You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Everyone Off Attending the Inauguration Today?
- Thread starter Chris Coad
- Start date
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
Can I just say, as a newcomer, that this board has perhaps the best thread drift on all the internet.
We take pride in it. In fact, it is the true purpose of this bored.
If you want to read someones onanistic TNs from years ago, well, this just ain't the place.
originally posted by Marc D:
You don't feel bad for the kids when the parent's decision hurts the child? It is more than just a public health risk.
I feel bad that the kids have parents like that. Usually a signifier of all other types of bad thinking.
Like I said, I don't have kids so my powers of empathy are probably a bit under-evolved.
I'm also a statistician, so individuals mean less to me than the aggregate.
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
To jump in here (on the vaccination debate) as an economist, there is a bit of a free-rider problem. If vaccination has side effects on a small percentage of the population and everyone else vaccinates, then it makes sense for me not to get a vaccination. No one else will have the disease and I am certain not to get the side-effect. Unfortunately, if everyone acts like me then no one gets vaccinated and the disease can damage many people.
IOW, the Tragedy of the Commons, a staple of game theory.
Mark Lipton
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
To jump in here (on the vaccination debate) as an economist, there is a bit of a free-rider problem. If vaccination has side effects on a small percentage of the population and everyone else vaccinates, then it makes sense for me not to get a vaccination. No one else will have the disease and I am certain not to get the side-effect. Unfortunately, if everyone acts like me then no one gets vaccinated and the disease can damage many people.
Also if there is any side-effect then some people will suffer from having taken the vaccine and tell other people that the vaccine is a bad idea. It is hard to tell someone that their bad luck is just a price for being a member of society without some huge compensation. And if there are complex diseases that are not well understood (like autism) that are even casually linked to vaccinations (all children are vaccinated and some become autistic, even without causality) things can get very ugly. But it is hard to say that the people who worry are irrational.
Cole
NPR discussed the free rider effect. In fact, if only a very small number of children did not vaccinate, whether or not they were avoiding some risk associated with vaccination, they would incur no risk eliminated by it for the reasons you explain and neither would the society at large. And those who oppose the anti-vaccination movement generally don't think it matters if there are only a few outliers, even irrational outliers, for this reason. The problem is that a movement, with big name movie stars, etc., by its nature, will eliminate the free rider situation. To take advantage of that, you have to be almost anomalous.
For those interested in a recent discussion of the autism story and some other issues with vaccines, Paul Offit's new book is here.
It turns out that he can't go on a book tour because of the death threats. Nice payback for being chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia.
For those who might want to learn something about VLM's claim that vaccines are pretty amazing, and who might want to know enough about the modern world to know why we should have statues to Maurice Hilleman even though he was an S.O.B., you might read Offit's previous work.
It turns out that he can't go on a book tour because of the death threats. Nice payback for being chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia.
For those who might want to learn something about VLM's claim that vaccines are pretty amazing, and who might want to know enough about the modern world to know why we should have statues to Maurice Hilleman even though he was an S.O.B., you might read Offit's previous work.
The free-rider effect has the charming name of "herd immunity" in the biz.
ETA--as VLM noted above.
Measles is making a comeback in the UK. Mumps and pertussis in the US. Unvaccinated kids have died recently from Hib.
People see autistic kids and think, "isn't that awful," and in fact it is. They don't see kids deaf, crippled, or dead from vaccine-preventable diseases, and it's hard for most people to contemplate that in the abstract.
Fortunately, the two do not appear to be in opposition at all.
ETA--as VLM noted above.
Measles is making a comeback in the UK. Mumps and pertussis in the US. Unvaccinated kids have died recently from Hib.
People see autistic kids and think, "isn't that awful," and in fact it is. They don't see kids deaf, crippled, or dead from vaccine-preventable diseases, and it's hard for most people to contemplate that in the abstract.
Fortunately, the two do not appear to be in opposition at all.
Scott Kraft
Scott Kraft
I hate to say it, but a lot of this comes down to the marketing of ideas. Most scientists are pretty poor marketers. Indeed, most despise the very thought of marketing. This gives the other side a decided advantage. They are great marketers. They use fear, graphic imagery, deceptive logic, etc to get people on their side. Today, they are some of the most effective viral marketers around. Very internet savvy.
It's not enough to be right. You've got to convince people to embrace it.
It's not enough to be right. You've got to convince people to embrace it.
Not to mention the death threats, they work pretty well too.originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I hate to say it, but a lot of this comes down to the marketing of ideas. Most scientists are pretty poor marketers. Indeed, most despise the very thought of marketing. This gives the other side a decided advantage. They are great marketers. They use fear, graphic imagery, deceptive logic, etc to get people on their side. Today, they are some of the most effective viral marketers around. Very internet savvy.
It's not enough to be right. You've got to convince people to embrace it.
Scott Kraft
Scott Kraft
Quite. And they have a very long tradition.
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I hate to say it, but a lot of this comes down to the marketing of ideas. Most scientists are pretty poor marketers. Indeed, most despise the very thought of marketing. This gives the other side a decided advantage. They are great marketers. They use fear, graphic imagery, deceptive logic, etc to get people on their side. Today, they are some of the most effective viral marketers around. Very internet savvy.
It's not enough to be right. You've got to convince people to embrace it.
Nah, fuck 'em. Needs to be a requirement to be around pother kids. Otherwise, move to fucking Idaho.
There are some scientists who sell well, but there is an inherent difficulty in selling complexity. That is, people are mouth breathing, drooling, fucknobs as Bwood would say. Besides, an inordinate number of scientists have Asperger's syndrome (which some folks think is a type of autism, ironic huh).
Is Carson vaccinated? You are in a prime location and demographic to be a free-rider.
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I hate to say it, but a lot of this comes down to the marketing of ideas. Most scientists are pretty poor marketers. Indeed, most despise the very thought of marketing. This gives the other side a decided advantage. They are great marketers. They use fear, graphic imagery, deceptive logic, etc to get people on their side. Today, they are some of the most effective viral marketers around. Very internet savvy.
It's not enough to be right. You've got to convince people to embrace it.
Nah, fuck 'em. Needs to be a requirement to be around pother kids. Otherwise, move to fucking Idaho.
There are some scientists who sell well, but there is an inherent difficulty in selling complexity. That is, people are mouth breathing, drooling, fucknobs as Bwood would say. Besides, an inordinate number of scientists have Asperger's syndrome (which some folks think is a type of autism, ironic huh).
Is Carson vaccinated? You are in a prime location and demographic to be a free-rider.
Autism is a spectrum condition, Asperger's is on the low end of the autism spectrum.
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I hate to say it, but a lot of this comes down to the marketing of ideas. Most scientists are pretty poor marketers. Indeed, most despise the very thought of marketing. This gives the other side a decided advantage. They are great marketers. They use fear, graphic imagery, deceptive logic, etc to get people on their side. Today, they are some of the most effective viral marketers around. Very internet savvy.
It's not enough to be right. You've got to convince people to embrace it.
Nah, fuck 'em. Needs to be a requirement to be around pother kids. Otherwise, move to fucking Idaho.
There are some scientists who sell well, but there is an inherent difficulty in selling complexity. That is, people are mouth breathing, drooling, fucknobs as Bwood would say. Besides, an inordinate number of scientists have Asperger's syndrome (which some folks think is a type of autism, ironic huh).
Is Carson vaccinated? You are in a prime location and demographic to be a free-rider.
Autism is a spectrum condition, Asperger's is on the low end of the autism spectrum.
Douche-baggitry is a spectrum. Coad is on the high end.
BTW, Scott, I wasn't trying to pick a personal fight, just curious. I would bet a lot of $$$ that a good number of the kids at her school aren't.
Au contraire. The free ride in that town is already trouble.originally posted by VLM:
Is Carson vaccinated? You are in a prime location and demographic to be a free-rider.
We are grateful for your appreciation of our efforts.originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
Can I just say, as a newcomer, that this board has perhaps the best thread drift on all the internet.
I'm not sure the math is the same. It's not just using a resource, it's a question of the probability of transmission, which varies with the vulnerability of the population. The vaccine is not perfect protection, and some unvaccinated folk will have some resistance. So it's a bit different than adding one more cow to graze on Cambridge Common.originally posted by MLipton:
IOW, the Tragedy of the Commons, a staple of game theory.
SFJoe, knowing very little about the empirical reality of wine, usually brackets his comments with a disclaimer about the difference between empiricism and the application of broad theories.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
more or less take it on authority when SF Joe tells me something about the chemistry of wine.
originally posted by SFJoe:
I'm not sure the math is the same. It's not just using a resource, it's a question of the probability of transmission, which varies with the vulnerability of the population. The vaccine is not perfect protection, and some vaccinated folk will have some resistance. So it's a bit different than adding one more cow to graze on Cambridge Common.originally posted by MLipton:
IOW, the Tragedy of the Commons, a staple of game theory.
You're being a bit too literal, say I. TotC is really about the following scenario: behavior A benefits all but behavior B benefits the individual slightly more at the expense of the general good. The inevitable conclusion is that all individuals engage in behavior B, to the detriment of all. Tragic, no? I just got "Predictably Irrational" for Xmas; I bet there's a chapter on this.
Mark Lipton