Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

The death rate on the graph is per incident. Ie, how many people die out of every thousand cases of measels. So to convert that figure to a population based death rate (the standard measure), you have to take into account the incident rate. Do you understand there is a difference between the death rate per incident, and the actual death rate (population based) from the disease?

Like I said, I'm talking about the rate of death per incident.

[Woodman]

The graph shows rate of death per incident.

It shows very little change in 1964 compared to the previous 3 decades.

Well, duh! Some people still got measles and died, probarbly because they were unvaccinated.
The bottomline is that the total actual deaths reduced dramatically because of vaccinations.

[Katman]

If the rate of incident drops dramatically due to the introduction of a vaccine but the rate of death per incident doesn't change fuck all, how can the vaccine possibly be considered a contributor to a reduction in deaths per incident?

[Katman]

The bottomline is that the total actual deaths reduced dramatically because of vaccinations.

Yes, but not the rate of deaths per incident.

[bogan]

Like I said, I'm talking about the rate of death per incident.

Right, which is clearly one not relevant when talking about the effectiveness of the vaccine. It is also clearly one not relevant when you're...

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

or trying to say

The rate of deaths from measles didn't drop dramatically in 1964.

The default measure of death rate (unless otherwise specified) being one weighted to population.

Now I think it good that you have changed your mind based on the rational points I've put forward, it would make the discourse clearer if in future if you acknowledge that when it happens, rather than trying to have a discussion talking at cross purposes.

[Woodman]

Yes, but not the rate of deaths per incident.

You are shooting yourself in the foot.

The "incidents" were probarbly unvaccinated people.

[Katman]

Right, which is clearly one not relevant when talking about the effectiveness of the vaccine. It is also clearly one not relevant when you're...



or trying to say



The default measure of death rate (unless otherwise specified) being one weighted to population.

Now I think it good that you have changed your mind based on the rational points I've put forward, it would make the discourse clearer if in future if you acknowledge that when it happens, rather than trying to have a discussion talking at cross purposes.

Like I've already alluded to, I'm addressing the scare-mongering that is attempted with statements like "thousands of dead school children due to measles outbreaks".

[Katman]

You are shooting yourself in the foot.

The "incidents" were probarbly unvaccinated people.

You do realise that even vaccinated people can still contract measles, don't you?

[Woodman]

You do realise that even vaccinated people can still contract measles, don't you?

Yes I do, but bottomline = less people actually dead.

[bogan]

Like I've already alluded to, I'm addressing the scare-mongering that is attempted with statements like "thousands of dead school children due to measles outbreaks".

Why do it by putting forward your own (or Ty's as is more likely the case) shonky stats? The rational way to address such scaremongering claims is to call bullshit, and ask to see the evidence.

[Katman]

Why do it by putting forward your own (or Ty's as is more likely the case) shonky stats? The rational way to address such scaremongering claims is to call bullshit, and ask to see the evidence.

I put forward a graph.

Which are the "shonky stats" that you found in the graph?

[bogan]

I put forward a graph.

Which are the "shonky stats" that you found in the graph?

The misrepresentation of the death rate per incident, as the death rate.

[Katman]

The misrepresentation of the death rate per incident, as the death rate.

I put forward a graph that showed rate of death per incident.

If you misinterpreted anything from that, then it is your failing entirely.

[Woodman]

I put forward a graph.

Which are the "shonky stats" that you found in the graph?

The shonky part was how you used your graph. I can almost guarantee that their is an anti vax site somewhere that uses that graph to "prove" that vaccines are ineffective.

[bogan]

I put forward a graph that showed rate of death per incident.

If you misinterpreted anything from that, then it is your failing entirely.

But you outright said you were

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

note, that one says 'number dying from', nothing to do with this death rate per incidence cop out

and then said many things like

The rate of deaths from measles didn't drop dramatically in 1964.

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.