SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Emergency Declared in NY over Measles: Unvaccinated Barred from Public Spaces:
Plagued by a tenacious outbreak of measles that began last October, New York's Rockland County declared a state of emergency Tuesday and issued a directive barring unvaccinated children from all public spaces.
Effective at midnight Wednesday, March 27, anyone aged 18 or younger who has not been vaccinated against the measles is prohibited from public spaces in Rockland for 30 days or until they get vaccinated. Public spaces are defined broadly in the directive as any places:
[W]here more than 10 persons are intended to congregate for purposes such as civic, governmental, social, or religious functions, or for recreation or shopping, or for food or drink consumption, or awaiting transportation, or for daycare or educational purposes, or for medical treatment. A place of public assembly shall also include public transportation vehicles, including but not limited to, publicly or privately owned buses or trains...
The directive follows an order from the county last December that barred unvaccinated children from schools that did not reach a minimum of 95 percent vaccination rate. That order—and the directive issued today—are intended to thwart the long-standing outbreak, which has sickened 153 people, mostly children.
What were they waiting for? A pox on them all?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 28 2019, @12:04AM (2 children)
Yes.
No, it means the frequency with which that happened was 1/1000 for that year. The frequency is free to (and did) change by many orders of magnitude over the years.
The data does not say "every year x = 1000 people die from disease", it says x percent of people were dying from the disease and this has decreased over time (for some reason) to a much lower number.
If we were able to stop all measles vaccinations now, what would happen is nothing like the world just before it was introduced in the 1960s. There would be huge chaos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 28 2019, @07:52AM (1 child)
I'm sorry, but at this point all I can say is that I have no clue what you think the numbers in the paper say or how they were derived.
They simply took the number of people who died in that year and divided it by the population in 100k.
Thus multiplying that probability by the population again gives the number of people that died/would die again.
If you can't agree to that all discussion is pointless. But feel free to get the exact absolute numbers for people who lived during that time and how many died from measles and do the calculation yourself. It's just basic arithmetic, no statistics required. Only relying on pre-converted data is what messes things up and makes it difficult.
And what is that nonsense about first agreeing to the approximated value of 1 and then disagreeing arguing that it fluctuated by an order of magnitude? How is anyone supposed to discuss with you when you say the opposite of before 2 sentences later?
If using the average is not acceptable, then giving an average makes no sense. It was not me who came up with that average. I only said the person quoting it was badly misleading by a factor > 20.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 28 2019, @05:39PM
Yes.
The number you are calculating by doing 50 years X (1/100K deaths/year) = 1/2000 is not the measles mortality rate. Does it help if I point out it has units of "deaths" rather than deaths/year?
This is the claim I took issue with:
This is your "other numbers":
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Just look figure 1 in the paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/ [nih.gov]
Death rate was not constant. It was 10 per 100k in 1912 and 0.2 per 100k in 1960. This is two orders of magnitude.