Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Measles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sfs" data-source="post: 73586146" data-attributes="member: 8727"><p>What bell curve?</p><p></p><p>I focus on deaths worldwide because I care about deaths worldwide, both personally and professionally. I study infectious diseases for a living, and mostly ones that kill children in poorer parts of the world. Is there some reason I shouldn't be focusing on trying to prevent the deaths of those children? Vaccination has greatly reduced those deaths, and that's a good thing. The point of the article (and the point of this thread) is that it is no longer true that nearly everyone is vaccinated in some parts of the first world, and that that's a bad thing. You have yet to post anything that disputes either part of that.</p><p></p><p>That's quite true. Measles vaccination is much more effective at saving lives of the malnourished than of the well-fed. That's why only a few hundred children died in the US per year prior to the adoption of the vaccine rather than thousands or millions. But hundreds of prevented deaths are still a good thing, right?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sfs, post: 73586146, member: 8727"] What bell curve? I focus on deaths worldwide because I care about deaths worldwide, both personally and professionally. I study infectious diseases for a living, and mostly ones that kill children in poorer parts of the world. Is there some reason I shouldn't be focusing on trying to prevent the deaths of those children? Vaccination has greatly reduced those deaths, and that's a good thing. The point of the article (and the point of this thread) is that it is no longer true that nearly everyone is vaccinated in some parts of the first world, and that that's a bad thing. You have yet to post anything that disputes either part of that. That's quite true. Measles vaccination is much more effective at saving lives of the malnourished than of the well-fed. That's why only a few hundred children died in the US per year prior to the adoption of the vaccine rather than thousands or millions. But hundreds of prevented deaths are still a good thing, right? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Measles
Top
Bottom