>Awareness of an event does not alter your chance of experiencing that event unless you are actively seeking, or avoiding it. Yes, which is why I said that what you said was true. It's STILL useless though. It tells us nothing that every smart person didn't already know.
But then nobody at all suggested it and it's mindboggling how you could conclude that what the GP said meant that. Nobody was suggesting awareness alters the odds. We were informing you of the simple fact that it wouldn't be on the news unless the odds were astronomically low. Hence, if it is on the news - you can conclude that the odds must be astronomically low. Ergo, if it's on the news it will not happen to you.
No. You're an idiot and everything you said is false. Those ideas were displaced by better science.
That's the RIGHT way to challenge science - the ONLY way - with better science. There is no science backing anti-vaxxers whatsoever. It's not even worse science, it's the complete absence of science.
There have been nurses who successfully overturned the orthodoxy on treatments - and made breakthroughs, but they did it with better science - they defeated the orthodoxy with methodically gathered evidence. That's the only way that is acceptable.
>The United Kingdom fell? No. The British Empire fell. What exists today has is something quite different and no more the same empire surviving than the modern city of Rome is the Roman Empire.
There are quite a few - and notably a study that showed that spreading the schedule out and NOT following the suggested schedule DOUBLES the risk factors.
There are plenty wrong with Clinton - and she will almost certainly launch at least one new war. But at least HER war won't be a nuclear war.
You're a fucking idiot if you would give the fuckign nuclear launch codes to a 'narcisistic clown'. You don't give those to anybody who is not VERY thick-skinned.
Professional liability applies outside of office hours and applies to your entire field. In a field where you are a certified professional you ONLY have freedom of opinion on matters where the facts are unknown, if there are facts, you are bound to those facts by virtue of being a certified professional. Don't like it - you have the freedom to STOP being a certified professional and then you can spout whatever bullshit you like without fear of any repurcussions beyond mockery.
Considering that a nurse who expresses anti-vaxx news has just publicly advertised her complete and utterly incompetence, firing her is just responsible practise. No you can NOT be a competent medical professional AND an anti-vaxxer. It's a scientific field, scientific facts literally define what is or is not competent.
Thanks, though I still think that applies - nurses certified by the board, are reflecting the board in their public statements about health. If the nurses make bullshit statements, it looks like the board certifies bullshit. They would be remiss in their duty if they didn't disassociate themselves from that.
In fact - if you were a little smarter you would realize that those laws you cite - actually PROVE my point. Those laws are created to make EXCEPTIONS to the normal law that applies. If professional liability was not a thing- - then those laws would never have needed to exist.
Another person who didn't read the whole post and replied to one line out of context. Notably you apparently missed the bit about "details obviously vary between legal systems".
By the way - that would be the OPPOSITE of this scenario. If somebody dies from a disease because a doctor or nurse told them not to vaccinate you bet your fucking ass you have a malpractice suit against the hospital AS WELL as the specific staff member.
Which was when I stopped wanting people to vote for her. OF course, that was when it still looked like the republican nominee would be a typical republican fuckup at worse - not the guy who wants to see the world burn.
At that point, I became pretty anti-any-third-party. You guys are literally voting on the future existence of hte human race, please don't vote for the guy who WILL bring about the extinction of our species.
Why would Trump want to kill all his own voters ? Does not sound like a good way to get re-election... If all the stupid people in America die, Trump gets zero votes.
Yes. zero. You didn't think he or the people who work for his campaign are actually stupid enough to vote for Trump did you ? The Donald is dumb, but he aint dumb enough to vote for himself !
>the problem of most people with the MMR vaccin is not that they don't want their children vaccinated, but that they would like to postpone it and separate the vaccines from each other in order to prevent autism in their children,
Which in fact, if that was true, would be fucking stupid. Deviating from the standard schedule is not a good idea. In fact a study was done which compared the rates of vaccine injury among children with the standard schedule with those who got a delayed schedule like you are defending. The rate on the standard schedule is about 1 in 3000 (the vast majority consisting of nothing more than a mild fever and dizzyness for a few days). On the delayed schedule it goes up to 1 in 1400. You INCREASE the risk of injury by spreading the vaccines out. It's EASIER for the body to deal with them all at once than one at a time. This has been proven. Kids who got their vaccines spread get injured more than twice as often as those who get the standard schedule (which is already an extremely low rate).
>which is proven to be related to early vaccination with this combination cocktail. This is complete bullshit and no, it's not proven, it's utterly and completely disproven.
>Further the belief in those vaccines has never been confirmed by the 'scientific golden standard' radomised double blind trial, and neither the safety. Actually - that is bullshit. Whoever told you that was flat out making shit up. Just like your previous sentence.
> and their is no reason for insane reactions as criminalising their opinions. Nobody was talking about criminalizing anything. Just firing them for being clearly incompetent. You know what it's called if you do NOT fire a nurse who publicly advertises her incompetence ? It's called malpractice liability.
>when the creators of these vaccines can actually be held accountable in a court of law due to damages
Aaah this bullshit again. 1) This is in Australia - American systems do not apply 2) In the American system they ARE held accountable - in fact, the system as it stands is AGAINST vaccine makes. It makes them pay compensation to anybody who MAY have been harmed by a vaccine without that person even having to prove it WAS the vaccine. You say it harmed you - if the injury is on the list of things a vaccine CAN cause - even if it's a one in a billion chance you get paid and it was set up to that parents wouldn't HAVE to suffer the very difficult task of trying to sue big pharma.
Even if the claims were true, what a sad fucking person you must be if you think autism is worse than being DEAD. The whole anti-vaxx thing is seriously offensive to actual autism sufferers. Your basically telling htem that, there is something which MIGHT give your kid autism and avoiding it will probably kill your kid - you choose to let them probably die ? You are actually telling real human beings that their lives are worse than death. If I was autistic- I would punch you in the face for saying that about me.
And all that aside. This has NOTHING to do with freedom. A licensed professional who denies facts on the topic they are trusted to provide them on is committing malpractice.
Not to mention it's definitely reckless malpractise which can and WILL get their employer (in this case the government) sued when some kid loses their legs to polio because the nurse advised mom not to get the kid a shot.
Giving bad medical advice is malpractise. It doesn't STOP being malpractise because you gave the advice on facebook.
Actually the are EVEN allowed to spread their opinion - they just can't identify themselves while doing so. When you're representing others, those others DO get a LEGITIMATE stake in what you say as people perceive them as speaking for you. If they say things you don't agree with, you have every right to revoke their privilege to speak for you.
That doesn't mean some nurses aren't complete idiots. Idiots make it into every profession sometimes except maybe theoretical physics research (because you can make a lot more money saying idiotic things about theoretical physics if you haven't studied it - just ask Deepak Chopra).
>Everybody has the right to his own opinion and has the freedom to express the same You have a right to your own opinion, not your own facts.
>Including nurses. Allow me to introduce you to the concept of professional liability. When you, as a trained professional in a field, give false or misleading information - you're employer can be held liable for any harm that results. As such your employer has every right to restrict what you may say in public as it relates to your field. Now as it happens, Australia is a single payer healthcare system, so the nurse's employer is the government, but that's no different from any other civil servant which, in turn, is no different from any other employee.
If a doctor gives you bad medical advice you don't JUST have a potential claim against that doctor but also against the hospital he works for. If an Engineer designs a bridge which collapses he is not solely accountable for the disaster - his employers are also accountable EVEN if he did it in his spare time outside of office hours (so most civil, electrical and mechanical engineers are contractually prohibited from taking side jobs as their primary employers could be held liable).
The exact details, of course, vary by country - but the core principle stands: when you're speaking as a licensed professional on the subject of your professional expertise you have no right to a personal 'opinion' since you are trust to provide facts you are only ALLOWED to provide FACTS. If it's your opinion that the facts are wrong, there are legitimate ways to act on that - publicly declaring your opinion as if it IS fact, is not one f them.
"My father could not get elected in todays' republican party. According to the republicans today my dad would be deemed a dangerous liberal. He raised taxes, and raised them more on the rich. When confronted with a serious threat from a middle eastern country he did not go to war with them but resolved the issue with diplomacy. He raised the debt and he eventually cut defense spending. He increased medicare more significantly and oversaw the largest increase in the federal minimum wage ever. All of these were sane responses to the issues he faced. But today's republican party would never let sanity get in the way of ideology. It's not my dad's party anymore. My dad's party. The party of 'good morning in America' has been replaced by a bunch of apocalyptic fundamentalists who cozy-up to radical racists and ethnonationalists. They may call his name with reverence but I am sure glad he didn't live to see what they do in his name." - Rod Reagan (quoted from memory, may have heard or remembered a word here or there wrong, but the gist is accurate).
The news is only news because it's a rare or exceedingly unlikely event. The mere fact that something is in the news is all the evidence you need that it is NOT going to happen to you.
And of course that is much better than Trump literally using money from HIS foundation to bribe TWO Attorney Generals not to prosecute him for fraud right ?
Slashdot Mirror
>Awareness of an event does not alter your chance of experiencing that event unless you are actively seeking, or avoiding it.
Yes, which is why I said that what you said was true. It's STILL useless though. It tells us nothing that every smart person didn't already know.
But then nobody at all suggested it and it's mindboggling how you could conclude that what the GP said meant that. Nobody was suggesting awareness alters the odds. We were informing you of the simple fact that it wouldn't be on the news unless the odds were astronomically low. Hence, if it is on the news - you can conclude that the odds must be astronomically low. Ergo, if it's on the news it will not happen to you.
No. You're an idiot and everything you said is false. Those ideas were displaced by better science.
That's the RIGHT way to challenge science - the ONLY way - with better science. There is no science backing anti-vaxxers whatsoever. It's not even worse science, it's the complete absence of science.
There have been nurses who successfully overturned the orthodoxy on treatments - and made breakthroughs, but they did it with better science - they defeated the orthodoxy with methodically gathered evidence.
That's the only way that is acceptable.
These nurses are killing people.
>The United Kingdom fell?
No. The British Empire fell. What exists today has is something quite different and no more the same empire surviving than the modern city of Rome is the Roman Empire.
Only a complete wingnut moron like yourself could look at a fact and conclude from it the exact OPPOSITE of what it implies.
There are quite a few - and notably a study that showed that spreading the schedule out and NOT following the suggested schedule DOUBLES the risk factors.
There are plenty wrong with Clinton - and she will almost certainly launch at least one new war. But at least HER war won't be a nuclear war.
You're a fucking idiot if you would give the fuckign nuclear launch codes to a 'narcisistic clown'. You don't give those to anybody who is not VERY thick-skinned.
Professional liability applies outside of office hours and applies to your entire field.
In a field where you are a certified professional you ONLY have freedom of opinion on matters where the facts are unknown, if there are facts, you are bound to those facts by virtue of being a certified professional.
Don't like it - you have the freedom to STOP being a certified professional and then you can spout whatever bullshit you like without fear of any repurcussions beyond mockery.
Considering that a nurse who expresses anti-vaxx news has just publicly advertised her complete and utterly incompetence, firing her is just responsible practise. No you can NOT be a competent medical professional AND an anti-vaxxer. It's a scientific field, scientific facts literally define what is or is not competent.
Thanks, though I still think that applies - nurses certified by the board, are reflecting the board in their public statements about health. If the nurses make bullshit statements, it looks like the board certifies bullshit. They would be remiss in their duty if they didn't disassociate themselves from that.
In fact - if you were a little smarter you would realize that those laws you cite - actually PROVE my point. Those laws are created to make EXCEPTIONS to the normal law that applies.
If professional liability was not a thing- - then those laws would never have needed to exist.
Another person who didn't read the whole post and replied to one line out of context. Notably you apparently missed the bit about "details obviously vary between legal systems".
By the way - that would be the OPPOSITE of this scenario. If somebody dies from a disease because a doctor or nurse told them not to vaccinate you bet your fucking ass you have a malpractice suit against the hospital AS WELL as the specific staff member.
In this case the government IS the employer, as I said just one sentence later - but you didn't quote (or apparently read) that.
Which was when I stopped wanting people to vote for her. OF course, that was when it still looked like the republican nominee would be a typical republican fuckup at worse - not the guy who wants to see the world burn.
At that point, I became pretty anti-any-third-party. You guys are literally voting on the future existence of hte human race, please don't vote for the guy who WILL bring about the extinction of our species.
Why would Trump want to kill all his own voters ? Does not sound like a good way to get re-election... If all the stupid people in America die, Trump gets zero votes.
Yes. zero. You didn't think he or the people who work for his campaign are actually stupid enough to vote for Trump did you ? The Donald is dumb, but he aint dumb enough to vote for himself !
>the problem of most people with the MMR vaccin is not that they don't want their children vaccinated, but that they would like to postpone it and separate the vaccines from each other in order to prevent autism in their children,
Which in fact, if that was true, would be fucking stupid. Deviating from the standard schedule is not a good idea. In fact a study was done which compared the rates of vaccine injury among children with the standard schedule with those who got a delayed schedule like you are defending. The rate on the standard schedule is about 1 in 3000 (the vast majority consisting of nothing more than a mild fever and dizzyness for a few days). On the delayed schedule it goes up to 1 in 1400.
You INCREASE the risk of injury by spreading the vaccines out. It's EASIER for the body to deal with them all at once than one at a time. This has been proven. Kids who got their vaccines spread get injured more than twice as often as those who get the standard schedule (which is already an extremely low rate).
>which is proven to be related to early vaccination with this combination cocktail.
This is complete bullshit and no, it's not proven, it's utterly and completely disproven.
>Further the belief in those vaccines has never been confirmed by the 'scientific golden standard' radomised double blind trial, and neither the safety.
Actually - that is bullshit. Whoever told you that was flat out making shit up. Just like your previous sentence.
> and their is no reason for insane reactions as criminalising their opinions.
Nobody was talking about criminalizing anything. Just firing them for being clearly incompetent. You know what it's called if you do NOT fire a nurse who publicly advertises her incompetence ? It's called malpractice liability.
>when the creators of these vaccines can actually be held accountable in a court of law due to damages
Aaah this bullshit again.
1) This is in Australia - American systems do not apply
2) In the American system they ARE held accountable - in fact, the system as it stands is AGAINST vaccine makes. It makes them pay compensation to anybody who MAY have been harmed by a vaccine without that person even having to prove it WAS the vaccine. You say it harmed you - if the injury is on the list of things a vaccine CAN cause - even if it's a one in a billion chance you get paid and it was set up to that parents wouldn't HAVE to suffer the very difficult task of trying to sue big pharma.
Even if the claims were true, what a sad fucking person you must be if you think autism is worse than being DEAD. The whole anti-vaxx thing is seriously offensive to actual autism sufferers. Your basically telling htem that, there is something which MIGHT give your kid autism and avoiding it will probably kill your kid - you choose to let them probably die ? You are actually telling real human beings that their lives are worse than death.
If I was autistic- I would punch you in the face for saying that about me.
And all that aside. This has NOTHING to do with freedom. A licensed professional who denies facts on the topic they are trusted to provide them on is committing malpractice.
Every one of those people will get fired. When you advertise to the world that you are utterly incompetent for your job - you tend to get fired.
Not to mention it's definitely reckless malpractise which can and WILL get their employer (in this case the government) sued when some kid loses their legs to polio because the nurse advised mom not to get the kid a shot.
Giving bad medical advice is malpractise. It doesn't STOP being malpractise because you gave the advice on facebook.
Actually the are EVEN allowed to spread their opinion - they just can't identify themselves while doing so. When you're representing others, those others DO get a LEGITIMATE stake in what you say as people perceive them as speaking for you. If they say things you don't agree with, you have every right to revoke their privilege to speak for you.
That doesn't mean some nurses aren't complete idiots. Idiots make it into every profession sometimes except maybe theoretical physics research (because you can make a lot more money saying idiotic things about theoretical physics if you haven't studied it - just ask Deepak Chopra).
>Everybody has the right to his own opinion and has the freedom to express the same
You have a right to your own opinion, not your own facts.
>Including nurses.
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of professional liability. When you, as a trained professional in a field, give false or misleading information - you're employer can be held liable for any harm that results. As such your employer has every right to restrict what you may say in public as it relates to your field. Now as it happens, Australia is a single payer healthcare system, so the nurse's employer is the government, but that's no different from any other civil servant which, in turn, is no different from any other employee.
If a doctor gives you bad medical advice you don't JUST have a potential claim against that doctor but also against the hospital he works for. If an Engineer designs a bridge which collapses he is not solely accountable for the disaster - his employers are also accountable EVEN if he did it in his spare time outside of office hours (so most civil, electrical and mechanical engineers are contractually prohibited from taking side jobs as their primary employers could be held liable).
The exact details, of course, vary by country - but the core principle stands: when you're speaking as a licensed professional on the subject of your professional expertise you have no right to a personal 'opinion' since you are trust to provide facts you are only ALLOWED to provide FACTS. If it's your opinion that the facts are wrong, there are legitimate ways to act on that - publicly declaring your opinion as if it IS fact, is not one f them.
"My father could not get elected in todays' republican party. According to the republicans today my dad would be deemed a dangerous liberal. He raised taxes, and raised them more on the rich. When confronted with a serious threat from a middle eastern country he did not go to war with them but resolved the issue with diplomacy. He raised the debt and he eventually cut defense spending. He increased medicare more significantly and oversaw the largest increase in the federal minimum wage ever. All of these were sane responses to the issues he faced. But today's republican party would never let sanity get in the way of ideology. It's not my dad's party anymore. My dad's party. The party of 'good morning in America' has been replaced by a bunch of apocalyptic fundamentalists who cozy-up to radical racists and ethnonationalists. They may call his name with reverence but I am sure glad he didn't live to see what they do in his name." - Rod Reagan (quoted from memory, may have heard or remembered a word here or there wrong, but the gist is accurate).
>It's more accurate to say 'seeing something on the news does not make it any more or less likely to happen to you.
No, that's true but useless. The fact that it's on the news is, in fact, strongly indicative that the odds are extremely to vanishingly low.
You can calculate what is appropriate mathematically - and it has never correlated to media coverage. It certainly does not in this instance.
The news is only news because it's a rare or exceedingly unlikely event. The mere fact that something is in the news is all the evidence you need that it is NOT going to happen to you.
And of course that is much better than Trump literally using money from HIS foundation to bribe TWO Attorney Generals not to prosecute him for fraud right ?