RFK - Make America Healthy? again?

Risk of disease death for polio is < 1/1 trillion lol. How would you even get that number? Better yet, how does anyone look at this list of probabilities and not immediately question its validity after seeing that?

I thought polio was eradicated?

What is the number you think would be appropriate for an extinct disease?

Polio is not eradicated.

Well, even if it was, then the value would be 0, right? Also, even if it was eradicated would it not be due to vaccines? Furthermore, it's believed there has not even been 1 trillion people cumulatively in all of existence on Earth in the last ~200,000 years.

I think I had to get a polio vaccine before I went to Afghanistan. To be clear for the thread, I wasn't forced to get it, just had to get it if I wanted to go.

? this is hilariously simple. Of course reduced transmission globally would reduce mutations and exposure even in places like Florida. Go a little further and you might finally figure out what we all gain by working together.

lmfao you are just the easiest target for the grift my man

I think you'd still want to call it one in a trillion because you never want to count anything out.

Ah, of course. We should e-mail the author to have them change rubella then, but since one in a trillion is already taken we may as well just say one in a quadrillion just to add some extra flavor.

in short you actually have no real examples of damage outside of a vague claim to some unfounded ideology only partially expressed.

You position isnt defensible, nor is it one which requires further dialogue - so i'll disengage. thank you for responded to the prior comments though, but the point we're at is an impasse obstructed by the specter of "damages" and the concept that communal society is some myth we only engaged in due to the presence of external forces coercing people to 'maintain some non-violent position, without which everything would deteriorate into madness'

i think the idea you propose works in dystopian apocalypses, post cataclysmic events, and other fictional universes portrayed in film or on a page.

and in response to those specific situations, I dont have much to offer in the form of rebuttal either. But there are plenty examples within current times of community and society bound together by locality and ease of function of existence without some constant threat of harm. the idea that if the guardrail of external powers were to be removed that the entirety of a community or society would choose violence is utterly absurd in the absence of some large scale cataclysmic event rendering survival as the only tenable option to self preservation. but again as said above, impasse. not once have you offered any real support for this universe but you allude to it as if it were a priori fact. If you are unwilling to or unable to express with practical means or examples the truth of the claim, well, I cannot possibly respond. In the same way if i simply chose to pretend every sentence was impossible to make sense of when writing back and forth without some divine intervention.

Just like faith, this is a demonstration of a belief without evidence. I hope you can find some way to settle the internal struggle you must feel that places you in such a dark tunnel of understanding the immediate sphere of this world that you occupy. I certainly would feel dread and stress and perhaps some unconquerable and indefinite existential crisis looming around every corner as well if I held the same kind of 'faith' indicated here. good luck friend.

Dude, don't you think you might be nitpicking just a little bit? If he had said the risk was infinitesimal would that have upset you nearly as much?

They mean pretty much the same thing.

Well, as I said previously the value does not make any sense. Also, in the same table they list "0 to negligible" for one and "1 in a trillion" for another, so even if your argument held weight they are inconsistent at the very least. You could simply ask yourself has anyone ever died from polio and if the answer is yes, then 1/1,000,000,000,000 clearly makes no sense whatsoever.

If you believe it does make sense, then maybe you can explain to me how they arrived at that number? A quick glance at that document they have listed in the tweet does not really explain it for me and I'm mostly unwilling to peruse through the entire document (>400 pages). The other link which supposably lists where the information was taken from just links to "thecontrolgroup.org" which takes you to an unbelievably terrible looking site and the "data" is something you apparently have to download to look at it.

So you don't need mandates in your own area to benefit from it, so you can't ascribe the positives to the costs locally, so the rational way to do it ESPECIALLY if a lot of other places do lock down is NOT to lockdown right? if you exclusively care about your citizens and residents (which should be the legal and moral mandate of every action of elected people, to exclusively care about the interest of their own constituents) that is

your "we all gain by working together" is my "freeriding is even more profitable off the back of people who can't play the game of life".

Same is true for CO2 emissions btw: the more others reduce theirs the less it's reasonable for you to reduce yours.

In short you can't or don't want to read: every time a public dollar in the USA or eur in Italy is spent on "trans care" i lose directly.

pretty much is what can be expected from you.

Science is hard.

Most likely contrived by torturously manipulating data in the most absurd ways.

What you're essentially saying is you weren't forced to go to Afghanistan. Apparently you wanted to go if you did and getting vaxxed was one of the requirements.

congratulations, you discovered the prisoner's dilemma and the value of diplomacy

Yes no one put me in restraints beyond my control and forced my body to go there.

No its preferable to realize you're on the same side and create leverages to force collective action.

If it bothers you that much you can go to the relevant section in the linked report where it explains in detail how they arrived at that rate. You don't have to read the whole report. There is a TOC.

I found it in 5 seconds. Downloading is not required.

Hope that helps.

I am never on "the same side" of someone else I am playing a zero sum game against no

That's why all of your ideas are flawed. Life isn't a zero sum game.

I guess its referencing this (p225-226) @ https://vaxcheckers.org/wp-content/uploa...

If anything this is just providing evidence that vaccines are effective:

Seems like the argument is something along the lines of (probability of contracting disease)*(probability of something bad happen)~ 1/trillion, but (probability of contracting disease) is a function of whether or not the population is vaccinated. You could do this analysis in a vacuum for a single individual I guess, but if you end up getting a population that transitions to never using vaccines obviously this would significantly effect the probability of contracting the disease—ergo it is a pretty flawed idea on that basis alone. It also seems that their source of data for adverse effects is mainly taken from VAERS which collects reports of adverse events or any health problems or side effects that occur after vaccination. These reports can be submitted by anyone, including healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and individuals. It's important to note that a report to VAERS does not confirm that a vaccine caused the adverse event. It also looks like the sample sizes for the data taken from VAERs are in the 10's to 100's for many of the vaccinations. I'd have to download the data from VAERs to double check, but that sort of sample size is obviously quite silly to then go on to publish these data and draw conclusions from.

See also from VAERs website @ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety-syste...