segnosaur

Well, there was that one woman in Florida, who got captured naked on her porch by Google's "street view" cameras, holding a jug of some liquid... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20105351-501465.html

There's a saying... "The Plural of Anecdote is not Data". Maybe your wife does get sick even though she gets vaccinated. Maybe you really never get the flu. Maybe its just possible that your wife has a poorer immune system than you do. In her case, getting vaccinated is an especially good idea, because even if she gets sick, its likely due not to the flu but to colds and other illnesses that circulate. If she didn't get vaccinated, that would mean just one more thing she can get sick from. As for you... goodie for you. You never get sick. And I know people who drive drunk and never have gotten into accidents. Is driving drunk safe? Did you know that the oldest Canadian who ever lived (Jeanne Calment) actually smoked? Does that mean that there's no health risk in smoking? Or does it mean that she was just naturally lucky in that her body handled it better than others? Or maybe you just got lucky and didn't happen to have people cough in your face when sick at just the time you were breathing in. Well, lets see... among the children admitted to the hospital with influenza, you had: - febrile seizures (35% of all children admitted to hospital with them had their disease attributed to influenza... see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16940836 - Intubation (basically jamming a tube down the throat, see: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015173) I'm sure the parents of those children will be pleased to know that their influenza was 'not a big deal' and that having to be admitted to the hospital was "making them stronger". Well, except for the ones that died. Of course, the question is, where exactly did those sick kids actually come down with their diseases? Well, somewhere along the line, at least some of them caught their disease from unvacinnated people who thought the flu was "no big deal".

As I pointed out before... The studies discussing the effectiveness of the vaccine are not claiming they don't work. Just the opposite. They point out that they're still quite effective. They're just suggesting that they may not be as effective as once thought. There is a difference between "This vaccine stops only 70% instead of 90% of flu cases", and "This vaccine doesn't work at all". Please point out one major peer-reviewed, scientific study that shows the influenza vaccine is completely and totally ineffective. (I rather suspect you won't respond to that.) I think the most important word in the above section is "may". Do you have any proof that vaccinations are encouraging risky behavior? Again, I sincerely doubt it. Given the fact that influenza tends to affect entire populations, the only non-vaccination way to protect yourself would be to completely quarantine yourself (not something that would be possible in today's society.)

The fact that you got sick after a flu shot had nothing to do with the vaccine itself. There are more diseases than just the flu out there. You could have been infected by something else. Or a strain of flu not covered by the vaccine. (In either case case the vaccine may not have prevented you getting sick, but it certainly didn't harm you.) You know, you might have had your 'mild flu', but ended up passing it on to some baby who's immune system wasn't as good as yours. They might have gotten a lot sicker than you did and died as a result. Congrats. Hope that thought amkes you feel better. But then, who really likes babies? Yes, they develop and test new flu vaccines in a very short time frame. But, the process of manufacturing influeza vaccines has not changed significantly in years/decades. As such, there's less need to test these things as rigouresly as if it were a new process and/or completely new disease.

There is a difference between what is morally/logically right, and what the government can and should enforce. Things like being overwheght/having a sedentary lifestyle can be a health risk too. (And not only does it affect the person who's sitting on their couch eating potato chips all the time, but it drives up health care costs for the rest of us as well as diverting resources from other diseases.) Yet most people wouldn't want the government to barge into our homes and confiscate all of our cans of pringles. The fact that there is no law forcing people to get vaccinated does not mean that it doesn't make sense to do so. Keep in mind that many of those 'mixed messages' are often coming from either A: the media, who may be sensationalizing problems, or B: idiots who don't know anything about science and/or vaccinations. And yes, there are valid scientific questions about things like risk groups and efficacy. But it is usually not a case of "Does this work", but a case of "Does this work 90% of the time or 80%"? Yup. Unfortunately, those who choose not to get vaccinated usually do so for extremely stupid brain-damaged (and not scientifically supported) reasons. If the vaccine matches the strain of influenza (very likely with this year's vaccine), and the individual has built up the required antibodies, then no, they cannot be carriers/vectors. Yes, it may be possible to pass on some other strain that wasn't vaccinated against, but that will happen less frequently if people do get vaccinated.

There are some very small risks in getting vaccinated. In the case of the flu vaccine, you might experience soreness in the arm, perhaps a minor fever. There's also couple of more serious risks (such as in those alergic to eggs). However, the risk of serious side effects is tiny, and is far outweighed by the risk of not getting the shot, and getting sick as a result. Now, keep in mind that there are idiots who are making false claims about the risks. (False claims like vaccines causing autism, etc.) Usually those claims have absolutely no basis in science. They're mostly composed of people with no knowledge of science or statistics making bogus claims based on preconceived ideas. Actually I think you are confusing vaccines with antibiotics. It is possible for microorganisms to develop a resistence to antibiotics, because the antibiotics work against the organisms themselves, and are used once the infection occurs. (Failing to complete a course of antibiotics will leave the more hardy organisms behind.) Vaccines work under a completely different mechanism... they actually encourage the body to build up its own defences, and they do so before you get infected. In fact, if anything, vaccinations reduce the risk of more virulent viruses. After all, viruses can't reproduce outside the body. if a virus can't successfully infect/invade a host (i.e. if you're vaccinated) then there will be fewer people around producing new viruses (some of which may have mutated). The problem with that theory... even if there is a 'less virulent' strain around, that will not keep you from getting infected by a more dangerous strain. So, you may get the 'mild' flu. But its not going to stop you from getting infected by the more 'serious' flu down the road, since being infected with one doesn't keep you from getting infected with the second.

First of all, as another poster pointed out... you don't just get the flu shot for your own benefit... you get it to help prevent others from getting sick. Even if you consider the flu 'no big deal', you could end up passing it on to someone who could, you know, die. In an earlier post I suggested people shouldn't panic and avoid exagerating the problems. But Jesus Christ on a Pogostick... use a bit of logic here. People do die from the flu. Roughly 18,000 people died from H1N1 between the middle of 2010 and 2011. Where exactly do you think they caught the flu from? Mostly from idiots who didn't get themselves vaccinated because they thought the flu was "no big deal". Not getting yourself vaccinated is the moral equivilent of driving drunk. Yes, many times you will survive (and without killying anyone.) But it increases the risk of killing others. And for what, because you are a wussy who's affraid of a little needle? Secondly... here's a question... did you actually like having the flu? Did the fever make you feel good? Did the chills and aches that tend to come with the flu make life enjoyable? Most people would probably say no... So why risk putting yourself through that unnecessarily?

Ummm... why are you doubting it? Vaccinations do reduce the cases of inflenza. If you reduce the number of people getting vaccinated, fewer people will be immune, and more people can get sick. It may not be the only reason for an increase in the rate of influenza infections (there may be differences in the virility of the strains circulating this year, there may be changes in population migrations, etc.) but it would make a lot of sense as a contributing factor. Actually, the strains that they make the vaccines do exist... they're just circulating in other parts of the world. Actually, it depends on what you're defining as 'effecitveness'. When you hear terms of '90% protection', it is probably referring to the number of people who were given the vaccine, and subsequently developed antibodies. Here's an article that discusses that: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0907413 A randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group trial evaluating two doses of an inactivated, split-virus 2009 H1N1 vaccine in healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years is ongoing at a single site in Australia....By day 21 after the first dose, antibody titers of 1:40 or more were observed in 114 of 120 subjects (95.0%) who received the 15-μg dose and in 106 of 119 subjects (89.1%) who received the 30-μg dose.. So yes, claims of ~90% effectiveness are understandable. Now, if an individual comes across a strain of flu not covered in the vaccine, then obviously its not going to be as effective (if effective at all). Errr... probably not. http://www.ottawacit...6704/story.html Keep in mind that that report did not suggest that "The flu vaccine doesn't work". Heck, even the author of the report stated that people should continue to get vaccinated. The point of the article is that it may not stop as many people from getting sick as first thought, and stresses the need for a more 'universal vaccine'. Unfortunately I'm sure some idiots are going to hold this up as falls proof that "the vaccine doesn't work" when it says nothing of the sort. Keep in mind that the evidence for this is rather... thin. It was referring to a claim that people who got the seasonal flu shot seemed to be more suseptiable to the H1N1 "swine flu". However, it should be noted that: - At the time, this effect was seen only in Canada. Why was it not seen in the U.S. or the U.K.? - This new study (the one referenced above) did experiments on only 32 test animals (ferrets in this case). While the findings cannot automatically be dismissed, this is a relatively small case, and can be easily influenced by random chance. That's why experiments such as this need to be replicated.

One other note about this year's flu vaccine... Apparently, the selection of viruses was very accurate, and it will give pretty good protection. From: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/18/how-health-officials-determine-viruses-used-in-flu-vaccine/ The current flu vaccines is made up of three components of influenza virus – one influenza A (H3N2) virus, one seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus and one influenza B virus.... ... ...this year’s flu vaccine is extremely well-matched to the main flu viruses circulating this winter. The vaccine is extremely well- matched to the H3N2 strain, which is the most prominent strain circulating this season, as well as the H1N1 circulating, too. As for the B component, Cox said the vaccine matches around two-thirds of the strains that are circulating, not accounting for the other third. But since 70 percent or more of the viruses wreaking havoc this season are caused by the influenza A viruses, this year’s vaccine is extremely protective. So, some back-of-the-envelope caclulations, the vaccine should be effective for around 80-90% of all potential infections.

A few points: - Argus is right... they do have to 'guess' what types of virus to use months in advance (mostly by looking at the strains that are circulating in parts of South East asia, which tends to get hit first with the flu before Europe/North America, then extrapolating.) Sometimes, the virus selection is quite close to the strains that do circulate, sometimes it isn't. However, even if the strain used in the vaccine doesn't match the exact strain that is circulating, there may be some similarities in the viruses, and you might end up with at least partial protection when vaccinated - There can be even more confusion over the situation, since when people get sick with 'the flu', they usually don't go to the lab to get the virus identified. Thus, people often mistake really bad colds and similar diseases for influenza. (Thus, a lot of people who claim "I got the vaccine and still got the flu" may be mistaken... they could have simply had a really bad cold.) - Even when a person is vaccinated, they can still get the flu. Either * They can catch a version of the flu that was not contained in the vaccine * The vaccine takes a couple of weeks to become fully effective, at which point the person is still at risk * In a small number of people (I think its around 10%), the body doesn't build up the required antibodies even after the vaccine. - The Flu virus can survive 2-8 hours on surfaces. (However, the virus can also be transmitted through water droplets suspended in the air. In fact, it may actually be difficult to catch the flu from 'surface contact' since the virus spreads better when exposed to deeper tissues like lungs.) http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/preventing.htm What I would tell your friend is: - Don't panic/over-hype the situation. Yes, there are risks with the flu (including death), but its not like an automatic death sentence, even for people who have weakened immune systems. The last thing we need is a repeat of the recent H1N1 'Swine flu' pandemic, where a rational call for action ("Hey, maybe you should get vaccinated") got turned into a media circus, and now anti-vaccine idiots point to the situation and say "see? we don't need vaccines" - Do get the baby vaccinated. Even if the flu vaccine isn't perfect, it does help. Of course, not only should the baby get vaccinated, but all of the friends/family should too. On the chance that the baby is one of the small minority who doesn't build up an immune response, the more people around them that are vaccinated (and thus less able to catch the flu and transmit the virus) the safer the baby will be. Its a concept called 'herd immunity'.

You're right... I should have said outstanding medical bills (i.e. what the patient actually owes at the time of bankruptcy) . Go back to post 234. That was the phrase I used there. The other thing I'd keep in mind is that the numbers that were in your reference were averages. Given the fact that some medical procedures are extremely pricey, its possible that the average is dragged up by a few very expensive procedures. Thus, one heart/lung transplant (costing $1 million) and 3 cases of the flu might result in a bankruptcy for all 4 cases, and the average bill for those would be $250,000, but that doesn't mean the people who had the flu can blame their bankruptcy on $250,000 medical bills. I like to deal with facts. Sometimes those facts are not what you expect or want them to be.

All of that was put in it because it was part of the novel and an integral part of the subtext of the story. Yes I recognize that it was in the novel. But when any book is made into a movie, not all elements will translate well onto the screen. Heck, its also possible that that particular 'subtext' wasn't even necessary to make a good novel either.

Keep in mind that the article you quoted does not mention just how high their medical bills were. I'm sure most people here, if they were really in need, could probably scrape up $1000 (Roughly 3/4 of the people with 'medical bankruptcies' owe less than that.) But, I guess its a lot easier to say "Medical bills drove me into bankruptcy" rather than "I missmanaged my money and couldn't afford a debt that most others could handle".

Actually, while some people do get overwhelmed by medical bills, its not the most common problem. In fact, in one study, only 27% of people declaring medical bankruptcy for 'medical reasons' had outstanding medical bills over $1000. The vast majority of people owed far less, and their bankruptcy was due to things like being out of work due to their illness, something that would probably have happened even if health care were 'free'. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/images/data/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1/Himmelstein_Ex2.gif

That might not necessarily be the case. The problem with infant mortality statistics is that they are not handled consistently on a country-by-country basis. The U.S. follows a strict WHO definition... any baby that's born/takes a breath and dies is considered an 'infant death'. However, other countries (I believe Cuba is one of them) use slightly different criteria... a baby that is born but dies in the first few hours is often recorded as a 'stillbirth' (and is thus not counted in the 'infant mortality' statistics.) There are other reasons why the statistics might be 'skewed'... how the statistics are gathered (direct counting vs. household surveys, ethnic demographics, etc..) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-10-03/infant-mortality-ranking-misleading/50647210/1 http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/ (note: the second reference is not from a mainstream news site, but it is supported by the 'USA today' reference; it just goes into more details.) This figure might be a bit misleading too... Simply counting doctors is indicates nothing about the quality of their medical education. (According to one reference I found, the vast majority of students trained in the Cuban system cannot pass tests required to practice in the U.S.) http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrcuba.htm (note that this is from a web site run by an organization of private health care doctors. However, I see no reason to see their statistics were incorrect.) Keep in mind that being a tourist (or even a foreigner with some sort of residency status) might result in a better quality of health care than that provided to the average Cuban citizen.

Until a few years ago, only 5 movies were selected. Then, around 2009, The Dark Night failed to get nominated for Best Picture. The Academy people (probably realizing that their ratings were going down the toilet because people just weren't as interested in 'artsy' movies) decided to allow a maximum of 10 movies (hoping some of the more well done 'blockbusters' might get nominated, and thus get some saps to tune in so that the may be crushed when their favorite movie looses to another 'artsy' movie. See Ryan, Saving Private.) However, for a film to be considered, it has to get more than 5% of first place nominations. I guess this year there weren't any other movies that got that many nominations, so they only included 9. Of these movies, I've seen Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Life of Pi and Lincoln. Plan to see Django, Silver Linings and Zero Dark Thirty, but hey, I only have so much time. Of the ones I've seen I think I like Argo the most. Lincoln was good, but not being American some of the more fine details of the time period got a bit lost on me. Life of Pi may have been OK, but I think it suffered from over-hype of its philosophy prior to its release. The story of a boy lost at sea with a tiger is gripping enough (and the plot twist was well done)... why bother bringing in all the religious/philosophical back story? Of these movies, I really don't understand the support for Beasts of the Southern Wild. I've seen the movie (in the theater). Its stupid people doing incredibly stupid things. (Hey, there's a hurricane and flood. Should I try to escape? Nah... I'll just go on my roof and shoot my gun!)

Looking through the article, I think the title of the thread 'US dead last in health care' may not be supported by the reference. The article discusses health in general, not specifically health care. In fact, it covers risk factors that lead to poor health (and premature death) that have nothing at all to do with the type of service you'd get from a doctor or hospital, such as higher caloric intake by people in the U.S. (which could contribute to death by heart disease), city designs that encourage driving and discourage walking/biking (which would contribute to heart disease and lung disease) and fewer people wearing seat belts (which contributes to deaths from car accidents.) Regardless of the type of health care system they had, they would likely have more premature deaths due to those factors.

Your exact statement was: ...the NHL is one of the poorest yet most expensive version to watch in person. I've shown that that is not the case. And yes, there are variations from market to market. Some markets are more favorable to hockey, others to baseball, others to football. That will only work if its a sport which, for whatever reason, is engrained into the culture. (The term 'superior' is based pretty much on personal opinion. I actually like football, but I would neither consider it superior or inferior to hockey.) As I pointed out before... the fact that most areas of the U.S. are not condusive to kids playing hockey at a young age means that it will likely never be a significant part of U.S. culture... Outdoor rinks are unavailable in the southern U.S., ice time is expensive, and every player has to be equipped with at least a skate and sticks to even play a game of shinny hockey. Compare that to football, where all kids need is a single football and an open field in order to play a game of touch football. Yes it has been. What's your point? I'd suggest taking a course in Economics 101. Teams charge what they think the market will handle. What other sports charge is irrelevant to them. They have no need to match the revenue of the NFL or NBA. They will charge as much as they can because owners want as much profit as possible, not because they see some NFL owner with a large TV contract. Or do you really think there are team owners out there who think "I could easily earn a few extra million in profit by charging more

Baseball tickets tend to be cheaper due to the economics of the game: More games played (twice as many as hockey, more than 10 times as many as football) and larger stadiums (the skydome has twice the capacity of the Air Canada center) means that teams can get roughly the same gate revenue even with lower ticket prices. That's probably part of it too... demand drives ticket prices. More people in a particular area means more sports fans, and the teams can charge more and still fill the arena. Yeah I think in the reference I provided the Cow-persons have the highest average ticket price in the NFL.

Irrelevat point. Oh, and please define 'gratuitous vionence' and 'not tolerated'. After all, I've seen plays with things like face-masking, spearing and late hits (which could, in theory, lead to significant injuries). The team was penalized, but the players were allowed to continue playing. No ejection from the game, no suspension. Does allowing the player to continue after such dangerous plays constitute 'tolerating gratuitous violence'? Yet you didn't provide any such reasons in your previous 2 posts. Instead, all you did was refer to "TV contract money" (which I assume you used as a reference to overall sporting popularity. Please point to my previous post where I actually claimed fighting was "part of the game". You won't find any. And there's a reason for that: I wasn't advocating for (or against) fighting. Instead, I was debunking the rather foolish premise that "fighting keeps hockey from being popular". That is an incorrect assumption (apart from whatever other arguments that can be made against fighting. Yes, non-fans may occasionally joke about "going to a fight and a hockey game broke out" but those people were never going to be fans in the first place.

Your argument is flawed on several levels. First of all, it is not necessarily the "most expensive version to watch". Average Ticket prices: NFL: $74.99 NBA: $49.47 NHL: $49.66 So, the NHL is pretty much on par with the NBA in ticket costs, and falls well short of the NFL. http://books.google.ca/books?id=-owSi55tLZAC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=average+ticket+price+nba+nhl&source=bl&ots=4BGFZdTQMF&sig=Zi30yxSP5PFtwLiDPNT7r8Tv4Wg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nnXsUPe_MtOH0QGN3IGQCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=average%20ticket%20price%20nba%20nhl&f=false Secondly, I think you have the cause/effect messed up. Prices are high because people like the game enough to be willing to pay the prices.

There are a lot of reasons why NFL Football is more financially successful than hockey, but I doubt fighting is one of the reasons. The weather/climate over much of the U.S. is not condusive to getting kids to play the game, the lack of hockey as a major historical pastime. Whether fighting is banned would not influence the popularity of the game, and the whole "fighting" argument is bascially used by people who don't have any real arguments to use.

Actually, it probably would... The players on those teams woudl end up playing for other teams in the league. While not all of the players are 'stars', having more talent concentrated among fewer teams will raise the average quality of players, and by extension play. (By a small amount admittedly, but it would still go up.) Plus, with fewer teams in the league, you'd have more chances to see 'star' players from other teams. (The more teams in the league, the fewer times each team plays the other teams. Imagine being a hockey fan in the 80s, and not seeing Gretzky play live because the league added more teams so the Oilers never get a chance to visit your city.)

I said, every culture has a flood story. Which of course is not actually supported with evidence. The best you can say is that many had a flood story. Saying "every" (or all) is an assertion without proof. Wow. Just totally... wow. Words escape me.So your argument is that a lack of evidence is simply because "it got lost" (in the same vein as "the dog ate my homework". Even though we know a lot about many of those ancient cultures, their particular creation myths, etc., and that there are sometimes very long traditions of oral and written history/story telling, it just happened that they forgot about the "big flood" (even though they seem to remember plenty of other stuff just fine.)</p>

<p> Err... not really.First of all, it is true that Flood myths are common. However, there are reasonable explanations for that: - Early civilizations would have needed to settle near sources of fresh water (for irrigation, etc.) Flooding of such areas can happen with regularity - Civilizations are not static... individuals migrate to new areas and bring their myths with them. These myths can get integrated with the stories/beliefs of the indigenous populations Regardless, your suggestion that "every culture practically has a flood myth" is wrong... For example, here are a list of cultures that lacked a "global flood myth" (at least prior to the influence of missionaries): - Celtic cultures (See: http://www.skeptic.c...eptic/12-10-17/) - Many areas of ancient China (see above reference) - Japan (See: http://books.google....e flood&f=false)