the National Science Foundation (NSF), is to give us the possibility to interact
with these virtual representations as if they were the actual person (NSFW)
All the cancer cells in a tumor are genetically identical, excepting the rare mutation. And they're cancerous, so they don't stop and take the time to differentiate into tissues. They're like teenagers, except in their case all they can seem to find time to think about is asexual division.
All of the host cells in the body outside the gonads have identical genotype, but the cancer cells have both identical genotype and very nearly identical phenotype, too. That which can kill one cell should be able to kill them all. I just don't think that the mutation rate in cancer cells is high enough for there to be enough diversity in a tumor to help it adapt to a selection pressure. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, here.
These resurgences stem from the growing proportion of un-inocculated people in the U.S. When the proportion of people who are invulnerable to infection and transmission goes below a critical threshold, these diseases can spread through the population. The proportion of people who are not innoculated is growing because a calculated cost-benefits analysis reveals that it is wise to avoid some vaccines. There are some diseases that are now so rare in the U.S. that the expected health impact from the vaccine outweighs the risk of being unvaccinated in a by-and-large vaccinated society. In game theory terms, we have a game with two coalitions, Vaccinating and Non-vaccinating, and a couple hundred million players. All players will not join the Vaccinating coalition, because when the proportion of players is significantly above the critical virulence threshold, parents see an advantage to be gained in abandoning the Vaccinating coalition strategy and safeguarding the health of their children to some non-trivial degree.
Given that the players in the game are going to continue to be free to choose whether to be vaccinators of their kids or not, not all people will make that choice. And not just because of some primitive superstition or political inclination, either. It's simple opportunism. The only thing that will shift the equilibrium of populations of vaccinators to non-vaccinators are environmental factors that affect each players' benefits analysis, such as:
Fear - hysterical news coverage about the mumps and such
Conformity Pressures - public shame upon those parents who break with the Vaccination Coalition of the Willing
Misinformation - hysterical news coverage that insists that vaccinations don't have any negative health consequences
Legislation - rolling back of laws that allow parents to not vaccinate, such as the one in Texas
Such actions can be taken, but beg the question of whether they should be taken. Unless we are going to actually eradicate a disease, the Nash Equilibrium that results in the greatest good for society is the equilibrium set by the disease's virulence, A.K.A. only enough people get vaccinated for it to be an advantageous strategy to the rest to not get vaccinated.
Slashdot Mirror
On behalf of the International Zionist Conspiracy, allow me to be the first to say: Checkmate!
the National Science Foundation (NSF), is to give us the possibility to interact
with these virtual representations as if they were the actual person (NSFW)
All the cancer cells in a tumor are genetically identical, excepting the rare mutation. And they're cancerous, so they don't stop and take the time to differentiate into tissues. They're like teenagers, except in their case all they can seem to find time to think about is asexual division.
All of the host cells in the body outside the gonads have identical genotype, but the cancer cells have both identical genotype and very nearly identical phenotype, too. That which can kill one cell should be able to kill them all. I just don't think that the mutation rate in cancer cells is high enough for there to be enough diversity in a tumor to help it adapt to a selection pressure. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, here.
These resurgences stem from the growing proportion of un-inocculated people in the U.S. When the proportion of people who are invulnerable to infection and transmission goes below a critical threshold, these diseases can spread through the population. The proportion of people who are not innoculated is growing because a calculated cost-benefits analysis reveals that it is wise to avoid some vaccines. There are some diseases that are now so rare in the U.S. that the expected health impact from the vaccine outweighs the risk of being unvaccinated in a by-and-large vaccinated society. In game theory terms, we have a game with two coalitions, Vaccinating and Non-vaccinating, and a couple hundred million players. All players will not join the Vaccinating coalition, because when the proportion of players is significantly above the critical virulence threshold, parents see an advantage to be gained in abandoning the Vaccinating coalition strategy and safeguarding the health of their children to some non-trivial degree. Given that the players in the game are going to continue to be free to choose whether to be vaccinators of their kids or not, not all people will make that choice. And not just because of some primitive superstition or political inclination, either. It's simple opportunism. The only thing that will shift the equilibrium of populations of vaccinators to non-vaccinators are environmental factors that affect each players' benefits analysis, such as: Fear - hysterical news coverage about the mumps and such Conformity Pressures - public shame upon those parents who break with the Vaccination Coalition of the Willing Misinformation - hysterical news coverage that insists that vaccinations don't have any negative health consequences Legislation - rolling back of laws that allow parents to not vaccinate, such as the one in Texas Such actions can be taken, but beg the question of whether they should be taken. Unless we are going to actually eradicate a disease, the Nash Equilibrium that results in the greatest good for society is the equilibrium set by the disease's virulence, A.K.A. only enough people get vaccinated for it to be an advantageous strategy to the rest to not get vaccinated.