You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 18882092? ago 

You're projecting your stupidity and unwillingness to accept the massiveness of the tragedy.

>>13323245

>>13323265

0
0

[–] 18882093? ago 

Boomer-tier science here but I’ll do you slowly so people stop sharing this stupid infection graph.

It is true that sanitation and living standard improvements far outweigh the marginal benefit of vaccination. Taking whooping cough (pertussis) as an example, infection rates dropped 75% in the ten years prior to the introduction of the vaccine (https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/whooping-cough/history.aspx) growth in consumption of real estate, information and sanitation all lead to far fewer deaths. These statistics still suffer from the under reporting problems inherit in statistics prior to whole life reporting facilitated by computer networks in the late 20th century.

However, it is not a sufficient argument to say that without vaccination that we will see lower rates of infection compared with the period immediately prior to introduction. There are far more children and infection vectors are far more sophisticated. Someone can carry disease from the depths of an African village to the middle of a developed country in hours. We cannot have both globalisation and weak disease vectors.

The other two posts are strange and are explained through growth in our understanding of disease and our ability to categorise them. As people age it becomes less important to vaccinate them as the will die and vaccinations are cheaper if we keep providing the most advanced ones to the youngest people who have the most value in vaccination game theory - they will provide the most benefit for the longest period of time against the most disease.