lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Parents who do not vaccinate their children are negligent. Period. Then by that statement, you too are negligent for not having a booster. Unless of course, you never come in contact with children. And while we're at it, your statement is particularly interesting coming from a climber. It is all about acceptable risk, and one could easily insert any of these statements which increase a child's risk of illness/injury/death: "Parents who keep a gun in the house are negligent." "Parents who allow their kids to eat beef are negligent." "Parents who feed their kids prepacked salad are negligent." "Parents who take their kids on bike rides are negligent." "Parents who subject their kids to a 1 in 3000 chance of seizure are negligent." Oh wait, that last one is what you do getting your kid vaccinated. Fact: Just because you are not immune to a disease does not mean you are going to contract it. Quote
rob Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Hell, seatbelts are not 100% effective either, I guess we should stop strapping infants in. It's also true that just because you are exposed to an illness it is not 100% you will get it. Guess you should forgo the vaccination and "take a chance" (kind of like Russian Roulette). There's more to this than an individual's susceptibility to an illness. If the vaccine is effective for a large majority the laws of probability kick in and the spread of an illness is vastly reduced. If everyone is unvaccinated, it is easier to spread the illness and do so quickly. Is the smallpox vaccine 100% for all people? Because interestingly enough that illness was wiped off the planet thanks to the vaccine (except for a few government deep freezers...). And smallpox also requires booster shots for immunity. Don't confuse Kimmo with science. He went to graduate school, you know. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 The equation for the likelihood of of contracting a disease after vaccination =(Likelihood of exposure)*(1-effectiveness of vaccine)*(genetic predisposition)*(blow me) Quote
lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 90% is better than 0%. Is that all you got? Pertussis is not 100% effective, therefore avoid vaccines? And where did I say avoid vaccines? You might remember, that I was the first to advocate on this thread for boosters: http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/996882/Re_Vaccine_Autism_Link_Deliber#Post996882 Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Parents who do not vaccinate their children are negligent. Period. Then by that statement, you too are negligent for not having a booster. Unless of course, you never come in contact with children. And while we're at it, your statement is particularly interesting coming from a climber. It is all about acceptable risk, and one could easily insert any of these statements which increase a child's risk of illness/injury/death: "Parents who keep a gun in the house are negligent." "Parents who allow their kids to eat beef are negligent." "Parents who feed their kids prepacked salad are negligent." "Parents who take their kids on bike rides are negligent." "Parents who subject their kids to a 1 in 3000 chance of seizure are negligent." Oh wait, that last one is what you do getting your kid vaccinated. Fact: Just because you are not immune to a disease does not mean you are going to contract it. Yes, those parents who don't vaccinate their kids are negligent. You're mixing personal risks with the risk of spreading life threatening illnesses...but you knew that. In addition, you're also mixing activities that have largely controllable subjective hazards that are offset by substantial health benefits that outweigh those benefits (like biking)...but you knew that, too. Finally, you're not mentioning the fact that, unlike adults, kids are in daily contact with lots and lots of other kids in close proximity. Adults typically interact with far fewer people, on average, so the risk of spreading disease is actually much lower. Oh, and many parents who keep guns in the house ARE negligent, considering how many kids wind up shooting themselves or each other. The proof is in the results, no? Really shitty arguments...sorry, no cred. Edited January 21, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 You were right on one thing, anyway. The rest...pretty hard to tease a cogent point out of it, really. Wakefield had a scheme. The scheme was fraud. Wakefield was anti the combo MMR vaccine. Wakefield was NOT anti vaccine. The connection to anti vaccine and Wakefield is made by internet zealots, apparently on both ends of this argument. Quote
JayB Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 When the plague comes, you'll find him safe and sound in his carbon neutral root cellar. Quote
Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Hell, seatbelts are not 100% effective either, I guess we should stop strapping infants in. It's also true that just because you are exposed to an illness it is not 100% you will get it. Guess you should forgo the vaccination and "take a chance" (kind of like Russian Roulette). There's more to this than an individual's susceptibility to an illness. If the vaccine is effective for a large majority the laws of probability kick in and the spread of an illness is vastly reduced. If everyone is unvaccinated, it is easier to spread the illness and do so quickly. Is the smallpox vaccine 100% for all people? Because interestingly enough that illness was wiped off the planet thanks to the vaccine (except for a few government deep freezers...). And smallpox also requires booster shots for immunity. Don't confuse Kimmo with science. He went to graduate school, you know. are we back to meows? you guys are all like adrenalized chickens, clucking and pecking and making lots of noise, but really saying verrrry verrry little! Seat-belts? not use? come on rob, you're smarter than that. ET even said so. oh wait.... so you're driving around in your hoopty, you notice your seat-belt is getting kinda thin from where your belly is rubbin' on it, might you consider replacing it? or is this too much of an intellectual stretch, seeing cause and effect? and kkk really really just doesn't get it. too many times this has happened with other subjects, so i won't waste my breath. Edited January 21, 2011 by Kimmo Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 You were right on one thing, anyway. The rest...pretty hard to tease a cogent point out of it, really. Wakefield had a scheme. The scheme was fraud. Wakefield was anti the combo MMR vaccine. Wakefield was NOT anti vaccine. The connection to anti vaccine and Wakefield is made by internet zealots, apparently on both ends of this argument. zealots like the NYT LOL Kickin' it with the internet kooks! Quote
Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Kimmo 1st rule of holes... when you're in one, stop digging. Everyone else remember the rule about wrestling with pigs. You get muddy and they like it. i like how you guys make assumptions and then run with them. cute, really. no, really! Quote
ivan Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 When I see a baby I run the other direction. They frighten me. that's b/c you don't know how to serve them properly... w/ white wine and a fine tangy bbq sauce, preferably also w/ some down-south cole-slaw is a decent start Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Its just like a Southerner to smother such a delicate white meat with hot sauce. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 You were right on one thing, anyway. The rest...pretty hard to tease a cogent point out of it, really. Wakefield had a scheme. The scheme was fraud. Wakefield was anti the combo MMR vaccine. Wakefield was NOT anti vaccine. The connection to anti vaccine and Wakefield is made by internet zealots, apparently on both ends of this argument. In a gross and obvious conflict of interest, Wakefield received nearly $700K from a law firm intending to file lawsuits linking vaccination with autism using the results of Wakefield's study, which could not be replicated. Damning enough evidence for the UK to revoke his license. Smear campaign? When he tried to sue his journalist detractors for libel, he lost. I rest my case. Quote
kevbone Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Then by that statement, you too are negligent for not having a booster. Unless of course, you never come in contact with children. And while we're at it, your statement is particularly interesting coming from a climber. It is all about acceptable risk, and one could easily insert any of these statements which increase a child's risk of illness/injury/death: "Parents who keep a gun in the house are negligent." "Parents who allow their kids to eat beef are negligent." "Parents who feed their kids prepacked salad are negligent." "Parents who take their kids on bike rides are negligent." "Parents who subject their kids to a 1 in 3000 chance of seizure are negligent." Quote
kevbone Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 and kkk really really just doesn't get it. too many times this has happened with other subjects, so i won't waste my breath. So true...... Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 You and KKK and me and FW should double date! Quote
lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Yes, those parents who don't vaccinate their kids are negligent. You're mixing personal risks with the risk of spreading life threatening illnesses...but you knew that. Still personal risk. True it may spread, but we're still talking hypothetical and percentages here, and not absolutes. And an adolescent or adult without a booster is also likely to spread the disease. In addition, you're also mixing activities that have largely controllable subjective hazards that are offset by substantial health benefits that outweigh those benefits (like biking)...but you knew that, too. While I admit the 1% chance of infant death upon contracting Pertussis is much greater than an infant's chance of death in an automobile collision, it does not take into account the possibility of contracting that disease, which would reduce the overall chance of death by Pertussis to less than 1%. Thanks for helping prove my point. They are all controllable subjective hazards to a degree, just like contracting Pertussis. Easist way to control the subjective hazard is to get the vaccine and boosters, for everyone in the family. Easiest way to control not getting hit by a car while towing your your toddler behind your bike: not riding the bike. Of course, not riding a bike reduces your chances of getting hit by a car while riding your bike to zero. Getting vaccinated for Pertussis does not reduce your child's chances of death from Pertussis to zero. Finally, you're not mentioning the fact that, unlike adults, kids are in daily contact with lots and lots of other kids in close proximity. Adults typically interact with far fewer people, on average, so the risk of spreading disease is actually much lower. Can you prove this with a fact? Most adults I know interact with 20-40 people a day, and that may only be the bus ride to work. Most children I know (below school age, when most at risk of death) interact with 2-12 people a day. Plenty of adults work in schools, and in retail, and in bars, not to mention ride elevators and fly in planes with other adults. Oh, and many parents who keep guns in the house ARE negligent, considering how many kids wind up shooting themselves or each other. The proof is in the results, no? I never argued that a vaccine didn't reduce morbidity. Your zealousness made you interpret my comments as such. At least with Pertussis, we are being hypothetical. No where can I find data stating that people who are not vaccinated cause Pertussis outbreaks. The best I could find was that most outbreaks occur in middle school or high school when the childhood vaccine wears off. Which to me means that not getting your booster as an adolescent or adult is just as bad as not giving the vaccine to an infant if you are worried about morbidity. Quote
E-rock Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 <=~1%. You even suck at sybolic logic. Kimmi,"dear". By the way, it appears you're a bigger kook than I vaguely suspected back at the beginning of this thread. What a remarkably fruitful troll on my part, if I do say so myself. P.S. it's "cute really" how you like to use latin once it a while. "really" "cute" "dear" Douche Quote
Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 <=~1%. You even suck at sybolic logic. Kimmi,"dear". "sybolic logic"?? CUTE!!! Quote
Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 <=~1%. You even suck at sybolic logic. Kimmi,"dear". that's ok. i know you got my back covered with your upper degrees. Man, between your PhD's, ET's directorship of the ACLU, Dwayner's PhD, and selkirk's clucking, we've got a board of geniuses here. unfortunately it doesn't show. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I would guess he's on the young and stupid side...I hope. Jesus, if he's older than his mid 20s...wow. Quote
lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Wakefield had a scheme. The scheme was fraud. Wakefield was anti the combo MMR vaccine. Wakefield was NOT anti vaccine. The connection to anti vaccine and Wakefield is made by internet zealots, apparently on both ends of this argument. In a gross and obvious conflict of interest, Wakefield received nearly $700K from a law firm intending to file lawsuits linking vaccination with autism using the results of Wakefield's study, which could not be replicated. Damning enough evidence for the UK to revoke his license. Smear campaign? When he tried to sue his journalist detractors for libel, he lost. I rest my case. Resting your case to agree with me? You really don't read do you? Once more with feeling: I have not argued that Wakefield did not fraud the public. This is old news. (Nearly as old as his "report") What you appear to overlook is that he was NOT anti vaccine. HE was specifically anti the MMR vaccine and recommended getting the vaccines for Measles, Mumps and Rubella as separate vaccinations. Quote
Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I never argued that a vaccine didn't reduce morbidity. Your zealousness made you interpret my comments as such. At least with Pertussis, we are being hypothetical. No where can I find data stating that people who are not vaccinated cause Pertussis outbreaks. The best I could find was that most outbreaks occur in middle school or high school when the childhood vaccine wears off. Which to me means that not getting your booster as an adolescent or adult is just as bad as not giving the vaccine to an infant if you are worried about morbidity. such subtleties are lost on this crowd. they'd rather assume they know everything. Quote
selkirk Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 fact? Most adults I know interact with 20-40 people a day, and that may only be the bus ride to work. Most children I know (below school age, when most at risk of death) interact with 2-12 people a day. Plenty of adults work in schools, and in retail, and in bars, not to mention ride elevators and fly in planes with other adults. Yes, but most adults I know are far less likely to stick someone elses < insert random object > into their mouths or up there nose. representative random objects include but are not limited to: shoes hands blocks cups feet nose small furry animal previously chewed on bit of fruit previously yaked on random object .... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.