If 3% of the population is unvaccinated, and another 3% has vaccines that don't work, I would by probability expect about 50% of the sick cases to be among vaccinated people. It looks like the vaccines are working.
The vax gets credit for all negative cases (including unvaxxed)? Clearly there are positive cases for those who were vaxxed; that is the vax did not work for them.
Some people have natural immunity, and dont need a vaccine. Some people are asymptomatic carriers - they carry a virus, but it doesnt make them sick. Some people have defective immune systems, and vaccines dont work. Vaccines operate at population level, not individual.
Not sure what your point is. I see the numbers and they seem reasonable.
What's the point of this thread? More measles cases than previous year... yet we can't be certain the measles vax does as it claims...
CONCLUSIONS:
A chance superspreading event revealed an overall level of immunity barely above the elimination threshold when unexpected vulnerability in 2-dose recipients was taken into account.., but a better understanding of susceptibility in 2-dose recipients is needed to define effective interventions if elimination is to be achieved.
97% of the measles vaccines (2 doses of MMR) are effective.
Largest measles epidemic in North America in a decade--Quebec, Canada, 2011: contribution of susceptibility, serendipity, and superspreading events. - PubMed - NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The largest measles epidemic in North America in the last decade, occurred in 2011 in Quebec, Canada, where rates of 1- and 2-dose vaccine coverage among children 3 years of age were 95%-97% and 90%, respectively, with 3%-5% unvaccinated.
METHODS:
Case patients identified through passive surveillance and outbreak investigation were contacted to determine clinical course, vaccination status, and possible source of infection.
RESULTS:
There were 21 measles importations and 725 cases. A superspreading event triggered by 1 importation resulted in sustained transmission and 678 cases. The overall incidence was 9.1 per 100,000; the highest incidence was in adolescents 12-17 years old (75.6 per 100,000), who comprised 56% of case patients. Among adolescents, 22% had received 2 vaccine doses. Outbreak investigation showed this proportion to have been an underestimate; active case finding identified 130% more cases among 2-dose recipients. Two-dose recipients had milder illness and a significantly lower risk of hospitalization than those who were unvaccinated or single-dose recipients.
CONCLUSIONS:
A chance superspreading event revealed an overall level of immunity barely above the elimination threshold when unexpected vulnerability in 2-dose recipients was taken into account. Unvaccinated individuals remain the immunization priority, but a better understanding of susceptibility in 2-dose recipients is needed to define effective interventions if elimination is to be achieved.
The "you can even get sick from the vaccine" only relates to a small fraction of vaccines (Attenuation Vaccines) where the virus in the vaccine is not euthanized. The Measles Vaccine happens to be this special type, however AFAIK the patient have to suffer from immunosuppression in order to be susceptible for being infected bu such vaccines.
THE VAX ISSUE FOR ME IS SIMPLE: The issue is not the efficacy of vaccines but the vaccine obligation. Why are they mandatory when they have no undergone RCT or double blind testing like any other drug? Why "confuse" two subjects so differently? We dont because of profit. https://t.co/1AFfBlwI1V
Yes, a few weeks after receiving her dose, she exhibited symptoms of measles.
Some people have natural immunity, and dont need a vaccine. Some people are asymptomatic carriers - they carry a virus, but it doesnt make them sick. Some people have defective immune systems, and vaccines dont work. Vaccines operate at population level, not individual.
For the most part, vaccines also work at the individual level. In most individuals, the vaccine actually does prevent them from getting the disease.
Except for the ones that they don't work on. How does one validate they are getting the therapeutic effct from the vax and not the side effect?
Some people have natural immunity, and dont need a vaccine. Some people are asymptomatic carriers - they carry a virus, but it doesnt make them sick. Some people have defective immune systems, and vaccines dont work. Vaccines operate at population level, not individual.
THE VAX ISSUE FOR ME IS SIMPLE: The issue is not the efficacy of vaccines but the vaccine obligation. Why are they mandatory when they have no undergone RCT or double blind testing like any other drug? Why "confuse" two subjects so differently? We dont because of profit. https://t.co/1AFfBlwI1V
Some people have natural immunity, and dont need a vaccine. Some people are asymptomatic carriers - they carry a virus, but it doesnt make them sick. Some people have defective immune systems, and vaccines dont work. Vaccines operate at population level, not individual.
Total nonsense: the idea in #SkinIntheGame about the Popper-Godel metaproblem: those whose platform is against democracy should not be allowed to get there using democracy...much like Salafis in Europe. Shd not be an argument to exclude pple you demonize as “Nazis”.
Instead of talking about new strawmen as a distraction, it would be better if you simply acknowledged that you cited an example of a government using deadly force as a regulatory sanction as evidence of how free markets can operate successfully without regulation. If you can't be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself.
Self fancied logicians are some of the dumbest people... I've been there. Good luck.
That's great, and I generally agree, but you're not dealing in a free market in this case. When the vast majority of homes only have one cable provider, that's not a free market. The feds need to jump in whenever things are turning monopolistic, and we've lost sight of that ever since breaking up AT&T.
The feds created the monopoly. There's certainly no free markets with fiat money.
That's a nice little narrative you've put together for yourself. But, given the eyes and skin are metabolically active organs, you still do not know that artificial lighting is safe. You have to assume that artificial lighting is the same as natural sunlight, and that time of day does not matter. Lots of assumptions...
Hammurabi? Are you fucking kidding me?! Hammurabi created a *law*! with a *sanction*! That is regulation, you muppet! As the ruler of the country -- you know, the government -- he wrote a law that said builders whose buildings collapse and kill someone should themselves be killed. You should be *outraged* at Hammurabi interfering in the free market in that way, not parading it as though it's an example of the free market in action.
Jesus fucking Christ, you people try to be so clever and then you say such stupid stupid things.
Yes, the answer to that question being: As safe as natural daylight.
Except you don't have any evidence for this. Equivocating natural sunlight for artificial/synthetic lighting seems like propaganda.
The real question we should be asking, is are incandescents safe?
This is a legit question. The only thing that can be said for incandescent bulbs is they've been around longer. The most generalized question is whether any artificial/synthetic lighting is safe given our eyes and skin are metabolically active organs.
Na, nevermind. I refuse to apply your logic against you under a pretense of seriousness.
I'm just raising the question. You're the one who seem certain of your belief. Each person can decide for themselves.
Yeah, but no. We had free markets in the UK in the 1800s and we got potato famines, adulteration of food beverages and medicines, grotesque industrial injuries, kids being sent up chimneys, etc etc.
I'd focus on masturbating to the idea of free markets, because they're a fantasy that seem to turn you on. In real life, you can carry on living in a country that uses regulations to ensure your buildings don't fall over, your kids' toys aren't stuffed silly with cheap nasty chemicals that'll kill them, a gallon in a gas station is actually a gallon, and endlessly on. I suppose you can try to set up your own free state where none of this is true, but the odds of it being a success that doesn't look like Somalia seem pretty low to me. Happy to be proved wrong though!
Hammurabi solved the collapsing building problem thousands of years ago... Underwriters Laboratories, Consumer Reports, Snell Foundation, etc etc are not govt agencies... you do realize that the effect of govt regulation is to limit liabilities, not actually to protect consumers?
The regulators have been taken hostage by lobbyists who successfully hijack state law to ban local competition.
One case where the feds *should* invoke interstate commerce to protect competition.
Precisely, somehow I doubt the people benefiting from the system are somehow going to lose out with "more regulations." Taleb's "Bob Rubin trade" http://bit.ly/2N3xxaz
The market solution to insufficient competition is, in theory, more competition. When there's not enough competition, we have a market failure, and regulators should step in, in this case with Net Neutrality.
Q: How much govt does it take to ruin a free market? A: any amount.
I don't think that real competition is realistic in the ISP space. Why can't you choose your water provider? There is only one set of pipes entering your home. The situation with ISPs isn't quite that extreme, but it is an example of the same problem - there is expensive infrastructure that needs to be plumbed to every home and that naturally limits the number of competitors that can play. Therefore the "free market" cannot solve the problem on its own. If you only have one option for your ISP, without net neutrality there is nothing stopping your local ISP that serves your home from say, only serving news from CNN (or FOX), or blocking youtube. They can do whatever they want because you have no other option.
Actually, in rural areas, people still use wells for their water supply. In some suburban areas, it's possible to use different natural gas suppliers. And, some people choose to disconnect and live off of the grid.
As it relates to ISPs, I think what most residential customers do not realize is how crappy residential service is compared to commercial ISP offerings. The physical wiring that goes to residential are essentially the same as commercial, but the contractual offerings for commercial are far superior in terms of guaranteed throughput. No "up to NNN Mbps speeds..."
Slashdot Mirror
How a high-fat diet can help the brain work better
"The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube."
If 3% of the population is unvaccinated, and another 3% has vaccines that don't work, I would by probability expect about 50% of the sick cases to be among vaccinated people. It looks like the vaccines are working.
You may be committing base rate fallacy: An Intuitive (and Short) Explanation of Bayes’ Theorem
The vax gets credit for all negative cases (including unvaxxed)? Clearly there are positive cases for those who were vaxxed; that is the vax did not work for them.
Not sure what your point is. I see the numbers and they seem reasonable.
What's the point of this thread? More measles cases than previous year... yet we can't be certain the measles vax does as it claims...
CONCLUSIONS:
A chance superspreading event revealed an overall level of immunity barely above the elimination threshold when unexpected vulnerability in 2-dose recipients was taken into account.., but a better understanding of susceptibility in 2-dose recipients is needed to define effective interventions if elimination is to be achieved.
97% of the measles vaccines (2 doses of MMR) are effective.
Largest measles epidemic in North America in a decade--Quebec, Canada, 2011: contribution of susceptibility, serendipity, and superspreading events. - PubMed - NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
The "you can even get sick from the vaccine" only relates to a small fraction of vaccines (Attenuation Vaccines) where the virus in the vaccine is not euthanized. The Measles Vaccine happens to be this special type, however AFAIK the patient have to suffer from immunosuppression in order to be susceptible for being infected bu such vaccines.
For the most part, vaccines also work at the individual level. In most individuals, the vaccine actually does prevent them from getting the disease.
Except for the ones that they don't work on. How does one validate they are getting the therapeutic effct from the vax and not the side effect?
IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
mean & variance? https://www.mathsisfun.com/dat...
What is the correct rate of warming?
Instead of talking about new strawmen as a distraction, it would be better if you simply acknowledged that you cited an example of a government using deadly force as a regulatory sanction as evidence of how free markets can operate successfully without regulation. If you can't be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself.
Self fancied logicians are some of the dumbest people... I've been there. Good luck.
And yet, you're still dealing with one ISP. That's not a free market.
Are the regs you're advocating for going to cement their position or actually open up competition?
That's great, and I generally agree, but you're not dealing in a free market in this case. When the vast majority of homes only have one cable provider, that's not a free market. The feds need to jump in whenever things are turning monopolistic, and we've lost sight of that ever since breaking up AT&T.
The feds created the monopoly. There's certainly no free markets with fiat money.
That's a nice little narrative you've put together for yourself. But, given the eyes and skin are metabolically active organs, you still do not know that artificial lighting is safe. You have to assume that artificial lighting is the same as natural sunlight, and that time of day does not matter. Lots of assumptions...
Hammurabi? Are you fucking kidding me?! Hammurabi created a *law*! with a *sanction*! That is regulation, you muppet! As the ruler of the country -- you know, the government -- he wrote a law that said builders whose buildings collapse and kill someone should themselves be killed. You should be *outraged* at Hammurabi interfering in the free market in that way, not parading it as though it's an example of the free market in action.
Jesus fucking Christ, you people try to be so clever and then you say such stupid stupid things.
Saying "stupid stupid things"... free markets are not free of ethics... https://freekeene.com/2007/12/...
Yes, the answer to that question being: As safe as natural daylight.
Except you don't have any evidence for this. Equivocating natural sunlight for artificial/synthetic lighting seems like propaganda.
The real question we should be asking, is are incandescents safe?
This is a legit question. The only thing that can be said for incandescent bulbs is they've been around longer. The most generalized question is whether any artificial/synthetic lighting is safe given our eyes and skin are metabolically active organs.
Na, nevermind. I refuse to apply your logic against you under a pretense of seriousness.
I'm just raising the question. You're the one who seem certain of your belief. Each person can decide for themselves.
I'd focus on masturbating to the idea of free markets, because they're a fantasy that seem to turn you on.
Also, you seem to be turned on by the govt regulatory utopia we're currently in... advocating for more of it and all... lol
Yeah, but no. We had free markets in the UK in the 1800s and we got potato famines, adulteration of food beverages and medicines, grotesque industrial injuries, kids being sent up chimneys, etc etc.
I'd focus on masturbating to the idea of free markets, because they're a fantasy that seem to turn you on. In real life, you can carry on living in a country that uses regulations to ensure your buildings don't fall over, your kids' toys aren't stuffed silly with cheap nasty chemicals that'll kill them, a gallon in a gas station is actually a gallon, and endlessly on. I suppose you can try to set up your own free state where none of this is true, but the odds of it being a success that doesn't look like Somalia seem pretty low to me. Happy to be proved wrong though!
Hammurabi solved the collapsing building problem thousands of years ago... Underwriters Laboratories, Consumer Reports, Snell Foundation, etc etc are not govt agencies... you do realize that the effect of govt regulation is to limit liabilities, not actually to protect consumers?
What exactly were you trying to prove, again? Are you trying to move the goalposts? I've seen better attempts.
Only asking, "Are LEDs safe?" Your own ramblings indicate you just assume they are but you don't really know either.
The regulators have been taken hostage by lobbyists who successfully hijack state law to ban local competition.
One case where the feds *should* invoke interstate commerce to protect competition.
Precisely, somehow I doubt the people benefiting from the system are somehow going to lose out with "more regulations." Taleb's "Bob Rubin trade" http://bit.ly/2N3xxaz
The market solution to insufficient competition is, in theory, more competition. When there's not enough competition, we have a market failure, and regulators should step in, in this case with Net Neutrality.
Q: How much govt does it take to ruin a free market? A: any amount.
I don't think that real competition is realistic in the ISP space. Why can't you choose your water provider? There is only one set of pipes entering your home. The situation with ISPs isn't quite that extreme, but it is an example of the same problem - there is expensive infrastructure that needs to be plumbed to every home and that naturally limits the number of competitors that can play. Therefore the "free market" cannot solve the problem on its own. If you only have one option for your ISP, without net neutrality there is nothing stopping your local ISP that serves your home from say, only serving news from CNN (or FOX), or blocking youtube. They can do whatever they want because you have no other option.
Actually, in rural areas, people still use wells for their water supply. In some suburban areas, it's possible to use different natural gas suppliers. And, some people choose to disconnect and live off of the grid. As it relates to ISPs, I think what most residential customers do not realize is how crappy residential service is compared to commercial ISP offerings. The physical wiring that goes to residential are essentially the same as commercial, but the contractual offerings for commercial are far superior in terms of guaranteed throughput. No "up to NNN Mbps speeds..."