Close
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 98
  1. #41
    .
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Florissant
    Posts
    4,380

    Default

    You pulled
    You just need to take a breath of air in a large, general area where they were to be infected, and your odds of dying from it after infection are somewhere around 1/100 (esp for high risk populations, e.g. the infants that cannot be vaccinated).
    right out of your ass.

    Actual studies I cited claim
    Since nearly 90% of measles cases are not reported to the CDC, the result is a case-fatality rate of 1 in 10,000 for all measles cases. It is important to measure disease risks based on total measles cases, not just the 10% of cases that are reported.
    - orders of magnitude less then your uneducated estimate.

    You then come back to cite studies that show
    That roughly translates into about one death for every 1,000 cases, or a case-fatality rate of about 0.1%.
    still an order above your own guesstimate.

    My previous point remains - people should read actual studies and statistics that are widely available before making a decision. As opposed to just taking the obviously uninformed word of a vaccine warrior on a gun forum.

    In addition to studying the risk of contracting a disease and its consequences, I would hope people would study several sources of actual studies on the risks of different vaccines. I wouldn't take my word for it either - it is up to the individual - not the govt to make these decisions.

  2. #42
    Keyboard Operation Specialist FoxtArt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Oh, man you totally got me.. quoting actual CDC and JDC data...
    The infant with measles will have an overall risk of a severe outcome (death, SSPE or encephalitis of 1:215). Similarly, the risk in an older child would be 1:379.
    So yeah, my memory isn't perfect but I did clarify that as at-risk populations, I thought, although I could have phrased it better. It's not 1 in 100 it's 1:215 that are dead, or with complications that might as well be, my mistake, I apologize. (And really, is there an argument to make because it's 1:215 instead of 1:100? Same significance) And again, infants can't even be vaccinated which is pretty clear in my post.

    Killing - or virtually killing - one in two hundred and fifteen infants to satisfy conspiratory nuts who recklessly distribute pathogens isn't a protected right. You've yet to point out which enumerated right that is in the BOR.

    The reason why that statistic matters, by the way, is because they are 100% unvaccinated and immunocompromised. All an infant has to do to get measles is breathe a single breath of air that was in a general area around a measles positive individual, potentially many hours after they are gone, and whom could be asymptomatic. At that point, they have a 1:215 chance of being dead, or pretty screwed at best (corrected statistic).
    Last edited by FoxtArt; 04-20-2019 at 13:02.

  3. #43
    Keyboard Operation Specialist FoxtArt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    For illustration sake, lets pretend it is exactly 1/1000 people that die when the measles mutates and fully evades vaccines. Casualties in CO could be expected to approach 6,000 before it ran it's course, if we assume full penetration of the population, which as measles is about the most virulent thing out there, is going to be pretty close.

    Now, lets just look at 0-12 months. At the actual CDC rate, it would be 325 infants in Colorado every year either dead, with SSPE, or with encephalitis with full penetration of the virus (mutated or not, they aren't vaccinated) - which would, in fairness, eventually substantially subside with herd immunity of the survivors limiting breakouts. Note encephalitis and SSPE on an infant can often produce lifetime retardation - they are serious brain inflammation that causes a lot of damage.

    Meanwhile, in 2018, there were 584 total fatalities in CO from car accidents, of which a tiny minority were 0-12mo old.

    Most measles cases are reported, btw, because it is so freaking contagious that unreported people cause local breakouts, which inevitably hit the CDC. To go unreported, it has to burnout quickly thanks to herd immunity, which most states no longer have. CO is 88%, it needs ~ 95% to reliably burnout.
    Last edited by FoxtArt; 04-20-2019 at 13:51.

  4. #44
    .
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Florissant
    Posts
    4,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OxArt View Post
    Meanwhile, in 2018, there were 584 total fatalities in CO, of which a tiny minority were 0-12mo old.
    Perhaps your memory failing you again?

    https://www.childrenscolorado.org/co...s-in-the-news/
    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the U.S. there were 86 cases in 2017, 120 in 2017, and 349 cases in 2018. From 2014-2018 Colorado has had one case of measles each year.

  5. #45
    Keyboard Operation Specialist FoxtArt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    ^ 584 total fatalities in car accidents, sorry, supplied for comparison. Definitely didn't read as intended. I'll edit the post to fix that.

  6. #46
    BANNED....or not? Skip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Highlands Ranch, CO
    Posts
    3,871

    Default

    Keep in mind it's not just fatalities we're talking about here. Rates of non-fatal, life-altering complications and disabilities can result even with something as seemingly trivial as measles. The complications from encephalitis alone are pretty frightening.

    The ability to decrease fatalities post-infection is likely related to our advances in medicine/sanitation/tech. That's all good stuff IMHO!
    Always eat the vegans first

  7. #47
    "Beef Bacon" Commie Grant H.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Longmont
    Posts
    2,443

    Default

    I'm surprised by the number of folks on here that are okay, even in favor, of what is being proposed...

    This isn't even remotely constitutional...
    Last edited by Grant H.; 04-20-2019 at 13:58.
    Living the fall of an empire sucks!
    For your convenience, a link to my Feedback

  8. #48
    Keyboard Operation Specialist FoxtArt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    On a side note, an entirely new type of vaccines will be coming out after completing FDA approval along with a new type of medicine. The first one is a universal flu vaccine which has already been developed, tested, and works.

    These come from the most groundbreaking advancement in medicine in the last 100 years: AI unlocked protein folding through crowdsourced CPUS (home computers and cell phones). We've never been able to make custom proteins before because we couldn't get their folding down - which is incredibly, impossibly difficult, and those molecules are so critical to all of medicine, we've always had to rely on whatever we can find in nature.

    Now, they can look at something like a flu virus - which in any mutation, still has consistent features, specifically certain shapes in the arrangement of the virus. And they noticed a special shape on the flu virus that is unique to it. So, they made a custom-folded protein that would fit that shape like a key, and it works quite simply - protein attaches to any flu virus, making the flu virus too big to enter cells. So, one shot, perfect flu immunity without actually having to necessarily "train" your immune system, although I'm sure it "learns" off the protein attached inactive virus just fine if you do get exposed.

    This will also end up being a big deal for cancer treatments down the road and all other kinds of medicine.
    Now, sSould the universal flu be required or other low-level ones like the HPV? Nah. Just the long - used highly infectious vaccines or highly dangerous diseases, with civil and criminal liability for reckless dispersion of dangerous pathogens if you get others sick and refused the vaccine. So sure, refuse to get vaccinated, but if others get sick because of you, it better ruin your life as much as it does theirs.

  9. #49
    Keyboard Operation Specialist FoxtArt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant H. View Post
    I'm surprised by the number of folks on here that are okay, even in favor, of what is being proposed...

    This isn't even remotely constitutional...
    With respect to your opinion, can anyone argue the why, of that claim? I'm still waiting to hear how the constitution or interpretation of it protects against vaccines or addresses it in any way towards being "a right". Court rulings go back a long, long time establishing certain gov't abilities with regard to public health concerns (not talking healthcare). This is nothing like a 1A or 2A issue.

    Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-67 (1944): <-- US Supreme Court

    [a parent] cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.

  10. #50
    BANNED....or not? Skip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Highlands Ranch, CO
    Posts
    3,871

    Default

    ^ That's the conflict in a nutshell.

    Although I think forced vaccinations are the least of our concerns (am I repeating myself?). There is nothing that stands in the way of gov being able to force things that are objectively against our individual best interests once we are sufficiently disarmed.


    ETA: I started the thread because I thought it was interesting to watch the people who demand a gov boot on my throat for their collectivist interests, about to have their individual rights steamrolled as well.
    Last edited by Skip; 04-20-2019 at 14:58.
    Always eat the vegans first

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •