SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two people diagnosed HIV positive after receiving 'vampire facial' in New Mexico
At least two clients of a shuttered New Mexico day spa tested HIV positive, a state health official said, possibly from receiving a "vampire facial."
The two people were infected at VIP Spa in Albuquerque between May and September 2018, according to the New Mexico Department of Health.
The infections came via "injection related procedures," state regulators said in a statement. The health department did not elaborate.
But NBC affiliate KOB reported that the procedure in question is the so-called "vampire facial" — when blood is drawn from a client's body and then re-injected into his or her face.
State health officials fear there might be more people who could test positive for HIV, and hepatitis B and C.
So, slept with any mortals/vessels lately?
Previously: "Vampire Facial" Gone Wrong
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 02 2019, @10:51PM (2 children)
The owner was a Muslim and two of the assistants were Muslims. Maybe this is a new form of jihad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 03 2019, @07:22PM (1 child)
Bayes' theorem states P(H|E)/P(¬H|E) = P(E|H)/P(E|¬H) * P(H)/P(¬H).
Here H is ``this is an islamic attack'', and E is ``(a) muslim(s) had the opportunity to do this''. Now we figure out the likelihood ratio of it being an islamic attack vs it being anything else in order to derive how strongly we should believe ``this is an islamic attack''.
P(E|H): this is the probability that (a) muslim(s) had the opportunity to do this in the hypothetical case where we know it was an islamic attack. If it was an islamic attack then it's pretty much certain that (a) muslim(s) had the opportunity to do it. Therefore P(E|H) ~= 1.
P(E|¬H): this is the probability that (a) muslim(s) had the opportunity to do this in the hypothetical case where we know it wasn't an islamic attack. According to [1] there were about 110,000 muslims in Mexico in 2011, and according to [2] there were 120,365,271 people total. If the number of muslims has risen since then (which pew expects), then this lowers the odds of this being an attack. If we assume muslims aren't over or under represented in healthcare (underrepresentation would increase the odds of H and vice versa) and that 10 people would have had the ability to cause this (cleaning staff could intentionally contaminate surfaces for example), then the odds of muslims being involved if it wasn't an islamic attack are roughly (110,000/120,365,271)*10 = 0.009 = 0.9%. Therefore P(E|¬H) ~= 0.009.
P(H): this is the probability that it is an islamic attack, _prior_ to observing that muslims had the opportunity. A good approximation of this would be the number of medical incidients which are islamic attacks. To calculate this prior we'll find the proportion of malpractice incidents which were islamic attacks. [3] says that the number of malpractice incidents in Mexico in 2001-3 was 14,968. [4] says there were 29 terrorist attacks in Mexico in 2014-16, "medical terrorism mexico" returns zero news stories on bing, and nothing on the first two pages of google. This gives us a probability of zero, but let's be generous to you and assume that there is one medical terrorism attack per three year period and all 29 terrorist attacks were islamic, this would put the proportion of malpractice incidents which are terror attacks at 1/14,968 = 0.000067 = 0.0067%. Therefore a very generous estimate of P(H) ~= 0.000067.
P(¬H): this is the probability that is isn't an islamic attack, this is just 1-P(H) = 1-0.000067 = 0.999933 = 99.99%. Therefore P(¬H) ~= 0.999933.
We can now compute the probability that this is an islamic attack after ovserving the evidence that muslims had opportunity per Bayes' theorem.
P(H|E)/P(¬H|E) = P(E|H)/P(E|¬H) * P(H)/P(¬H) = 1/0.009 * 0.000067/0.999933 = 111.111 * 0.000067 = 0.0074444.
P(H|E)/P(¬H|E) = 0.0074444.
Rearrange this a little.
P(H|E) = 0.007 * P(¬H|E)
P(¬H|E) = 134.329 * P(H|E)
Which means that, with the absurdly generous assumption that an islamic medical terror attack occurs every 3 years, it is 134 times more likely to be regular malpractice than a terror attack.
Your intuition that muslims having opportunity should increase your belief it was an islamic terror attack is correct, however you have overadjusted by a huge margin in light of this evidence.
This is overwhelmingly likely to be regular malpractice.
Doubtless people will pile on with troll mods and call you evil, but really you just have poor intuition for statistics. That's ok, humans suck at statistics without training, even professional statistisians have shitty intution compared to even the roughest back-of-the envelope calculations. If you want to know more, visit [5].
[1] https://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-americas/ [pewforum.org]
[2] https://www.populationpyramid.net/mexico/2011/ [populationpyramid.net]
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1188117/ [nih.gov]
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Mexico#Prevalence [wikipedia.org]
[5] https://www.readthesequences.com/ [readthesequences.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 03 2019, @07:37PM
This assumption doesn't actually influence anything so doesn't matter. The point I intended to make by pointing out the 29 attacks was that if there were medical attacks among them, they'd be easy to find on google.