|
Ham Sandwiches posted:We'll be here, waiting. I am absolutely sure you will be
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Blue Train posted:I am absolutely sure you will be And I'm sure it will be a dawning revalation like you just discovered fire
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:I feel those are the two most cogent arguments they have put together, addressing them head on would probably help. Is that an ok opinion to have? I probably won't be able to supply a post of a guy saying "IF SOME FUCKER DOES THIS IM GONNA GET MY KID VAXXED" but I do believe it would help to deal with these issues in a more direct way. Its a bad opinion to have if you ever read or know anybody antivaxx that's not you. And demonstratably wrong since it was taken out of the childrens cycle 15 years ago. 15 years. 15 years. And they didn't even notice. They didn't notice. You quoted something that didn't notice. Why on earth do you think it will work now?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:And I'm sure it will be a dawning revalation like you just discovered fire you're a very unintelligent person
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Its a bad opinion to have if you ever read or know anybody antivaxx that's not you. Dude when I came into this thread my perspective was "There was a very public show of removing it from children's vaccines, but that's not the whole story, because for 10 of those years children were receiving a roughly equivalent dose to what they would have previously through Flu vaccines and the H1Z1 shot" And my angle was that instead of playing shell games with putting it in some formulations and not others, that a really clear and simple solution is to remove it entirely. I really feel like I've been consistent on saying the goal is to not have children be exposed to any amount in any variation, not just as part of the regular schedules but that no vaccines should contain it in the United States. Like, at what point are people going to stop claiming I came in here thinking it was still in active use? I've explained over and over what I meant and have stuck to it. It was removed from the vaccine schedule AND children were still exposed to it in other forms. It's highly misleading to present that as a removal, and that was what I was saying.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Dude when I came into this thread my perspective was "There was a very public show of removing it from children's vaccines, but that's not the whole story, because for 10 of those years children were receiving a roughly equivalent dose to what they would have previously through Flu vaccines and the H1Z1 shot" When they click the past post button and read what you said.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:When they click the past post button and read what you said. Ok sorry dude you both keep bringing stuff up that supposedly happened but won't describe it other than just vaguely saying I said it. That doesn't help. I am explaining to you my position now. If you're unclear about what I think, that's what I think.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Injected aluminum leads to autism. Nuff said. I was never vaccinated and I will not put my future children through that torture.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
For a risk manager you seem real bad at evaluating risks and deciding what to do based on the data.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:For a risk manager you seem real bad at evaluating risks and deciding what to do based on the data. Sometimes you gotta make decisions without having clear data as an answer, and I think this might be one of those times. Or rather, why not consider the prudent moves even without convincing evidence that it will directly benefit the situation. For a problem of this scale, I feel the effort is worth it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Sometimes you gotta make decisions without having clear data as an answer, and I think this might be one of those times. Or rather, why not consider the prudent moves even without convincing evidence that it will directly benefit the situation. For a problem of this scale, I feel the effort is worth it. You don't understand logic, the scientific method, burden of proof, what preservatives actually do, and what vaccines do. If you're any sort of risk manager, you're not a boon to whoever you work for.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Sometimes you gotta make decisions without having clear data as an answer, and I think this might be one of those times. Or rather, why not consider the prudent moves even without convincing evidence that it will directly benefit the situation. For a problem of this scale, I feel the effort is worth it. Except the data is totally and abundantly clear, and you're still advocating for wasting tens of millions of dollars to mitigate a risk that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
please knock Mom! posted:You don't understand logic, the scientific method, burden of proof, what preservatives actually do, and what vaccines do. If you're any sort of risk manager, you're not a boon to whoever you work for. For all we know, his firm took him in and gave him menial work just so he wouldn't be working for someone else on important things.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
please knock Mom! posted:You don't understand logic, the scientific method, burden of proof, what preservatives actually do, and what vaccines do. If you're any sort of risk manager, you're not a boon to whoever you work for. Hmm, I think I disagree with the way that some assessments have been made in this particular case w/r/t those things. But if you want to portray it as not understanding it then I guess that's what you think is the case.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:Except the data is totally and abundantly clear, and you're still advocating for wasting tens of millions of dollars to mitigate a risk that doesn't exist. Except sometimes the data is wrong. The challenger was going to be fine launching that day, the data said so. The O-rings would have no problem at that temperature, and there was data to back it up. That's not a common situation but "what if the data we're using to base our decisions is incorrect or even backwards" is in fact a real risk.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Hmm, I think I disagree with the way that some assessments have been made in this particular case w/r/t those things. But if you want to portray it as not understanding it then I guess that's what you think is the case. Evidence that vaccines don't cause autism: Literally every scientific paper bar one Evidence that vaccines do cause autism: A discredited paper and the opinions of lay idiots. Hmm... better waste several million dollars changing from one formulation we know is safe to some other, less tested formulation. - a good risk management strategy, apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Except sometimes the data is wrong. The challenger was going to be fine launching that day, the data said so. The O-rings would have no problem at that temperature, and there was data to back it up. This isn't true, it was known that the O-rings hardened in the cold, and people advocated against a launch that day because models suggested that they might not expand and fill the gap in time. They launched anyway because it was costing money to not launch. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_Colloquium1012.html This is literally the opposite of proof for your argument. This is a good example of people in charge of these decisions not listening to the feedback of experts and instead operating on a "it'll be fine" policy. SuperiorColliculus fucked around with this message at 02:40 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Hmm, I think I disagree with the way that some assessments have been made in this particular case w/r/t those things. But if you want to portray it as not understanding it then I guess that's what you think is the case. And you realize that preservatives by their very nature are 1) scary-sounding substances because of their function and 2) are required to ensure proper efficacy of vaccines? And that thimerosal is one of the preservatives that's been tested extensively without toxicity being found at the dose contained inside numerous injections? You don't know a thing. All you do is pretend you're some kind of thoughtful person while you're actually an idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:This isn't true, it was known that the O-rings hardened in the cold, and people advocated against a launch that day because models suggested that they might not expand and fill the gap in time. They launched anyway because it was costing money to not launch. They launched anyway because NASA had data that proved those concerns false. Are we in bizarro world? The concerns were raised, and NASA listened to them, which is why they launched? They launched anyway because they HAD to push it due to being behind on air force launches, but they absolutely received assurances it would be fine 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:They launched anyway because NASA had data that proved those concerns false. Are we in bizarro world? Because it was costing money. The only "data" they had was "it hasn't failed yet" which is not the same thing. Literally the only data that wasn't an anecdote came from this one guy with the only data to hand saying "don't do it" Their argument was "well it hasn't failed yet" which is exactly why anecdotes are not acceptable as data for God's sake SuperiorColliculus fucked around with this message at 02:48 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:No, they just ignored the expert that raised objections. The way the articles cover it now the expert was objecting and they were simply overruled. I watched the dramatization in The Challenger and the guy raising objections was absolutely met with documents showing that the rings would perform properly. I'm not clear if that happened or if the movie took liberties. Those articles really don't show what counter evidence Nasa used to launch anyway, but my understanding was that the issue was viewed in contention and that the claims that the o-rings were not perform were not accepted, and that the belief was that they would be fine based on flawed temperature testing. The movie went on and on that the way they measured the air was not a good representative way to figure out what would happen on launch day, none of the links provided seem to mention any of that detail, not sure how best to dig it up.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:They launched anyway because NASA had data that proved those concerns false. Are we in bizarro world? But your advocating taking out the windows that were changed 2 models ago because some people wrongly think it was those. Cause if people are concerned about the windows it cant possibly be. We should look into it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
This is also the worst analogy because their sample size was a couple dozen launches, and not several hundred million immunizations. Space travel is known to be risky. You really are bad at interpreting data, eh?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:But your advocating taking out the windows that were changed 2 models ago because some people wrongly think it was those. Cause if people are concerned about the windows it cant possibly be. We should look into it. I am advocating that in the dispute the way the movie presented it, an engineer raising a concern and having data that was considered dubious, and the official response with data that was convenient to what they wanted to do, that people tend to believe the facts as they favor them. "Oh yeah it will be fine, the rubber seals are good to -70, and we're only launching at 32f" The problem was the claim that rubber seals don't harden until -70 was clearly false, but it was not considered in dispute. So the engineers concerns were saying "I don't feel we should take this risk" and the response was "The data says there is no risk unless we approach -70, and we're nowhere close."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:This is also the worst analogy because their sample size was a couple dozen launches, and not several hundred million immunizations. Space travel is known to be risky. There was a very explicit difference of opinion in the movie and that had to do with the guy saying it was a risk and NASA saying their data told them it was safe, and that they would launch anyway. That was the sum total of the point I was making. The managers didn't simply ignore the concern. They had data that verified the rubber seals would not be brittle at those temps. The data was wrong, and it was used to overrule the concern. Then the shuttle exploded.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:I am advocating that in the dispute the way the movie presented it, an engineer raising a concern and having data that was considered dubious, and the official response with data that was convenient to what they wanted to do, that people tend to believe the facts as they favor them. This is a great example of a large organization (NASA - read pharmecutical companies) ignoring the evidence of experts (engineer - read, scientists) because to ignore them would cost money. Which is the only reason Pharma changed the formulation. Some risk manager somewhere calculated that x% fewer people would get immunised, generating Y% fewer profits if they did nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:There was a very explicit difference of opinion in the movie and that had to do with the guy saying it was a risk and NASA saying their data told them it was safe, and that they would launch anyway. That was the sum total of the point I was making. The managers didn't simply ignore the concern. They had data that verified the rubber seals would not be brittle at those temps. The data was wrong, and it was used to overrule the concern. Then the shuttle exploded. They didn't have that data. In fact, it was a giant scandal that they had data that the o-rings might not expand in time, and did nothing. This case is a great example of people ignoring the evidence and having it be very costly. See the parallel? It's also amusing you think spaceflight is a rigorously tested and well understood as pharmacology. Like, this wasn't some post-hoc sample with millions of values that you can fully understand; this was - well, we designed it to do X, so maybe it will and maybe it won't because we haven't tested it. Do you have any idea how many drugs look promising for treating X that are ultimately rejected because data shows they are too risky? There's a reason it costs so much to bring a drug to market (hint: it's the sunk cost from the thousands of other candidates that didn't make it) SuperiorColliculus fucked around with this message at 02:58 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:This is a great example of a large organization (NASA - read pharmecutical companies) ignoring the evidence of experts (engineer - read, scientists) because to ignore them would cost money. Which is the only reason Pharma changed the formulation. Some risk manager somewhere calculated that x% fewer people would get immunised, generating Y% fewer profits if they did nothing. No, your scenario pretends that they didn't have other engineers providing data and reports that argued for exactly what they had to do. In the way you imagine the honest and noble engineers delivered the truth to the Managers, that ignored it. What really happened (the way the movie presents it) is there was a meeting where the issue was debated. The launch engineers said it would be too cold. The previous testing indicated that the o-rings would be fine to -70c. The decision was made to launch over the objections, based on the data indicating it was safe. Reporting that the o-rings don't freeze until -70c was correct... except the issue was that they became brittle at 32f and that was enough to reduce their flexibility and allow the leak. And this is the same pressures that the vaccine program operates under - get it done, make sure people comply, as many as possible, and the potential exists to hide data when inconvenient. And it can absolutely cause the same types of results.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
gently caress, you are dense.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:It's also amusing you think spaceflight is a rigorously tested and well understood as pharmacology. Like, this wasn't some post-hoc sample with millions of values that you can fully understand; this was - well, we designed it to do X, so maybe it will and maybe it won't because we haven't tested it. Lol how the gently caress did you decide that I think spaceflight is a rigorously tested and well understood as pharmacology, how?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:gently caress, you are dense. Shocker: the feeling is mutual.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Lol how the gently caress did you decide that I think spaceflight is a rigorously tested and well understood as pharmacology, how? Because you're using one as an analogy for the other? If they're not the same, why are you saying examples from one apply to the other one?  Lots of data suggests that drug X "should" do Y. Just like the o-rings "should" expand and fill the gaps. Then we test the drugs in trials many hundreds large over three phases and find out there's some problem, and the candidate is rejected. They don't go straight from "models say this drug should work" to "let's apply this to everyone right now!" like they do in spaceflight. We have the luxury of testing and accumulating actual data. SuperiorColliculus fucked around with this message at 03:05 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Shocker: the feeling is mutual. Only one of us has the unilateral opposition of the whole thread.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
I'd like to point out an old saying, "The dose makes the poison" Any chemical substance will kill you if you take a lethal dose, and any substance can be considered safe if you take a small enough dose. If you take 0.1% of the LD50 of Cyanide it won't do anything. So the question is not whether an ingredient is toxic or not but whether the amount you're getting is toxic.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:Only one of us has the unilateral opposition of the whole thread. Lol the guy arguing the consensus decision isn't satisfied with having people back him up all thread, even throws it out recursively as affirmation of his rightness. Amazing dude.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:Because you're using one as an analogy for the other? If people compare two things they are not saying they are the same, you understand that, right? They are just making a comparison?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Lol the guy arguing the consensus decision isn't satisfied with having people back him up all thread, even throws it out recursively as affirmation of his rightness. Amazing dude. You're the guy saying that individual opinions with no basis are better than data from literally the entirety of science and the UN so I figured you'd be fine with it ??
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:If people compare two things they are not saying they are the same, you understand that, right? They are just making a comparison? It's a terrible comparison that doesn't apply for reasons I've exhaustively explained. They had models that things "should" behave a certain way (and even those were in debate), but they had no strong data in practice - only a few dozens of anecdotes. You're seeing the distinction between this and examining the correlations between two things in literally hundreds of millions of cases right? Also, an analogy doesn't mean "these things are the same"; it usually means "these critical aspects of the thing are similar". They're not at all in this case. That's why it's a terrible analogy. SuperiorColliculus fucked around with this message at 03:09 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:Also, an analogy doesn't mean "these things are the same"; it usually means "these critical aspects of the thing are similar". They're not at all in this case. That's why it's a terrible analogy. quote:Because you're using one as an analogy for the other? Are you ok?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Are you ok? The critical aspects of a spaceflight analogy are not the same as the critical aspects of an analogy to the testing of pharmaceuticals (number of samples; many phases of testing; post-hoc examination of hypotheses over millions of cases), as I've said exhaustively. I swear you're being deliberately dense; the alternative is p bad for you, friendo. SuperiorColliculus fucked around with this message at 03:18 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:15
|
|