Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

The shonky part was how you used your graph.

Like I said to bogan, I just posted up a graph.

Your misinterpretation is your responsibility.

[Woodman]

Like I said to bogan, I just posted up a graph.

Your misinterpretation is your responsibility.

Then why did you put the graph up?

[Katman]

The rate of deaths from measles absolutely did drop dramatically in 1964, when the vaccine was introduced. Why can you not accept this?

Oh, and obviously I didn't misinterpret anything from the graph, since I've been correcting your interpretation of it ever since I saw it.

Like I said, right from the outset the graph showed rate of death per incident.

If you choose to suddenly think I'm talking about rate of death per population, that is entirely your failing.

[Katman]

Then why did you put the graph up?

To show that the rate of death per incident barely changed when the vaccine was introduced.

I thought that should have been clear by now.

[Woodman]

To show that the rate of death per incident barely changed when the vaccine was introduced.

I thought that should have been clear by now.

Which actually argues is in favour of vaccination.

[bogan]

Then why did you put the graph up?

To show the vaccine works as expected, and intended, one must assume, since that is exactly what it shows.

Like I said, right from the outset the graph showed rate of death per incident.

If you choose to suddenly think I'm talking about rate of death per population, that is entirely your failing.

So just how do you wrangle "massive decrease in the number dying from the disease" to be something you addressed by showing the death rate per incident remained unchanged?

And where exactly do you see this 'outset'?

The fact is that improvements in sanitation and nutrition is the real reason that the rate of deaths from measles has decreased.

Cos there is no way to rationally interpret that to mean both the improvements and vaccine have lead to a lower rate of deaths from measles; which is clearly the case.

[Katman]

Which actually argues is in favour of vaccination.

No, it doesn't argue one way or the other for vaccination.

[husaberg]

I'm not ignoring the incident rate.

I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.

3 to 4 million people in the United States contracted Measles each year prior to the vacination programe starting. of which 400-500 died ever year.
out of a population over 100,000,000 lower than it is today
Yet now 84 people contracted measles in the USA in 2014, only one person has died in the last 10 years. You are a tosser.

[Katman]

So just how do you wrangle "massive decrease in the number dying from the disease" to be something you addressed by showing the death rate per incident remained unchanged?

Because the massive decrease in the number dying from the disease occurred well before the vaccination became available.

[Woodman]

No, it doesn't argue one way or the other for vaccination.

it does when put up against the actual deaths by population. By itself it means fuck all.

[bogan]

Because the massive decrease in the number dying from the disease occurred well before the vaccination became available.

And another massive decrease occurred when the vaccine became available. How are you addressing this one?

[Katman]

it does when put up against the actual deaths by population. By itself it means fuck all.

If it means fuck all, is there a reason you brought it up?

[Katman]

And another massive decrease occurred when the vaccine became available.

Not per incident it didn't.

[FJRider]

Which actually argues is in favour of vaccination.

Prevention is better than a cure ... and save a lot of grief too...

[bogan]

Not per incident it didn't.

Which was not the claim you said you were addressing, now was it?