General Discussion

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

26. Hmm, so you didn't read my OP at all. You're so blinded by dogma...

Sun Feb 8, 2015, 02:45 PM

Feb 2015

I specifically did not lump the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts together in my calculation. I assumed that all of the cases of measles came from only the unvaccinated portion of the population, and divided the annual measles cases by the fraction of the population that is unvaccinated. This, of course, is actually a generous assumption, because some vaccinated people still get measles. But for a back-of-the-envelope calculation, it's good enough.

The thing is, why is this so hard to comprehend? It's like you're not even trying to be rational. It would have taken 20 seconds for you to follow this part of the calculation. Almost like you're afraid of the actual numbers.

There's nothing to fear. You're still right that vaccinating everyone is sound public health policy. It just may not be in an individual's best interest, despite being in the best interest of society. The fact that this happens sometimes with vaccinations is something that literally every public health expert in the world understands. Just not you. For some reason...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

92 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Vaccination is a process with COLLECTIVE benefits. [View all] sibelian Feb 2015 OP

I'm in fucking awe how they are controlling this message Autumn Feb 2015 #1

I think I love you! marym625 Feb 2015 #2

As far as I'm concerned? Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #3

Presumably you're talking about me, which means that you missed the part of my OP DanTex Feb 2015 #8

Post removed Post removed Feb 2015 #11

No need for the personal attack. DanTex Feb 2015 #17

US vaccination rate is 91%. Herd immunity rate is 95%. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #18

Wiser choice for society. Not necessarily for the individual. Again, those are different things. DanTex Feb 2015 #19

"What's best for the individual" doesn't enter into it. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #20

That's a value judgement. DanTex Feb 2015 #21

Yours is the only intentional ignorance I'm seeing here. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #23

OK then. I take it you have no response. DanTex Feb 2015 #24

Facts and science: Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #25

Hmm, so you didn't read my OP at all. You're so blinded by dogma... DanTex Feb 2015 #26

Yes. sibelian Feb 2015 #73

I love the mathematical "logical" argument using phony data from the VAERS database. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #4

That was you marym625 Feb 2015 #5

Yep, the closest we can get is harm caused by vaccines. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #39

ain't it though! marym625 Feb 2015 #40

LOL @ "real numbers". DanTex Feb 2015 #42

evidently marym625 Feb 2015 #45

Math not being your strong suit. DanTex Feb 2015 #41

Sorry genius marym625 Feb 2015 #44

You know how percentages work, right? Are you familiar with this symbol: "%" DanTex Feb 2015 #51

You are right marym625 Feb 2015 #52

Yes I am. Good call to switching tactics to name-calling. It suits you much better than math. DanTex Feb 2015 #53

I am actually marym625 Feb 2015 #54

Of course you are. The second coming of Euler, right here on DU! Obviously... DanTex Feb 2015 #55

He's wrong again marym625 Feb 2015 #46

I ignore the anti-Vaxxers. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #47

Yes. I see that now marym625 Feb 2015 #48

That sort of thinking is not confined to anti=Vaxxers. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #49

Awesome! marym625 Feb 2015 #50

Is there a better source than VAERS about adverse reactions? DanTex Feb 2015 #7

VAERS data has nothing to do with adverse reactions to MMR MohRokTah Feb 2015 #30

Right, but we need to estimate this number in order to make any kind of rational decision. DanTex Feb 2015 #31

Then the estimate must be ZERO deaths due to MMR. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #32

LOL. Yes, 0%. With a confidence interval of lower than one in a million. DanTex Feb 2015 #35

You were cold hard busted posting anti-vax bullshit and got your OP hidden for it Major Nikon Feb 2015 #56

Yeah, umm, no, that's not what happened. DanTex Feb 2015 #60

Two questions Major Nikon Feb 2015 #62

Answers. DanTex Feb 2015 #64

Actually I'd rather show your work Major Nikon Feb 2015 #67

So you're dodging my questions. Just as I expected. DanTex Feb 2015 #69

Well is there one? A better source than VAERS? DanTex Feb 2015 #22

VAERS data suggests NOTHING about the number of deaths from reaction to MMR MohRokTah Feb 2015 #29

Awesome. So, according to you, we know absolutely nothing about the risks of the MMR DanTex Feb 2015 #33

Good bye MohRokTah Feb 2015 #34

Good bye. Ignore is a good option when math isn't working out for you. DanTex Feb 2015 #36

Sure, because correlation proving causation is so rational Major Nikon Feb 2015 #59

You're missing the point completely. DanTex Feb 2015 #61

What part of this bullshit am I missing? Major Nikon Feb 2015 #63

Again, missing the point, and dodging questions. Not looking good for you. DanTex Feb 2015 #65

Oh, and since you don't seem to like thinking for yourself, here's an article by an MPH making DanTex Feb 2015 #66

Wow! Two replies even. Major Nikon Feb 2015 #68

OK, clearly you don't actually care about the substance of the argument, you just like the feeling DanTex Feb 2015 #70

That WAS the substance of your argument Major Nikon Feb 2015 #74

Again, I don't think you realize the absurdity of what you are saying. DanTex Feb 2015 #75

Oooops! Strawman. Gotta call bullshit. Death and risk don't even sound the same. Major Nikon Feb 2015 #76

Cute. I'm talking about risk of death. LOL. DanTex Feb 2015 #77

Why are you afraid of talking about those 86 deaths you duplicitously attributed to the MMR vaccine? Major Nikon Feb 2015 #78

Dodge. Again. Getting boring. DanTex Feb 2015 #79

You have yet to walk back this statement and even claimed it was "absolutely not" bullshit Major Nikon Feb 2015 #80

Enough going in circles. You've got nothing. This conversation has run its course. DanTex Feb 2015 #84

You stole my line! Major Nikon Feb 2015 #85

Yes, that was insane and THANK YOU for posting that. sibelian Feb 2015 #72

Exactly. I agree. Individually, it may not be a net beneficial decision, but for society as a DanTex Feb 2015 #6

I almost wish that thread wasn't locked. marym625 Feb 2015 #9

Pretty surprising, huh. I actually advocated in favor of mandatory vaccinations, DanTex Feb 2015 #10

I edited my reply here marym625 Feb 2015 #13

Here's the a quote from the OP. DanTex Feb 2015 #15

I didn't see you advocate in favour of mandatory vaccinations, at all. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #14

I didn't "advocate" in favor of individual decisions, what I did is recognize that an individual DanTex Feb 2015 #16

Too bad your otherthread got locked...conditioned vs unconditioned risk and their impact on thinking HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #12

skipping vx to "a disease that barely exists" DUE TO vaccinations is not risky? uppityperson Feb 2015 #27

Yes. Exactly that. DanTex Feb 2015 #28

You opened the Cabinet of Dr Lilly. ucrdem Feb 2015 #38

Great, let's collectivize the profits instead of the liability: ucrdem Feb 2015 #37

That law was sponsored by Henry Waxman (D) Major Nikon Feb 2015 #58

So is eradication of poverty. LWolf Feb 2015 #43

It's funny that Jamaal510 Feb 2015 #57

Which is why conservatives are turning against it... Fumesucker Feb 2015 #71

It also contributes to our environmental situation The2ndWheel Feb 2015 #81

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2015 #82

... greatauntoftriplets Feb 2015 #83

Oh snap! William769 Feb 2015 #86

He looks so young there! greatauntoftriplets Feb 2015 #87

He's still young at heart besides all the bullshit thrown at him. William769 Feb 2015 #89

True. greatauntoftriplets Feb 2015 #90

I see what you did there. William769 Feb 2015 #91

... greatauntoftriplets Feb 2015 #92

Sounds like socialism to me. n/t leeroysphitz Feb 2015 #88