segnosaur

Here's a good description of the scientific method... http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html

Actually, there are plenty of facts.... we obtain them through observation. (We look at the sky and see blue... that's a fact. We look at a blood sample and see cells. That's a fact.) Those facts are then used to support or reject theories/hypothesis/conclusions. Of course, religion does none of that.

According to the privacy commissioner of Canada: https://www.priv.gc.ca/media/sp-d/archive/02_05_a_971030_e.asp The Supreme Court has tended to view privacy in its emanation as a human right, a Charter protected value. Some tensions exist in the natural course of events and the Supreme Court has become the forum for sorting the tension out: how to effect a balance between Canadians reasonable expectation of privacy, a right guaranteed implicitly by the Charter and the counter interests of the state, such as law enforcement. ... In Lawson Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., the Supreme Court stated that a major purpose of the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the protection of the privacy of the individual. The key word there is the word "implicitly". While the Charter does not have the exact phrase "right to privacy", the supreme court has interpreted various sections (right against unlawful search, right to personal beliefs and opinions, right against self-incrimination) to mean that we have a functional right to privacy. Now, much of that involves government intrusion into our lives. But there are various laws that do enforce the privacy of an individual against other individuals. These have been ruled on by the appeals court. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/personal-privacy-explaining-the-new-right-to-sue-1.1239077 ...the Ontario Court of Appeal broke new ground in the area of privacy law. It made it possible for individuals to sue each other for what it called an "intrusion into seclusion," an element of what most of us would call invasion of privacy. (While it hasn't reached the supreme court, the fact that it was ruled on by a court of appeal suggests that such an expectation of privacy against other individuals is also constitutional.)

Well, technically I don't think the CBSA "trumps" the charter. I think its more a case that the charter (via section 1) states that there are limits to the "absolute" freedoms. The charter is still in place. Its just not as "strong" as the other poster is assuming.

I'm sure there are plenty of cameras. The difference is, those cameras are likely tightly controlled, and there are protocols in place to prevent footage from being released to the public. There would be no such protocols in place should someone decide to snap a quick picture of someone's underwear at the security line next to them and post it on facebook. This has already been explained to you. Putting your comment in caps does not make your argument correct. The actual text of the Canadian constitution has this line: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Notice that mention of "reasonable limits"? Basically it means that there is a balance between absolute rights and the rights of the government to do things to protect the public at large. Lets see... you started complaining about ebola questions to a person who was more or less just doing their job. You start taking a picture of people even though Pearson airport has rules forbidding it. Then you pound your chest in pride and claim that you're just "standing up for your rights"? I think I'll go to the old age home and yell obsenities at all the old ladies. After all, by your arguments, I'm not being a jerk because I'm just "exercising my rights".

The fact that you have rights doesn't necessarily mean that you're not a first class jerk for exercising those rights in an inappropriate manner. I have the right to free speech... but if I use those rights to (for example) cat-call some woman walking down the street, or yell racist comments at my neighbor, I'd be a jerk, even if I had the legal right to do those things. Exercising your rights and being a jerk are not mutually exclusive events. Never hassled anyone about ebola questions! When asked whether you had exposure to Ebola, you could have just said "no". Instead, you saw fit to start complaining about how "its a scam" and "racism!". Why would you do that? Do you think that the customs officer made the decision that "Hey, I don't like that guy so I think I'll ask about ebola?" Do you think he'll realize "Hey you're right, it is a scam" and just quit his job? Once again, it likely wasn't the customs officer that decided the protocol for people entering Canada. If you think the questions they were asking were stupid, don't complain to him. Write Health Canada. Write to your MP. Write to the Minister that handles Customs and Immigration. Err, not really. I can imagine multiple reasons why they may want to restrict the ability to photograph... issues like privacy (details of your private life are on partial view when going through security... some people may not want those details photographed by others), and slowing down of processing (everyone waiting an extra minute while you pull out your phone for a selfie) need to be considered. From the Pearson airport web site: http://www.torontopearson.com/en/press/toronto-pearson-airport-filming/filming/ - Filming of security personnel and security checkpoints is not permitted - Passengers and staff are not under any obligation to be filmed – individual permission must be obtained before filming anyone in the terminals - Please respect operational and security staff at all times Now, those are the guidelines for media individuals, but its not too far fetched to assume that similar restrictions might apply to private individuals. Oh, and even if there is no federal law against filming in airports, that doesn't mean there aren't local laws, or even restrictions by the airport itself. Yes it does. You know what else the charter has? A clause that says (to paraphrase) "These rights only go so far as they can in a functioning society". So, you have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to yell "movie" in a crowded fire house, or set up a megaphone to yell out my personal manifesto at 3am in the morning. Or, in this case, you have the right to enter and leave Canada. But, such access has limits... you require a passport, and the government has an obligation to ensure that you are not breaking any laws (e.g. violating customs laws, smuggling wild badgers in your shorts, etc.)

I think you might have been in the wrong on this one.... Frankly, I think you came across as a first class jerk. The risk of Ebola may be over stated. But, I doubt that the custom officer was the one that makes the policy about Ebola inquiries. Hassling someone who is just following protocol (even if you disagree with it) reflects badly on you. If you don't like it, complain to your MP. From what i understand, customs officers might engage in that sort of questioning in order to identify individuals who might be engaged in illegal activities. (i.e. they may be seeing if their story corresponds with the passport.) We expect officers to be concerned with public safety. Having staff that actually makes an attempt to identify problems (rather than just go through the motions) might actually be considered a "good thing". The laws regarding photography differ according to location. Not sure what the law is at the Toronto airport, but Australia forbids all photography of security personnel. The US doesn't have any federal law, but their may be local laws against it. And, its asked that people don't photograph security monitors, or take actions that might delay others. http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/03/can-i-take-photos-at-checkpoint-and.html http://www.darwinairport.com.au/passenger-information/passenger-security Why, did you urinate on his shoes and then complain because he didn't like it?

The fact that you quote studies does not mean that you are correct in your opinions. Basically what it means is that you don't understand the science behind it, and end up thinking the study means something it does not. This has already been explained to you multiple times.... - Another poster pointed out that because the Canadian study was so small, the confidence intervals were too wide to definitively say that it was "ineffective". This was explained to you. You stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted "la la la I can't hear you". - The vaccine is ineffective against one strain of the flu. The vaccine works against multiple OTHER strains. It keeps people from getting sick with those other strains, yet you seem to harp on its ineffectiveness against ONE strain by suggesting it is useless, when it works against those other strains. Not everyone gets sick with the same strain of the flu you know. Already done. Your claim that the influenza vaccine is worthless. It is not. It still works on some strains of the flu that are ineffective. But you're taking one study (doesn't work against one strain) and taking it out of context. So, how much time and effort should we give to crackpot ideas? Should geologists start dealing with flat earthers because hey, science is meant to be challenge? Yeah, the science is settled. The fact that certain additives in a vaccine can invoke a certain reaction doesn't mean they contribute to autism, even if that reaction looks like something associated with Autism. So, by your logic we should start giving credibility to flat earthers and creationists, because hey, they're "asking questions". Or, we get a more educated population who can either understand science better, or know their limitations. Did your doctor do tests? Blood work to determine the strain? Or did he just say "yeah could be the shot, get out of my office". I rather suspect its the later, in which case its just as likely that he was getting rid of you than it was a serious attempt to analyze your condition. No, you rely on studies that you don't understand, and misinterpretations about what science actually says. Yes, its a range...Given the fact that flu seasons can differ significantly in the spread of the disease and the strength of the virus then a range is expected. Yes its an estimate. You make it sound like its just some number they just pulled out of thin air. It is not. Not every fatality had a complete set of tests to determine flu strains, etc. largely because they sometimes don't go to the doctor until after they've already become sick for a few days. They use statistical models. Didn't over look it because, well, frankly, its a case of you misinterpreting the data. Ok, notice the title of your study? it says "outside" flu season. Secondly, notice how the results were worded? May have overestimated. Heck, your study even points out that vaccinated people fewer vaccinated people were dying... they just tried to explain it in other ways. You know, that's a common tactic the anti-vaxxers use too..."smallpox/Polio/etc. weren't eliminated by vaccines, it was better health". Here's what I find ironic... I point out deaths due to influenza, and you jump up and down shouting "Estimates!" like they were pulled from thin air. Then, in order to prove your point, you quote a study that does a heck of a lot more fudging of date than the CDC did. I have not posted scientific studies in this thread, but I have in other threads discussing vaccines. For example: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/18692-missed-the-flu-scare-this-year/page-2#entry670433 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22228-about-flu-vaccines/page-3#entry876302 So, you want studies? Here's one... http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200103223441204#Methods With the initiation of the vaccination program for schoolchildren in Japan, excess mortality rates dropped from values three to four times those in the United States to values similar to those in the United States. The vaccination of Japanese children prevented about 37,000 to 49,000 deaths per year, or about 1 death for every 420 children vaccinated. As the vaccination of schoolchildren was discontinued, the excess mortality rates in Japan increased. And unlike your studies, they didn't have to go and fudge statistics in order to get equivalent groups for comparison. Which again is taking the information out of context. If you get sick with one strain of the flu now, it will provide no protection if you get exposed to a totally unrelated strain of the flu. I assumed you were one of the people claiming "You have to get exposed to disease every once in a while to stay healthy". Which of course is largely irrelevant, since the flu tends to mutate and you will unlikely be exposed to the exact same strain in the future. 'Might'...and 'some'. Can you qualify this for me? No, I can't give exact numbers, because I don't know the exact situation (how many are vaccinated, how many people you get exposed to on a daily basis.) Let me put things as simply as possible: - You catch the flu from other people - Not everyone that you meet will have the flu - If you get exposed to just one person with the flu you risk getting the flu - If that one person had gotten vaccinated and as a result hadn't gotten sick, then you would not be in any risk of catching the flu. Simple enough for you? You're right... you are also given partial immunity from related strains. Please quite repeating falsehoods. 23% is certainly not 0. Not sure how many times I have to explain that. And yes, there are individuals that don't build up the proper antibodies. But that does not make the vaccine useless for them either... It was in the articles I posted. Perhaps it wasn't a 'don't bother' thing more than it was a don't rely on it. There is a world of difference between "don't bother" and "don't rely on it". The fact that you would misinterpret their comment to assume they said "don't bother" is pretty much what I was talking about. antivaxers doing... taking some piece of evidence and mangling it. Well I saw this on the acutal Fluviral sheet from GSK. (http://www.gsk.ca/english/docs-pdf/product-monographs/Fluviral.pdf) Very common: pain and redness at the injection site, fatigue; Common: swelling at the injection site, fever, chills, malaise, chest tightness* Very common being greater than 1/10 and common being up to 1/10. Other vaccines have 24% for muscle aches and 20% for fatigue. Again...if the number is so low as it is in Canada then there is no reward but you do have the above stated risks. So I guess they did say such a thing! Your exact statement was: ...will give 10% vaccine takers the shivers, fever, feeling sick, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, implying that 10% will get vomiting, 10% would get stomach pain, etc. Yet your very own reference shows the number of people getting those symptoms is nowhere near 10%. You drag up the serious complications like some bogey man, and lump them in with the mild complecations, implying that both are common. Very deceptive of you. From the CDC: Eradication has been defined in various ways...as extinction of the disease pathogen (3), as elimination of the occurrence of a given disease, even in the absence of all preventive measures (4), as control of an infection to the point at which transmission ceased within a specified area (5), and as reduction of the worldwide incidence of a disease to zero as a result of deliberate efforts, obviating the necessity for further control measures (1). (from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm) Now, given the fact that the U.S. is not the world, then any discussion of the disease world wide is irrelevant. So, the only definition that is relevant is: ...control of an infection to the point at which transmission ceased within a specified area. Which is pretty much the definition of eliminated. The claim was that the disease was eradicated in the U.S.. They did not say it was eradicated world wide. This your "official definition" is irrelevant. The definition was correct. You just didn't bother doing the proper research. Your ignorance should not be used to criticize others. Again, claiming something is an "estimate" does not mean that the numbers have been plucked from thin air. Scientists are smart; they usually have a good

Just out of curiosity, what exactly were the decisions that they required data from the long term census form, and how would it affect the lives of real Canadians? And keep in mind: - The city would still be getting data from the short form census, so you'd at least have population counts - The data that you had been getting from the long form census would already have been several years out of date (due to the time needed to tabulate the results) - You still get some data from the National household survey, which might not be as accurate as the long-form census, but provides much of the same data While I don't necessarily think that cancelling the census was a good idea, I also have a hard time getting worked up over the issue. So, tell me, how will my life be better just because your municipal government knows how many bathrooms I have in my house.

Another poster did an OK job pointing out how the various parties would fare in each of those areas. Just wanted to add a few notes: - Keep in mind that some of the items on your list are actually contradictory/mutually exclusive. For example, upgrades to infrastructure sound good, but it requires additional spending, which might interfere with your goal of reduced waste - Before you talk about the importance of having a foreign policy that differs from that of the U.S., you have to decide what you want that policy to be, and why it would supposedly make Canada (and the world) a better place. For example, are you wanting Canada to avoid going to war against ISIS? Then you have to decide whether the war against ISIS is a "just" war - Your goal of reducing military expenditures may sound like a good idea, but the issue can be more complex than at first glance. For example, our military does have uses other than bombing various 3rd world countries, and we need equipment to carry out those missions. Cutting military spending now might make things more expensive a decade down the road when the equipment we need starts to break down. Then there's the issue of Canada's various commitments around the world.... to NATO, and to UN peace keeping. Do you really think it helps Canada's stature to be isolationist? - You will be unlikely to find any party that meats ALL your ideals. You will often have to pick and choose which ones are more important - You should also keep in mind that in many cases you will be forced to choose the "lesser of 2 evils" I myself voted conservative last time. I recognize that the party and its leader have some significant flaws, and I certainly don't agree with many of the things they've done (some questionalble spending, its use of omnibus bills, etc.) However, I cannot compare the conservatives to a hypothetical idealist party that does everything perfectly; I can only compare them to the real alternatives (the Liberals and NDP). I had to ask myself "Do I vote for a party that gave us a $50 billion deficit, or should I vote for a party that had plans for a $55 billion deficit."

I don't like needles either. But I also don't like high fever, chills, fatigue and nausea. A needle be painful, but the pain tends to go away after at most a day or 2. Catching the flu can often mean you are sick for a week or more. Which do you think sounds worse? Because even if the effectiveness is "low", it is still greater than 0, and it still far outweighs the risk. Actually, vaccination is actually a pretty smart investment. By vaccinating people, you reduce the number of visits to the hospital (and the number of hospital stays). You reduce the costs associated with the use of anti-viral medications. And you also increase worker productivity, since people will spend less time sick at home and more time doing useful stuff. http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/H1N1-flu/vaccination/vaccination-22.pdf Do you live in a cave in the middle of the desert and grow your own food? In our western society, you cannot help but come in contact with other people, be it when shopping, in a bar/restaurant, or even taking the bus. All the people you meet could be potential carriers of the influenza virus.

You see, here is the problem... While it is true that you have accepted other vaccines, in your explanation about why you reject the influenza vaccine is filled with the same type of nonsense that the hardcore anti-vaxers use. Claims of ineffectiveness? Yup, you can find anti-vaxers making the same claims Claims of risks? Yup, there are anti-vaxers over-hyping negligible risks or even inventing new risks. Heck, in your anti-flu claims, you've even taken the habit of taking data out of context and/or quote mining, both habits of the anti-vaxers. Scientific nonsense should be challenged, regardless of whether the disease is the flu or whether its ebola. The issue of vaccines wearing off is an issue for scientific discussion. The problem is when people take that little bit of information and spin it into some sort of vast conspiracy or use it to justify arguments that the data doesn't support. The problem is not that the science is being questioned... The problem is that the science is being questioned when its already presented the answers. If an anti-vaxer says "but what if vaccines cause autism?", and science says "No, we've done multiple studies that show no link", that should be the end of it. No, that's not logical at all. Its the same type of scientific nonsense that an anti-vaxer would use, and it needs to be challenged. There are plenty of more reasonable explanations: - There are many diseases going around; many aren't even influenza. There is a very good chance that you caught some other disease - Immunity takes several weeks to build up in the case of influenza (and, a small number of people don't build up antibodies at all). If it really was the flu that you had, its quite possible that you would have caught it anyways When there is a reaction, it tends to occur fairly soon after the shot.... if you were getting sick a week later, it is most likely that whatever you had had nothing to do with your innoculation. Except for the between 3000-49,000 deaths that occur in the U.S. alone that are linked to influenza. But I guess they were all bad people... Oh, and the cost to our health care system as people go to the emergency room because of the flu. More anti-science nonsense. Where to begin? First of all, whether you catch the flu naturally or get vaccinated makes no difference to your immune system. Secondly, your body is probably exposed to dozens of viruses and bacteria in a year. If you are worried about your body's immune system getting a proper work out, then catching (or not catching) influenza will make little difference. And once again, you don't need to reach some magical point with a vaccine in order for there to be benefit to society overall. Even a partly effective vaccine (or partly immunized population) might still prevent some cases of transmission. This has been explained to you over and over again, yet you still stick to some idiotic idea in your head. Again, showing a complete lack of understanding of science... Yes, the current vaccine is of limited effect for the most common circulating strain. But guess what? There is more than 1 strain of flu circulating, and the current vaccine DOES protect against other strains. The general effectiveness this year is given as being around 23%. You know what? While 23% is not as high as I would like, it is still GREATER than 0. Last year, in Ontario, 290 people in Ontario died and roughly 3-4000 were sick enough to be hospitalized. If all of those people got immunized (even with a 23% effective vaccine) it would save roughly 60-70 lives, and roughly 700-900 hospitalizations. And you know what? That's with an effectiveness that's extremely low... most years its MUCH more effective. Uh, no, it says no such thing. It says there is little chance of it working against ONE strain (admittedly the most commonly circulating strain, but still one.) It DOES work against some of the other strains that are circulating. Ummm.. which "health authorities" are you claiming are saying don't bother? Certainly haven't seen anything from the CDC or Health Canada saying "don't bother". Nope, wrong. Incorrect. YOu are actually getting a reward... you are still getting protection against strains of the flu that are circulating (but not in as great of numbers). Plus, you are getting side benefits caused by vaccinations helping against similar strains to at least shorten the length of illness. They say no such thing. 10% might get side effects from the vaccine, but that will typically involve minor soreness, and perhaps a low-grade fever. It is possible to have more serious side effects (such as shivers, stomach pain, etc.) but those side effects are rare. They do not occur in 10% of people. (And people typically have those effects for only a short time, a fraction of the time that a person would be sick for.) Heck, even if 10% had a negative reaction, remember that even at an effectiveness of only 23%, you've still got 13% more of the population that would actually benefit from the flu shot and yet have no side effects. Typically when there are claims of misinformation by the pro-vax side, it tends to be from idiots who don't understand science and misinterpret what the scientists are actually saying. There is indeed a definition of "eradicated" that is used by the medical community. The CDC uses the following definition: "interruption of year-round endemic measles transmission". (i.e. the disease actually has to be spreading.) Yes, there were likely cases of measles in 2002, after the disease was "eliminated". They were likely from people who had recently visited other countries and picked up the disease there. And because the U.S. doesn't quarantine people when they return from foreign countries, it would be impossible to prevent a few cases popping up after getting infected elsewhere. But those that returned with the disease did not cause widespread transmission of the disease. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a1.htm Again, this is not a case of the pro-vaccination side lying or hiding the truth. (They've used the same definition in multiple locations, all freely available). Its a case of people not understanding the science, and being too lazy to investigate further.

Wow... what a retarded argument. Seriously. First of all, the fact that you are covered under the US constitution does not mean you don't have contact with others. Duh.... Secondly, even if the constituation meant you didn't have to get vaccinated, that does not make it morally right not to do so. After all, you also have the right to free speech, but if you ran around spouting racial bigotry you would be considered amoral, regardless of your right to express such repugnant views. The fact that you might have a right to do something does not make it morally correct to exercise that right.

Why? Do you live on a desert island with no contact with the outside world? Most of us, you know, actually interact with other people. As such most of us think we should (to the best of our abilities) not take actions that risk the lives of other people unnecessarily... driving drunk, shooting firearms randomly in the air, etc. Should you decide not to get immunized, then you are either: A: An idiot who is ignorant of the basic science (perhaps falling for scientific bunk given by people like Jenny McCarthy), or B: antisocial, showing no regard to the welfare of those around you. Do you fit into either of those categories? Please provide proof. I provided a reference that showed many south American countries (a major source of illegal immigration into the US) have a higher rate of immunization than America. Where's your evidence that contradicts that?

Ummm...first of all, why is that relevant? While it would be nice if each and every resident (born here or immigrated) got vaccinated, the fact that someone else is neglegant does not abosolve you or anyone else of your moral obligation to get immunized yourself. Secondly, the idea of the "diseased immigrants" might actually be a myth. In some cases, immigrants are often better immunized than the children in the communities they are moving to. From: http://www.texasobserver.org/disease-threat-immigrant-children-wildly-overstated/ The vast majority of Central Americans are vaccinated against all these diseases. Governments concerned about health, and good parents investing in their kids, have made Central American kids better-vaccinated than Texan kids.... Consider, for example, Guatemala. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Guatemalan kids are more likely than Texans to be immunized for most infectious diseases.

First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "recent anti-vax moviement". There is still a large contingent of people who say "no vaccines at all". Secondly, it is possible to be an anti-vaxer but still approve of SOME vaccines. Probably the best example is the influenza vaccine... many people claim they support vaccines against measles, mumps, etc. but not influenza. Well, that's still being "anti-vax". As for Jenny McCarthy, she may claim that she is not anti-vax, but she has made such wildly irresponsible claims about how vaccines cause autism, and contain "toxins". Such misinformation is clearly anti-vax. Its like the guy saying "I'm not a racist, but..." knowing that everything they say after the word "but" will likely be filled with rants about "bad minorities". Even arguments like "we should give fewer vaccinations at a time" are of questionable mentality. Even though the person making that claim may think they are "pro-vaxination", delays in giving needed immunizations might mean children are left at risk. How do you define "questioning the chemicals"? If you have concerns, by all means do some research. But if widespread testing has determined "chemical X as used in vaccines causes no harm", then follow the science. It may be imperfect, but it still is more accurate than following your own "gut instincts".

There is no hypocricy... We should have everyone immunized. Older people who's immunity has worn off should get boosters. Until everyone does get immunized, it makes sense to concentrate on those who are at most risk (in this case children) Actually you would be... If (for example) the immunization has started to wear off but still cuts the length of illness down, that's less time you can spend passing it to others. I agree that there is an issue of people not getting boosters as needed. However, some context is important. Anti-vaxers are idiots who at best deny the need for vaccines, and at worst actively campaign against them. Its an actual active stupidity that must be dealt with head-on. Those people should be categorized separately from people who accept the value of vaccines but have (just by a lapse in memory, or unfamiliarity with medicine) neglected to get vaccinated, or received boosters. The first group deserves contempt, the second group deserves some sympathy and understanding. The other issue that should be addressed is that of demographics... Yes, ideally everyone should be fully immunized. But there ARE some groups that are more at-risk than others.... Herd immunity can apply to sub-populations within a larger group. (e.g. it would not be incorrect to apply the term "herd immunity" to vaccinating all the students at a school, even if the adults in the city were not similarly vaccinated.) Again, herd immunity is a concept. A valuable concept and one that should be followed, but not one with any guarantees.

Actually both of them matter. We live in an imperfect world. Ideally we'd like to get everyone in the world vaccinated at the same time (Well, except for anyone unable to receive the vaccine for medical reasons.) In reality that's not possible... it takes time to produce the vaccine, to vaccinate people, etc. so it makes sense to concentrate on the people most at risk, and then finish off vaccinating the remainder. Actually it is... immunity doesn't disappear overnight... it takes years. And it doesn't go away all at once. (People may still catch the disease after the vaccine has started to wear off, but will have less severe and shortened illnesses, which reduce the risk of transmission.) How well herd immunity works depends on how long the vaccine is fully effective, how well it gives partial immunity, and how homogenized your demographics are. Herd immunity WILL come into play if everyone is vaccinated against whooping cough. The issue of how to deal with the vaccine wearing off will have to be addressed (perhaps they will try to give everyone boosters, perhaps they will bring back the old vaccine.) Actually yes you do.... Even if the vaccine did not wear off, there are still problems: - some people cannot get vaccinated for valid medical reasons. (For example, some vaccines use egg in their cultivation, and those allergic to eggs cannot receive them.) - Some people, even though they are vaccinated, do not develop the required antibodies. - Vaccinations require several days for immunity to be established, so in the short term the person will still be at risk. Its for those above cases that vaccination should be wide spread, and any idiot who chooses not to get vaccinated should be looked down on as a first glass jerk, amoral monster. And any claim that "The vaccine is imperfect/wears off so I shouldn't get it" is completely retarded. Partial protection is better than no protection. Its like saying "I'm not going to wear a parachute when I jump out of a plane because sometimes parachutes fail". Well, yeah, they do... but they generally work most of the time, and you're better off with it than without.

It wouldn't be surprising if the percentage does drop further. But, as I pointed out, the ones who are most protected will be the ones at the most risk of transmission. By the time the protection provided by the vaccine drops further, the child will probably have graduated school (or will be close to graduating). I'm not an epidemiologist, but from what I've seen mathematical model can be quite complex. It depends on things like the trasmitibility of the virus, effectiveness of the vaccine, and how homogenous your population is. The big problem is that human populations are anythign but homogenous... people are often isolated by age (school age vs. retired individuals), geography, and economic status. You could have a relatively high rate of vaccination overall, but have one town with a higher portion of morons who don't get vaccinated, and that town will be more at risk. The other thing to keep in mind is that herd immunity is more of a concept than a hard-and-fast defintion. (i.e. I don't think there's a point where you can say "herd immunity is achived. No risk to anyone. Peace out".) More the idea that it statistically reduces the chance of widespread transmission to at-risk individuals. http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html

Probably yes. A couple of things to remember: - Herd immunity isn't a perfect "this will immediately stop any and all cases". Statistically you reduce the amout of transmissions. It may take longer with a '70% effective' vaccine than a '99% effective' vaccine, but it will probably happen - Keep in mind that that is 70% after several years. Immediately after vaccination people are 100% protected. The group that has the 100% protection will likely be composed of young children in school (i.e. in close proximity and most likely to pass the virus on). - Even if immunization drops after several years, it does not mean that the vaccination has no effect. It does shorten the lengh of time a person is sick. Shorter illnesses mean less time for the virus to be transmitted to the uninfected.

And just to add more information.... A recent study (in California) showed that in areas where you have a lot of people opting out of vaccination, the chance of getting Whooping cough roughly doubles. In areas where vaccination rates are highter (even with the vaccine being imperfect) the chance of getting whooping cough is lower. And this comes from an actual medical journal. Not from some idiot on youtube who probably got his high-school degree from a box of crackerjacks. From: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/09/24/peds.2013-0878.abstract We analyzed nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) for children entering kindergarten from 2005 through 2010 and pertussis cases with onset in 2010...Census tracts within an exemptions cluster were 2.5 times more likely to be in a pertussis cluster...More cases occurred within as compared with outside exemptions clusters...

Except of course that the whooping cough vaccine actually does work... not 100% effective, but most people do obtain immunitiy from it. The purpose of this thread was to talk about whooping cough... so now you're bringing up influenza? You really seem to have a problem understanding medical science, don't you. Influenza is not just a single virus... its actually a collection of viruses, some strains that are similar, some which are very different. When vaccines are developed, they cannot include every single strain, so they pick what they think will be the most common. The influenza vaccine is generally >90% effective, but its only effective against the strains that it is designed to stop. In fact, if each and every person in the world got vaccinated (that was medically able to receive the vaccine), the strains contained in the vaccine would be eliminated. Gone. Extinct. And that would partly be due to herd immunity. This year, the strains contained in the influenza vaccine were not a good match to the strains of flu that are circulating. But that does not mean the vaccine is ineffective; it works against the strains it was designed for. It woudl be great if it were an exact match every year, but we don't live in a perfect world. Oh, and your 25% claim? Yes, that might be the figure this year. But in other years there have been better matches... it often matches >60% of the actual circulating viruses. Ummm... why? Perhaps the CDC expects people who are reading those numbers to not be scientificly ignorant. The taking of numbers out of context is not the fault of the CDC, its the fault of the person who doesn't understand data. Please don't take your lack of scientific understanding and project that on to others. Uh, no. It says no such thing. It says 90% of the cases of whooping cough were vaccinated... something totally different. No, you don't get herd immunity because there are idiots who don't get vaccination.

Apparently you don't. Ok, first of all, you are incorrect when you say that the "vaccine is not effective". It is not 100% effective, but it does work in the majority of people. And its certainly not that surprising to see more vaccinated people catch a disease than unvaccinated... Lets say you had 10 people exposed to a disease. 2 were unvaccinated, both got sick. 8 were vaccinated with an imperfect (but still partly effective) vaccine. 3 vaccinated people got sick, but the vaccine stopped the illness in 5. In that case, technically more vaccinated people got sick, but that's not the number you should look at... you should look at what percentage of vaccinated people got sick, and compare that to the percentage of unvaccinated people who got sick. Same with your '~90% were vaccinated' claim. You should not be looking at the numbers who were sick and saying "how many were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated". You need to look at the 2 groups separately, and compare the number of sick people in each group. Herd immunity works by eliminating as many as possible sources in transmitting the disease. Disease transmission is complex.. one person passes it to multiple people, who then pass it to multiple people. Stop the first transmission (via a vaccine) and you can stop a whole chain reaction. And herd immunity does work... for example, the Smallpox vaccine was only 95% effective. In theory you could still have vaccinated people transmitting the disease to other vaccinated people (if they fell in the 5% for whom the vaccine was ineffective). But herd immunity took over, and as a result, smallpox was eliminated as a disease world wide.

The problem with your posting is that you used the term 'Moved' into Westboro territory. PETA has always been a huge bag of hypocritical attention-seeking idiotic nutcases. That article is just the latest in a series of questionable activites. Remember, this is a group that: - launched the "holocaust on your plate" campaign, equating the plight of chicken farms with that of Nazi death camps (Not to mention their protests at places like restaurants, or outside schools to 'ambush' children with vegan messages.) - They actually supported (not just with words, but with money) people who were involved in fire-bombings. That's a line that even the wing-nuts from the Westboro church haven't crossed - Is against all animal research, even claiming that if Animal testing lead to a cure for AIDS tomorrow, they'd be against it. (Of course, that didn't stop one of the vice presidents of PETA from using insulin developed from animals to handle her diabetes.) And that's just some of the wonderful things PETA has done. (Won't mention their killing of thousands of animals, nor disposing of said animals in a dumpster. Nor all the celebrity supporters who regularly wear furs, have cars with leather interiors, and eat meat.)

I still see you are doing your best to sidestep the question and avoid illustrating just how full of bunk you are. While things like wings cause drag, the question was: does adding external items to the outside of a plane affect drag.. Notice the term 'adding'? A wing isn't an "added" item to a plane... by definition its going to be there. Pretty obvious that when I specified "adding" I was referring to items like bombs, communications pods, fuel tanks. My question was pretty clearn. Your attempts to avoid and obfuscate are even more clear.