles: A Dangerous Illness" is an open letter written by the children's writer Roald Dahl in 1986 in response to ongoing cases of measles in the United Kingdom at that time despite the introduction of an effective measles vaccine in 1968.
One of Dahl's surviving daughters, Ophelia, cofounded Partners In Health with Paul Farmer. I highly recommend Tracy Kidder's _Mountains Beyond Mountains_.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophelia_Dahl
Came here to post this as well. A truly inspirational book.
The fascinating thing about Roald Dahl is that the children's books he wrote are the least interesting thing about his life and when you try to tell anyone about it they just look at you dumbfounded because it sounds so unbelievable.
His two autobiographical books a still a really good read today, and they only cover his life up to about world war 2, which he was extremely lucky to survive. Dan Stevens does a good job narrating the latest audiobook versions my library has.
I was shocked to learn that he was not only a fighter pilot, but also married an academy award winning actress and coinvented a valve used to help brain damage patients recover
> not only a fighter pilot
He wasn't "only" a fighter pilot.
He was a fighter Ace, having five confirmed air-to-air kills. (And possibly more unconfirmed in the Battle of Athens).
When he was young, instead of going to university he went to work for Shell in Tanzania and learned to speak Swahil while living there. And after being pilot, he worked as a diplomatic attaché/spy for BSC in washington and was friends with FDR. He also got to know Ian Flemming during that time. Basically living a posh lifestyle of wining and dining important people while funneling any intelligence he learned back home.
I had no idea Roald’s life was mired in such tragedy. Stephen King’s book on writing is autobiographical and worth a read. Similar revelations if you don’t know much about him.
Damn this is so painful to read
It is, yet I still feel I'm better off having read it. A real life person having this kind of strength in the face of tragedy makes one more optimistic.
writing about your son's penis like that is weird as hell.
My sympathy for Roald Dahl can only go so far given his rabid antisemitism.