Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GavJ]

Shinosta, 91% for measles is actually in the middle of the herd immunity range for thresholds for the U.S. If those are what you think should be used as a metric, then you would want us to increase vaccination by about 5% to be above it. So... same story as above. It would cost some more millions of dollars.

Also, does your post mean that you agree the government should stop pushing for higher (and more expensive) rates than currently? It would appear so. Please confirm.

Finally, if it turns out you don't actually care about being above herd immunity threshold, then why not? What else is special about our current rate that makes you endorse it, if not that, since we aren't actually above the threshold yet?

Then again getting my flu shot was as easy as going for a refill of my asthma medication and them saying "yeah you want a flu shot?"

They do that here too. People just say no because they decided not to get them (the portion of the unvaccinated who are like college professors), or they aren't going to the doctor in the first place to be asked, because they're uninsured or whatever and don't go to the doctor unless their leg falls off.

[Neonivek]

It was free and took a second.

[GavJ]

MMR vaccine in America at the Walgreens phramacy I just looked up was $100 a dose. Which I think you'd have to pay out of pocket if uninsured (you can still be uninsured in America, you just get a small fine at the end of the year if you are).

Incidentally: whoever was asking earlier about "ethical ways to enforce a given vaccine level" and was convinced that people were too averse to acting in their own interest, then here you go: One obvious step to take would be MMR vaccines not costing $100 out of pocket if you want compliance! Duh.

[GavJ]

Of course! Didn't mean to imply any other blame.

I'm just saying that if you did decide on a specific target rate of vaccination, especially if it turns out to be higher than now, a great way to help ensure people actually meet the goal would be to reduce the very high cost of vaccines to them. Since people were asking about achieving goals.

[Phmcw]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/los-angeles-vaccination-rates/

Result of not vaccinating. There should be negligent homicide charges.

[Sergarr]

Of course! Didn't mean to imply any other blame.

I'm just saying that if you did decide on a specific target rate of vaccination, especially if it turns out to be higher than now, a great way to help ensure people actually meet the goal would be to reduce the very high cost of vaccines to them. Since people were asking about achieving goals.

Wait, you guys pay for vaccines?

Here they are completely free.

[Reudh]

Of course! Didn't mean to imply any other blame.

I'm just saying that if you did decide on a specific target rate of vaccination, especially if it turns out to be higher than now, a great way to help ensure people actually meet the goal would be to reduce the very high cost of vaccines to them. Since people were asking about achieving goals.

Wait, you guys pay for vaccines?

Here they are completely free.

...Vaccines cost money?

[Sergarr]

Of course! Didn't mean to imply any other blame.

I'm just saying that if you did decide on a specific target rate of vaccination, especially if it turns out to be higher than now, a great way to help ensure people actually meet the goal would be to reduce the very high cost of vaccines to them. Since people were asking about achieving goals.

Wait, you guys pay for vaccines?

Here they are completely free.

...Vaccines cost money?

Apparently, they do, in USA.

[GavJ]

Well instead of socialized healthcare, we passed a bill that was as close as possible with partisan politics -- it mandates that you get insurance coverage, and in exchange, outlaws denying people insurance based on pre-existing conditions.  But it all still relies on normal insurance as an intermediary.  And you can still simply not buy any, and just get fined $100 or something every year.  There is also "insurance" for particularly poor people in many areas (which may also have expended with the affordable care act, not sure).

So it should be relatively rare, however the people it's most likely for are combination of poor and uneducated OR possibly just the right kind of poor that doesn't qualify for benefits but still can't afford useful insurance (lower middle class)

Result of not vaccinating. There should be negligent homicide charges.

Have you not read a single word of the thread?  Depending on how dangerous vaccines themselves are, that "epidemic" could still be potentially less dangerous than the vaccines they didn't take.

I understand if you disagree, that's fine, but at least, like, address the points, versus just acting like this was a conversation started 10 seconds ago on the street with no context.

[Phmcw]

It pretty much negate your points : your hypothetis is that peoples don't vaccinate to doge the statistically neglectible side effects of vaccines, which would be unethical but would be statistically effective if done under very controlled conditions. Lot of work for nothing in other terms. 

IRL they do it into communities that buy into any random pseudo science fad that hit them, leaving that community exposed. WHich is unethical and deadly.

[Teneb]

Of course! Didn't mean to imply any other blame.

I'm just saying that if you did decide on a specific target rate of vaccination, especially if it turns out to be higher than now, a great way to help ensure people actually meet the goal would be to reduce the very high cost of vaccines to them. Since people were asking about achieving goals.

Wait, you guys pay for vaccines?

Here they are completely free.

...Vaccines cost money?

Apparently, they do, in USA.

*Gasp*

On a more serious note, I'd say that is insane, but considering US public healthcare might as well be nonexistant it's not unexpected.

[GavJ]

Except that everything you [Pgmcw] just said related to math is you just stating that things are true, because... reasons.
You're not backing up your claim, most critically, that the vaccines are negligibly dangerous, compared to pertussis itself.

IRL they do it into communities that buy into any random pseudo science fad that hit them, leaving that community exposed. WHich is unethical and deadly.

Just because you're not doing it for the right reason does not necessarily mean that the outcome is bad.
There are still only two deaths over many months, in a pretty large population.  It is still well below the data usefulness for clinical trials that have been run. I.e. you can't know yet that it's better or worse.

If death rate increases into the realm that the data DOES cover, OR if more data is gathered, then that might change things.

[Phmcw]

I'm stating that your math are usless because your hypotesis are wrong, and gernerally you don't use math correctly.

IRL they do it into communities that buy into any random pseudo science fad that hit them, leaving that community exposed. WHich is unethical and deadly.

Just because you're not doing it for the right reason does not necessarily mean that the outcome is bad.
There are still only two deaths over many months, in a pretty large population.  It is still well below the data usefulness for clinical trials that have been run. I.e. you can't know yet that it's better or worse.

You don't seems to understand how the fact that they do it for the wrong reasons change thee way you should modelise your problem : instead of the relatively homogenous unvaccinated population density you're considering, you should use "islands" of unvaccinated population that are in contact with each other whose connexity is the most important factor.

More generally, epidemiology use mainly non linear math that can under no circumstances be approximated like you do.

You  woulnd't try to fix a jet engie youreself, but the maths involved in epidemiology are  much more complicated than jet engies. And don't call something a "thorough mathematical consideration" if you never go past high school level in your analysis, there is a reason why peoples study math.

[GavJ]

You don't seems to understand how the fact that they do it for the wrong reasons change thee way you should modelise your problem : instead of the relatively homogenous unvaccinated population density you're considering, you should use "islands" of unvaccinated population that are in contact with each other whose connexity is the most important factor.

I agree that different types of communities should be vaccinated differently. A dense city will have a higher optimal rate of coverage than an Amish community.

That doesn't really matter all that much for the thread, though, because as of yet, we don't have enough data to get into those types of narrow specifics. If you don't even have enough data to solve the problem with the toy homogenous model, making the model way more complicated is not going to solve anything. And certainly doesn't disprove my claim that we don't really know what we're doing.



Also, another major issue I haven't brought up yet:

In the U.S. (and some other countries), pharmaceutical companies are not legally liable for anything their vaccines do (unlike ANY other drug). You cannot sue them, period.

Given the uncertainty about whether we should be vaccinating more or less in the first place, this is one of the policies that needs to change as soon as possible. Companies have exactly one reason and one reason only to continue demanding this condition and lobbying for it (which they do): they already believe that they will get sued and lose in court from complications so often that it will outweigh the profits and they will go bankrupt.

This is, in effect, a private cost benefit analysis --- consider the fact that the people who know the most about the vaccine of anybody have already considered in dollar terms the benefit and demand for their drug, compared to the costs, and concluded that it could not be profitable unless they got a law that just arbitrarily protected them no questions asked. I.e., the businesses have already decided that in most cases, their own cost benefit analyses failed.

I'm sure that they are inferring things, and making estimates, not working from some sort of secret stash of data or anything. But basically, the corporate execs had the same conversation we are having now, and the end result was that "we can't stand by our product with confidence and we need special legal exclusive protection in order to make this drug at all" (it's not even due to R&D costs only! They continue to demand these terms to even DISTRIBUTE vaccines to new countries, even if already developed)

[PTTG??]

(removed)