iBores
in [UK Mac]
|
From: D.M. Procida on 13 Jun 2010 13:25 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > That's incorrect. The reason for a combined vaccination is that what > > happens otherwise is that 90% of children will get their first one, 90% > > of 90% will get the second, and only 90% of 90% of 90% will get the > > third - and that's not enough to protect the population (the actual > > figures aren't actually 90%, but you get the point). > > Well, I get the point that you're wrong. The variables are not > independent, so it's incorrect to multiply probabilities as you are > doing. For a vaccination programme it's fairly clear that the 90% of > parents who ensure their children are vaccinated in the first round will > be most likely to be the same 90% who get their children vaccinated in > the next rounds. No, that isn't what in fact happens. It happens the way I described: the numbers fall off each time. The child who isn't brought for the first vaccination isn't going to be brought for the next two. The one who misses the second (perhaps because something that happened after the first) won't get the third. Some of those who get 1 and 2 fail to turn up for 3. The proportion of children that fail to attend for the next vaccination they're supposed to receive is roughly the same. This is why it works out at x% * x% * x%; as I said, x% in each case is somewhere near 90%, and it's roughly the same each time, but I don't have that information to hand. There is a well-known effect in paediatric medicine which is no doubt at work in this, though I don't suppose it's the only one: in the early months of a child's life, the older it is, it is less likely to attend age-appropriate preventative health-care. Basically, the older the child, the more likely it is not to be brought in for a routine innoculation. Secondly, even if a child did eventually receive all three (six, actually, because a 'booster' is required two to three years later, so even fewer children will receive all by the time the full course is supposed to be concluded) the delay between each innoculation represents a risk for infection. Daniele
From: Steve Firth on 13 Jun 2010 14:20 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > That's incorrect. The reason for a combined vaccination is that what > > > happens otherwise is that 90% of children will get their first one, 90% > > > of 90% will get the second, and only 90% of 90% of 90% will get the > > > third - and that's not enough to protect the population (the actual > > > figures aren't actually 90%, but you get the point). > > > > Well, I get the point that you're wrong. The variables are not > > independent, so it's incorrect to multiply probabilities as you are > > doing. For a vaccination programme it's fairly clear that the 90% of > > parents who ensure their children are vaccinated in the first round will > > be most likely to be the same 90% who get their children vaccinated in > > the next rounds. > > No, that isn't what in fact happens. It happens the way I described: the > numbers fall off each time. No it doesn't. You're wrong. Utterly and absolutely wrong. I spent a good chunk of my life working as an immunologist, and in that role I worked in the epidemiology centre calculating the proportions of people who attend for vaccination and who return. As I said, the variables are not independent. Still, I suppose a degree in metaphysical bollocks beats a degree and a postgraduate qualification and a number of published papers in the subject in question.
From: D.M. Procida on 13 Jun 2010 14:54 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > No, that isn't what in fact happens. It happens the way I described: the > > numbers fall off each time. > > No it doesn't. You're wrong. Utterly and absolutely wrong. I spent a > good chunk of my life working as an immunologist, and in that role I > worked in the epidemiology centre calculating the proportions of people > who attend for vaccination and who return. As I said, the variables are > not independent. > > Still, I suppose a degree in metaphysical bollocks beats a degree and a > postgraduate qualification and a number of published papers in the > subject in question. I'm sorry, you simply haven't anything to contribute but abuse. You must be the angriest person I have ever encountered. I'll leave you to it. Daniele
From: Pd on 13 Jun 2010 15:10 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > I know we've had differences of > > opinion about some things, but I've mostly put those down to your > > cynicism vs my naive optimism. > > Like whatever, I stopped listening to about a year ago. I'll take that as a "Don't ask me, I'm clueless" then. Cheers. -- Pd
From: Steve Firth on 13 Jun 2010 15:54
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > I'm sorry, I doubt it, but I accept your apology. > you simply haven't anything to contribute but abuse. A lie, I didn't abuse you or anyone. > You must be the angriest person I have ever encountered. I'm not angry. Please continue to tell lies, it at least good for a laugh. |