los angeles radio station discuss chicken pox parties... - Page 2

[plunky]

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that #17 is essentially the right way to look at this. This would involve math that I don't remember how to do, but it stands to reason that if .9^5 = .6, then for x^y to = .9, x would have to be very close to 1, not .5, as you've been suggesting.

[Super Glue Mommy]

kind of reminds me of that saying

"I am not actually here, just more likely to be here than not be here."


This relates as closely as i can relate it at this time.
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/...ilityVsStatis/

Frequency View
Definition: Probability of an event in an experiment is the proportion (or frequency) of that event when the same exact experiment is repeated many times.
who likes it: Who likes it:Scientists, mathematicians.

Personal View
Definition: Probability of an event is what a person who studies it believes about the chances of the event. People who define probabilities use their knowledge about the world to make "the best possible guess."
Who likes it: Philosophers, economists, mathematicians.

"
entor: Which of these two ways of looking at probability is closer to statistics?

Student: The Frequency View, because it talks about collecting data.

Mentor: A very important part of the Frequency View definition is that you need to repeat the same exact experiment to find the probability. It is almost never possible where humans are concerned, for example, in sports or medicine. I would like to offer you several quotes, and you can find and correct the errors in them."

Quote:
"One out of eight women in the USA develops breast cancer during her lifetime. Therefore, if you are female, the probability of you having this form of cancer is1/8."

Error:
You are unique (just like everybody else). There is no way for a person to know her exact chances in anything that is connected with health. Studies show that body proportions, diet, weight, clothes preferences, number of pregnancies and breastfeeding all affect breast cancer rates in women. Even though "one out of eight" is the average for the USA, it does not tell much about each particular person.

Conclusion that may be true:
"One out of eight women in the USA develops breast cancer during her lifetime. If we randomly select 1,000,000 women and look at their medical histories, we can expect about 125,000 (not exactly!) of them to develop breast cancer."

me:
Okay I see how I can clarify this for you better. If it were possible to vaccinate and unvaccinate the same DNA 10 times, you MAY be able to draw an accurate conclusion on that, for what the personal probability is for that person. The overall probability can be determined on the population, but the personal outcome probabilities cannot be determined on an individual based on the populations probability.

[Super Glue Mommy]

Student: All these errors are of the same type. They take data about large numbers of people, and try to use it in personal cases.

Mentor: Collecting data about large numbers of people (or other objects), and using this data for studying other large groups of people as you did in the "Conclusion that may be true" column, belongs to statistics. The only time it can be used for probability, that is, for studying chances in individual cases, is when all the experiments are the same (or almost the same). You can use data (statistics) from rolling a six-sided die one million times (in exactly the same manner!) to find the chances (probability) of rolling 5 on your next try. You can not use data (statistics) from studying driving records of a million people to find the chances (probability) of yourself having an accident today.

[Super Glue Mommy]

I think post 22 explains it very clearly. If you are unable to grasp this concept at this point I don't think I am capable of trying to teach you any further, some things are just harder for people to understand (like people who will argue with me day and night that 40 weeks equals exactly 10 months) *sigh* Math to me is so simple, I apologize that I am unable to explain it to you better, for me it comes naturally.. like you know sometimes a person just "gets" something without being able to explain clearly point a to point b to another person. I have been on the other side of this before, and I understand why when you dont understand its hard to take someone's word for it. This is why I prefer to learn things on my own instead of taking the CDC's word for it.

[Super Glue Mommy]

i want you to know that regarding probability and statistics you are right, you are just not understanding the concept of "personal" in this context.

[Super Glue Mommy]

I : Math.

[plunky]

Keep cutting and pasting stuff from the web. It doesn't change that you still said these very wrong things and are not admitting that they are not correct.

I admit that I am not a mathematician, but it does not stand to reason that if 90% of a population has a certain trait, that an individual in that population has a 50% chance of having that trait. I leave the proof to more math savvy folks.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

its "effective" rate 80-90%
Someone once explained it to me this way.
If you flip a coin and get heads 8 times out of 10, that is 80%. what is the chance you will get heads the next time you flip the coin? 50/50. This is the whole herd immunity thing. 90% of people may gain immunity, but it's still only a 50/50 chance for my child personally.
If you have 5 children, and 4 are boys, and 1 is a girl, what are the chances your next child will be a boy? 50/50. Statistically, moms with 4 boys and 1 girl may usually have a specific gender next, but for the individual in question, its still a 50/50.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

no, its still a 50/50 chance that your child will fall into the overall 80%-90% of society as whole. you cant base an individual occurance on the statistics of a populace whole. thats like saying that if there are 4 people in aroom, 1 of them will have herpes simplex. no, 1 of them MIGHT have herpes simplex, but jsut simply because 1 in 4 peopel do, doesnt mean when 4 people are in a room that one of them will.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

no, I am not. I am simply stating the facts. you are using the populace as a whole to determine the effect something will have on an individual. that is incorrect. STATISTICALLY they have a 90% chance. however, PERSONALLY they still only have a 50/50 chance that they will fall into that 90% of the whole population.

[Super Glue Mommy]

im sorry you don't get it. you admit you can't remember the math. what I said is congruent with the information posted in post 22, though I may not be as effective at expressing it as that mentor was

You seem so confident you are right, despite the fact you question your own mathematical abilities. I DO remember these basic math concepts. Just the same, as you trust in the CDC, I trust in a mathematician - however I still choose to operate on the basis of self education, not just blindly taking the mathematician's word for it.

I am a numbers person. Always wished I was more artistic, but this has been my gift since I was a young child.

again I agree your concept of statistics and probability are correct, you just do not understand the concept of individuality when used in this context.

(I am unsure of the actual math of you or the peer who pm'd you because I didnt check it, I'm trying to help you understand a concept not an equation right now)

[plunky]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

im sorry you don't get it. you admit you can't remember the math. what I said is congruent with the information posted in post 22, though I may not be as effective at expressing it as that mentor was

It amuses me that you see these admissions of me not being an expert at everything as a weakness. I don't accept that you are an expert on this just because you cut and paste stuff from the web without any supporting argument. I've taken enough math to know that what you're saying is making zero sense.

[Super Glue Mommy]

^I disagree. I posted information to support something that I was unable to explain clearly in words for you. Yet, you still cannot understand the concept. You do not wish to (or are unable to) further educate yourself in this area and that is okay. You think you have taken enough math already and don't need to learn anymore. Also remember, the amount of math you take does not equate to the amount of math you learn. I would say I am amused, but I find your lack of interest in expanding your education as far from amusing. you argue, but have no basis or support for your stance.

[amnesiac]

Alright ladies & gents - since this is the Vax forum we need to stay on topic regarding vaccines as they relate to this issue. If you'd care to further explore chicken pox parties, please start a new thread in H&H. If you would like to further discuss mathematics, please take it to PM.

Let's not get sidetracked here so that the discussion can remain open.

[Proverbs31]

ANYWAY, back to the radio broadcast: how incredibly ignorant and disrespectful. There are just no other words.

[applejuice]

There were only three callers. I do not think there was much interest in the subject.

They were whaling on the poor mom who just had eight children. So rude.

[Proverbs31]

I cannot believe they honestly think that:

1. chicken pox parties are about convenience (um, it doesn't get any more convenient than stopping by the pedi's office for a shot)

2. the vaccine doesn't have its own set of risks

Its CHICKENPOX, for pete's sake. You know, oatmeal baths, oven mitts duct taped to your hands...

[claddaghmom]

Ugh, after Heb B, chickenpox is the next most annoying vax.

I would say the same thing "helloooo it's chickenpox?"

But I have met people who practically flip. "OMG! Chickenpox! Terrible! Horrible! Your kids will DIEEEE"

I never know what to say to them. It's kind of scary actually, how stupid people can become, and how quickly.

[mamakah]

I thought it was funny when after talking with a caller Kennedy started stating what the caller said as facts. There was the caller who claimed to have side effects from chickenpox 20 yrs later (shingles was one of them). After hanging up with him Kennedy said something to the effect of "If you don't get the vaccine, and let your child get cp, 20ys down the line they could still be getting side effects from it!" ***Really Kennedy? Is that your version of research into the subject? And we are the ones getting called every name in the book?
This made my blood boil. I'm fine with intellegent debates about the subject where both parties have information to back up their argument. This was not that. It was a couple of uninformed people who seem to be happy with having blind faith in vaccination for their children. No need for research or data here! They have their oh so right opinions and everyone else is... what did they call us? There were so much name calling I lost track...real intellegent.
That was a total rant. sorry.

[Scattershoot]

They don't allow people who utilize critical thinking skills to be on a major media source. Only people who don't rock the boat make it up the chain of command. Anyone who even begins to talk out of line is reprimanded and then gone if he/she doesn't get back in line. I worked at two radio stations out of college and couldn't take it for long. Arrogant people with no critical thinking ability are a bad combination.

Here are a few points I found interesting:

The man from the pediatrician's office mentioned that hardly any chicken pox shows up any more at his office and when it does it's only a few spots. He said it could be from a variant strain. Hmmm.

The dj's fell back on the "population has grown so much because of vaccination" line. Unfortunately, the life expectancy growth numbers in the United States actually show the opposite to be true. Life expectancy growth rates have gone down dramatically since mass vaccination on a large scale began.

They mentioned the smallpox vaccine was wonderful and didn't cause any problems. They've obviously never read anything AT ALL about this.

They said pediatricians spend their lives studying vaccines. If a cute, little pharmaceutical rep coming into the office with a bunch of pens and calenders, an offer for a trip to a convention and some pamphlets regarding a new vaccine is studying then ya they do study a lot. As far as medical school goes, not so much.

They talked about how the older you are when you get chicken pox the worse off you are and one dj went on about her teenage brother getting chicken pox in the eye. What do they think is going to happen with these shots? I know two adults who have gotten chicken pox in the past month, one who got pertussis and one shingles.

They threw in the autism thing just so they could say how ridiculous it is. I think about my friend whose son died, and how healthy and beautiful he was until he got the shots at two years and straight downhill after that.

Then of course they go on and on about the 5 children who died of chicken one year in California, when we have no idea what else was going on with those children. They of course don't mention the 6,000 mysterious SIDS deaths that no medical authority can figure out that happen every year. Since no vaccine company has paid researchers a ton of money to specifically find out if their products are causing SIDS deaths, then obviously vaccines aren't involved.

Isn't it interesting how coordinated the effort has become in the past few months across all mass media to attack non-vaxers and make them sound like child abusers?

[applejuice]

It was a surprise to me, one Saturday evening as I listened to the radio hearing feminist Tammy Bruce on her radio show complaining about vaccinations and how dangerous and undependable they are. George Nory of www.coasttocoastam.com has also discussed how dangerous vaccinations can be, although the content of some of his shows are, mmm, odd...?

Tammy Bruce is a conservative talk radio hostess who was the youngest NOW president at the time of the Los Angeles chapter. She was fired from one station for making fun of Mrs. Bill Cosby.